Talk:Kuči (tribe)

Historical Nenad, a Mrnjavčević?

Village of Kuç, Shkodër, Albania in 1416-7

I have the cadastre of Shkodra of 1416-17. Kuç, Shkodër of the article is the historical settled location from where Old Kuci moved northwards and formed Kuçi with other tribes that settled in that general area in Montenegro. I also added the exact register of the village in the article. How is it possible that Gojko Mrnjavčević allegedly born in 1355 and dead by 1371 (aged 16!) had a son, Nenad who in turn had another son, Grca who according to folklore was the progenitor of Kuçi? A historical Nenad existed and by 1416 he was definitely dead. His firstborn son was the head of the village, Jon Nada. He also had 2 other sons a Gjergj (Giergi in the Venetian original) and a Lazër and probably a daughter Nesa (short form of Nenada). She was the widow of a Jon Progani who married into this village's kin. Their son, also the head of household, was a Gjin Progani. For the Mrnjavčević connection via Gojko to be correct: Gojko had to have been married at least by the age of 16 in 1371, the latest date Nenad could have been born. Nenad in turn at the latest was born in 1371 and at the earliest died at the age of 43 in 1415 (one year before the publishing of the cadaster). At 43, he must have had a son named Grca, who isn't mentioned in the cadastre, nor is his widow mentioned if he had died by then. Nenad must also have had 3 other sons, Jon, Gjergj, Lazër who all headed households and probably a daughter who was a widow by 1416 and her son, Gjin Progani was also the head of household. So, Nenad's probable grandson whose earliest date of death must have been in 1416 was already a household head in 1416.

This is was a very small village that paid taxes to the Venetian governor of Shkodra. What on earth would make anyone think that their progenitor who lived just a generation ago and was probably the founder of the village, had any relation to the Mrnjavčević family of Macedonia. Gojko's existence is also disputed (see Mrnjava).

None of this makes sense in historical record. The Nenad relation must be framed as a story and actual historical records be used in a comparative way with it.

--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's revisit this.

In 1455. tribe still wasn't formed, as we can see in the Zetski Zbor/Agreement with Venetian republic. The tribe formed between 1455. and 1485. when the first turkish defter was written (Probably a lot closer to the 1455. as the first ruler of the tribe was not in the defter 1485. as he was dead)

The first ruler of the tribe was Đurađ Pantov. Panto was the son of Grča/Greča.

Grča was whe one who moved from the village of Kuč to the current region of Kuči to the now gone village of Bardhanje/Barlani which is mentioned in the 1485. defter, this village doesn't exist today and yet the tribe kept the name of the village and Grča in memory as it is very importnant to Kuči to know their "pasovi" (male line). His son Panto, had 5 sons. The name of the sons were: Lješa (Which was probably of Albanian origin, because in Serbian the name would be Aleksa), Petar, Đurađ, Marin and Tiho. His family was probably called "Kuči" by the locals that lived there before the arrival of Grča, hence the name of the region and the tribe. Even now, there's katun north from the Hotska korita called Katun Greča (which i think is shared between Montenegro and Albania). So there was most definitely a Grča. As for the period when he moved to the Kuči region, the date is not known.

What we do know, is that 5 sons of Panto Grčin, are written in 1485. defter. You can find them by their children in the village Pantaljesh (Which was named after Panta and his oldest son Ljes/Aleksa).

The numbers they appear at are: 1. Vuksan Marinov, 2. Gojko Đurđev , 43. Nikač Petrov and 64. Gojko Lješev

The only son missing is Tiho, but in one of the defters there is a village in Hoti region named Tihomir, so while it's not confirmed, it's possible that he moved before the defter.

So now we go back to Gojko. What could be the possible reason for the connection of Nenad, the father of Lazar, Đurađ and Grča to the Gojko Mrnjavčević? Well, possibly the fact that in the same document where Lazar and Đurađ appear, they are mentioned as a royalty according to Acta Albania Veneta, pars secunda, tomus octavus

So the combination of that, the serbian folklore songs that speak of Mrnjavcevic family that was "building Skadar" (thinking of Rozafa fortress), and the importnance of father line to Kuči with the stories of "escape from Turks" probably gives you the idea that Nenad's family had to run due to connection with Mrnjavčević name.

Last part is of course purely a speculation, as Gojko's existence is debatable. Even the death year that you gave (1371) is laughable, as we literally don't know anything about him based on reality, but only on Serbian poetry and stories from Kuči tribe.

So the last 100% known ancestor of Kuči tribe is Nenad, some kind of royalty from village of Kuč under Skhoder. He probably had three sons, Đurađ, Lazar and Grča, who moved to the Kuči region and then the name of tribe is created by the locals and it's much easier to follow the story as there are documents that prove existence of the tribe members. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Origin section

I dont think that the article itself is "Part of a series on Albanian tribes" as it's stated in the article, as we are talking about montenegrin tribe, and the article itself should be part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_Montenegro

Any opinions? It can be stated that the tribe was part of Albanian katun, but the tribe is Montenegrin so i think it should be changed. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is completely unnecessary to remove it. The box/tag itself is included in the 'Origins' section and there are still Albanians who identify as being from Kuçi, still living in the villages which were historically a part of the tribe. The inclusion of both boxes maintains neutrality and accuracy. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no neutrality here, the tribe is Montenegrin, not Albanian. We are talking about Montenegrin tribe and the reader should be transferred to article talking about other Montenegrin tribes instead of Albanian. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is, both boxes are included for a tribe that is even to this day ethno-linguistically mixed. The 'Tribes of Montenegro' box is linked at the beginning of the article, as such there is a much higher chance that readers will be redirected to the article on Montenegrin tribes than the one on Albanian tribes. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to dissapoint, but while ethno-lingustically mixed is correct, the percentage of that mixtures are not enough for you to call this part of Albanian tribes.

There's more Bosniaks than Albanians in the tribe, yet it would be comical to call this a "Bosniak tribe"... NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @NekSeOvajVijekGordi, it's imperative that you understand how Wikipedia works. You cannot personally judge whether the Kuçi qualify as an Albanian or Montenegrin tribe, since Wikipedia relies on what WP:RS bibliography states about the tribe. Either both templates stay up there for WP:NPOV or none at all. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, let's say that it's neutral to call the ethnic montenegrin/serb tribe part of Albanian tribes.

Not a single bibliography will tell you that, but it's fine, let it be for now. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Botushali, the reliable sources are quite self-speaking, just check the 2011 census of all the settlements of the Kuči region: most of them declared as Serbs, a minority as Montenegrins, no Bosniaks AFAIK and the Albanians were, as usual, only located in the villages of Fundina and Koći. Finally, please take a look at how your so-called "Albanian" tribe considers itself: [1]. Krisitor (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why people cannot simply read the article and find a mound of sources that describe the Albanian origins of the tribe.

A Franciscan report of the 17th century illustrates the final stages of their acculturation. Its author writes that the Bratonožići, Piperi, Bjelopavlići and Kuči: nulla di meno essegno quasi tutti del rito serviano, e di lingua Illrica ponno piu presto dirsi Schiavoni, ch' Albanesi (since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians).

Even in the 17th century, they were considered an Albanian tribe. The more that this drags along, the more it seems to be a case of you disliking the facts that are supported by actual bibliography. I have more valuable things to do with my life than argue with multiple brick walls on a site I am volunteering on. Please stop wasting my time because you don’t like what RS bibliography says about the tribe. Botushali (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless on whether or not we can ascribe titles to communities of quite diverse and complex linguistic and cultural identity, I do wish to clarify that nowhere in the article does it say something akin to "Kuci is an ethnic Albanian tribe" or "Kuci are Slavicised Albanians". It simply tells the reader the fact that they are of Albanian origin, but that through acculturation processes shifted from being Albanian speaking and Catholic to Serbian speaking and Orthodox. And this is perfectly in line with reliable sources. Alltan (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As the article itself said: possibly.

Article tells you that Peter Kuč is possibly the ancestor. He's most definitely not a leader of the tribe, as the tribe was formed in the 15th century and Peter Kuč was first mentioned in 1330. Dečani chrysobulls.

In general, article is full of myths presented as facts even though you don't agree with that. For example, here we all agreed that Novo Kuči/Drekalovići and Staro Kuči (Serbian for new Kuči and Old Kuči) are of the same origin. Yet the article will tell you that Drekalovići trace their origin to Berisha tribe. It's either one, or the other, and as we agreed that the first theory is the one generally accepted as Drekalovići and Old Kuči share the same haplogroup, keeping the myth as a fact in the article is wrong. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You are misconstruing what the article notes about Petar Kuč. This is what it says:

There, they appear in the surname of Petar Kuč (Albanian: Pjetër Kuçi), an individual from the Albanian katun (Serbian: Katun Arbanasa), possibly the leader of the Kuči brotherhood. The same Petar Kuč is mentioned again as the head of a household of the Albanian katun in the third charter of the Dečani monastery, which dates from 1343-1345.

It is pretty clear that Petar Kuč is not noted as a potential ancestor, only that he was the head of the tribe during this period - itself a historical fact. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Now you are misquoting the article. Tribe has not been formed until the 15th century. So by the time tribe was created, people were already mostly orthodox (as has been said in the article itself) and they spoke illyrian language which was a common misconception about slavic languages of the period. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What does this have to do with my reply about Petar Kuč? In 1485 over half of the tribe still bore Albanian names by the way. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It has to, because if haplogroups are not the argument, and Petar Kuč is not the argument, we come to this, names.

It's not really "over the half" as we have the defters. I don't even wanna argue about the number of Slavic and Albanian names as most of the families had both. If you read the defters as i have, you would see that names such as Pal and Žarko who are brothers. I agree that the slavenization of the Albanians in the Kuči tribe was happening over the centuries, but it's not that the Albanians themselves just said one day "we are going to be Slavs!"

The population was mixed, saying that Kuči are of one origin or of another would be wrong as people were clearly mixed back then.

So by the 1485. you had mixture of names and the orthodox church. Tribe formed then. Over the time, catholic believers changed to orthodoxy, and there are even some cases where there was Orthodoxy-Catholicism-return to Orthodoxy kind of deal like it was with Nikeza Marinov, his son Andrej Nikezin (Drekale), and then his son Lale Drekalov NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, use the same 17th century and read a different author like Lazaro Soranzo and you will see that he is writing of a region full of Serbs with Albanians in between. He was describing all of the highlander tribes.

Just because you have the author that said one thing, that doesn't change the fact that there are other who say other things.

Fact is, you are claiming that Kuči is an albanian tribe in this talk page, which is clearly lunacy. Albanians are minority in the tribe, even if you can name people identifying as Albanians outside of Koja e Kucit NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There are still people who identify as Albanians within the tribe yes, although they are the minority. I have never said that Kuci is an Albanian tribe, but Kuci is of Albanian origin, and that part will stay in the lede. Alltan (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

>but Kuci is of Albanian origin

There, they appear in the surname of Petar Kuč (Albanian: Pjetër Kuçi), an individual from the Albanian katun (Serbian: Katun Arbanasa), possibly the leader of the Kuči brotherhood. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Alltan (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's what i am trying to say.

Two reasons for the inclusion of Albanian origin are:

1. Peter Kuč theory, a possibility that an albanian man from the 14th century and his descendents formed the tribe by the end of the 15th century.

2. Haplogroups, as we all know that one every nation is only one haplogroup. (We might have to rewrite the borders for the whole Europe though, because right now that's not the case for any other group of people, just Kuči)

First one is only a possibility, there's no proof for that, it's something we just agreed could be a story of origin. It's fine as a myth, just as i am not against the myth of George Kastriot. It's fun, it's folklore and it's ok. (only the second story is part of the folklore of Kuči tribe. I think Peter Kuč migth have been mentioned by the Marko Miljanov in one of his books, but it was never part of the folklore) But using the Mrnjavčević story, or Kastriot story, or any other theory as a fact is just plain wrong.

Most of the oral traditions and church documents will probably lead you back to the 15th century, before that it's all just stories and myths. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

None of those reasons included in the origins section of the article. Haplogroups aren't even mentioned in the article as far as I can tell. If you wish to present different opinions regarding the origin of the Kuci, you must back it up with a modern, reliable source. Alltan (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Haplogroups are not mentioned in the article, but it's the main argument used here for the Albanian origin, just read the discussion here if you have enough time.

I will most likely link some documents in the talk page, so we could discuss and talk about them. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

please stop wasting my time because you don't like what RS's bibliography says about the tribe Please stay WP:CIVIL. You and your friends have failed to produce a convincing reason for keeping the mention of the tribe's Albanian origin in the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST, that's one thing. Now that I've shown you how the Kuči really see themselves today, and it's been that way for centuries, and that's the most important thing, also still by MOS:FIRST, you're losing your nerve. It was you who imposed the mention of the tribe's Albanian origin in the first sentence last year, assume the consequences of your WP:POV edits. Furthermore, you're accusing Khirurg of never having contributed to this page, but have you? I've never seen a single one of your writings that was even remotely constructive on this page, or on those of the other Montenegrin tribes, only WP:POV pushing. Krisitor (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Even when it's sourced it's sourced badly.

For example, in the origin section they have a quote: "Since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians" and the sources for that are:

1. Albanian historian, i am fine with that.

2. Second book is interesting, as there is no talk about the origin at all, the book itself just has this line: "The approximately thirty Albanian tribes were not all structured alike, although they were usually composed of clans, which in turn were composed of extended families. They traced their lineage back to a common ancestor, whose name they assumed—for example, the Hoti, Kuči, and Berisha"

So the origin is not at all discussed, the writer just said: Kuči, the Albanian tribe, and we can see that there's a theory that Hoti, Kuči and Berisha share the same ancestor but that's the first time i am hearing about it, and even this article is not talking about it...

3. Dead link, cant read.

So i might actually go through all the sources and see where the people were like: "Meh, this is fine".

They dont seem to understand, that just because the document said one thing that it's fact. For example, if we were to look up old sources, we could look at the Kelmendi tribe which are Albanian, they identify as such and they were throughout the history, they survived slavicization and probably just albanized the slav population in the region. But, in Vescovato Mondunense, the archbishop records the origin of the tribe with the help of Kelmendi tribal elders. The name of the section is: ORIGINE DELLI CLEMENTINI NEL VESCOVATO MODUNENSE SECONDO LA LORO TRADITIONE.

And the line is: Clemente primo Stipite du di Padre Serviano da Moraccia fiume che scaturisce da Montenegro sopra Cattaro, e di Madre detta Bubesha figlia di Vuijabegna da Cucci.

The translation is: the Kelmendi trace their origin to Stijepo, a Serb from Montenegro, and Bubeša, the daughter of Vujo-beg, a chieftain in the bordering Kuč tribe.

And you won't see me run around Kelmendi talk page and lead section. I might as well cite it and say: "Kelmendi is a historical tribe of Serbian origin"

Same logic as here. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am being civi by even entertaining this pointless conversation any longer. You need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK. You have provided no RS bibliography based reasoning to deny or remove the Albanian origin of the tribe. Consensus stands. Botushali (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for the beef between you and Krisitor, but i will provide some documents in the next few days, probably in a separate section for more visibility.

Stay civil and let's keep discussing! NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @NekSeOvajVijekGordi that it should be removed, because the Kuči are not an Albanian tribe. And the part of the tribe who identifies as such is Koja, which is already listed as a specific tribe in the box. Krisitor (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a historically Albanian tribe and part of it still identifies as Albanian. By default, this reality means that the article has to reflect that a part of Kuçi is still Albanian. The Montenegrin identity is related to the inclusion of the territory in modern Montenegro, but Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region, Montenegrin tribes are historically Slavic. The current consensus reflects the idea that idea that identities are non-exclusionary historical constructs, hence both infoboxes are included.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Maleschreiber that it should not be removed, because the Kuči is part Albanian to this day and because they are of Albanian origin. Durraz0 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

>because the Kuči is part Albanian

And that is why you have Koja e Kucit page, and there you have "Part of Albanian tribes" in that article. That's completely fine NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is almost nothing in scholarship related to Kuči as an Albanian tribe. Yes, they appear as a community from an Albanian katun in the Late Middle Ages, so that part of their origin is not disputed, then their present territory is mentioned as a nahija in the late 15th and during the 16th century, with an already mixed Albanian and Slavic anthroponymy, yet almost nothing is said about the tribe as an Albanian one in historical sources.

However, when it comes to primary sources starting with the 17th century onwards, the Kuči are largely mentioned as a Slavic Orthodox tribe. And your statement that the Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region is wrong, in fact they are known for their close ties with other Brda tribes as well as Malisor tribes, with whom they often allied during the centuries of struggle against Ottoman rule.

With these considerations in mind, I maintain that the box should be removed. Krisitor (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't contradict the statement Kuçi has no historical links to any Montenegrin tribe as in contrast to the tribes of the Brda region, Montenegrin tribes are historically Slavic? --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I remember now that you don't consider the tribes of the Brda as Montenegrin tribes, as if they were closer to Albanian ones, but in fact, that's not the case. Anyway, apart from the Koja villages, Kuči are not Albanians, they even mostly identified as Serbs in the 2011 census. So the presence of the box and the introduction remain problematic and need to be fixed. Krisitor (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The Albanian tribes sidebar is relevant for inclusion in the section Origins as per article's content. There is no reasonable argument to remove it. How the members of the tribe identify today is not relevant to this issue. – Βατο (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll sustain Bato's argument. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Βατο Durraz0 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Two things i see in the origin section. The first one is the connection between Kuči Drekalovići and Berishe, while we already established that every Kuči member is of a certain haplogroup that leads to Vlachs in the North Albania.

Second thing is, why is Ottoman defter from 1485. quoted in the text, yet the image that was there in 2020. is removed? I think we should reinstate the image as it's of interest since it shows first recorded names of now formed Kuči tribe. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, nothing about the Kuçi leads to any Vlachs in Albania. The lineage of Kuçi is a typical Albanian lineage and Vlachs in Albania, Greece, N. Macedonia and most other areas in the Balkans are not fundamentally related to any haplogroup. There is no Vlach haplogroup in general as they have many different origins while the broader haplogroup which the Kuçi carry is represented by 15-20% fewer lineages among Vlachs compared to Albanians. More importantly, the Kuçi are not mentioned in archival sources as Vlachs, hence there's nothing which connects them to Vlachs. There are tribes of Vlach origin in Montenegro like the Drobnjaci who are indeed mentioned as Vlachs in archival sources and the lineage they carry has no close relation to Albanians and it wasn't present in the region during the Paleo-Balkan era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I wanted to say native people of the region, you know, before modern nations were created. That's not the point, and i would not like to argue about that. The point is that if all Kuči share the common ancestor, it's not possible for Drekalovići to originate from Berishe tribe. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim or insinuation that the native medieval population of northern Albania was Vlach is not only erroneous but also completely irrelevant and unproductive to the discussion. Please, for future reference, refrain from making such claims in order to avoid potential arguments which are of no value to the topic at hand. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fine, what about the other thing we were talking about.

Is there anyone against removing the Berishe from the origin section, as we all agree that Old Kuči and Drekalovići share the common ancestry NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, there was no consensus to remove the sidebar. Secondly, at a closer translation and inspection of Soranzo's passage linked by @NekSeOvajVijekGordi, the claim that the aforementioned writer described 'the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence' is incorrect. From Soranzo's excerpt it can only be gathered that these tribes inhabited an area which was perceived by the writer as 'Serbia', with Seruiani here not bearing clear ethnic connotations. This is further suggested by the fact that Soranzo further notes that among these tribes of Serbia, Albanian Catholics formed a large group (trà quali vi sono molti Albanesi, che viuono alla Romana). Thirdly, since Soranzo doesn't specifically mention the ethnic composition of the tribes themselves, most importantly the Kuči, using it as evidence of the abovementioned claim is without justification. This also highlights an issue with the use of primary sources which can be interpreted differently, and potentially erroneously, by different readers. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Soranzo was literally describing Serbs. In the document itself, and the quotation from the different sources i gave you, he is talking about Serb Uprising in the 16th century, and is describing Serbs that live near the mountains of Albania as some of the most fearsome.

The text states: "Out of all things, Serbs want this the most (implying freedom from the Turks). The nation that lives from Danube to the mountains of Albania, and those in Dardania, the ones that live near those mountains, are best able to make the greatest stirres: And those are Piperi, Kuci, Clementi, Bjelopavlici and others in the region of Plav, and among them there are many Albanians of Roman rite".

The fact that he mentions Albanians, actually gives you the idea that he was in fact thinking of these tribes as Serbs, and that among them there are some Albanians of Catholic rite.

The inner tribe composition is not stated, but the Soranzo is clear in his opinion of the ethnic composition of the whole region, including Kuci.

That's not the only thing you removed, but let's focus on this one for now. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You cannot draw such a conclusion from a primary argument because the historical context of the terms used has to be interpreted by modern and reliable secondary sources. If under the Serbs 'many Albanians' are included, then the term 'Serbs' itself is not an ethnic term, but a geographical one. Based on this quote, you cannot draw any conclusion about the Kuči themselves or any other tribe because the author doesn't directly mention the origins of any of them and you can't then suppose anything about mixed origins. As a consequence, it would be an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to deduce such an argument from this specific quote. Soranzo's report as a primary source doesn't disagree with another report which is presented in the article 'A Franciscan report of the 17th century illustrates the final stages of their acculturation. Its author writes that the Bratonožići, Piperi, Bjelopavlići and Kuči: nulla di meno essegno quasi tutti del rito serviano, e di lingua Illrica ponno piu presto dirsi Schiavoni, ch' Albanesi (since almost all of them use the Serbian rite and the Illyric language, soon they should be called Slavs, rather than Albanians)' via a proper modern source. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

>You cannot draw such a conclusion from a primary argument because the historical context of the terms used has to be interpreted by modern and reliable secondary sources.

So it is interpreted by the second source that actually talks about the Serb uprising and states all the Serb tribes that fought in it, based on L'Ottomano.

> If under the Serbs 'many Albanians' are included, then the term 'Serbs' itself is not an ethnic term, but a geographical one.

I disagree, i think you misunderstood what was written. As the matter of fact in the quote that is in the article right now there is "rito serviano" which means that Serbian didn't mean the territory, but the people. Especially that the Soranzo itself doesn't call the region "Serbia", but "Dardania" and "Mountains of Albania".

> you cannot draw any conclusion about the Kuči themselves or any other tribe because the author doesn't directly mention the origins of any of them and you can't then suppose anything about mixed origins.

I am not using the Soranzo to say that the origin is mixed, i am using Marko Rašović. Soranzo is just an importnant detail of how some people of that period interpreted the ethographic situation of the region. Same as the Franscian report that is literally quoted word by word, which is a document from 17th century.

As for the WP:SYNTH, the article itself has it again. While quoting Franciscan report, only ONE source is actually talking about it, and that is Xhufi, Pëllumb (2013). "Përkime shqiptaro-malazeze në mesjetë". Other two sources are not even talking about it, both of which are just calling Kuči an Albanian tribe, and those are used by people as a source. Those sources are terrible, as you can probably find hundreds of books that say "Kuči, a Serb tribe" without actually providing any sources or evidence.

>Soranzo's report as a primary source doesn't disagree with another report which is presented in the article

It doesn't, but it does disagree with overwhelming opinion on this talk page pushed by few users on this talk page. And that is, that even before the Franciscan report there were people saying that Kuči is a tribe of Serbs. Which would tell you that origin of the tribe, even back in 16th and 15th century is not as clear as you want to present it. And the sources for the quote are wrong, except one. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Should we remove two wrong sources that have nothing to do with that quote? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I can revise your edit and add more sources, probably a newer ones NaBesmrtnomVisu (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you did a well enough job.

@Ktrimi991 Can you explain how a historian and lingvist is not a good enough source, but a professor of agriculture from a university of Sarajevo is? I think Bojka is good enough source as was agreed by the rest of the users here when we used her as the newest source for the "Zetski zbor".

I would love to hear your opinion on that NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1455 Agreement

@Lezhjani1444 Can you give me more info on the revert? What exactly did you find problematic? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I added a new source that was done in 1981. so i guess that solves this problem you had, i am just interested would it be problematic if for example, tomorrow i uploaded 16th century document and its fascimile to the article? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The content itself is fine, the only issue is that two of the sources (Milaković and Erdeljanović) do not pass as WP:RS as per issues of WP:AGEMATTERS, and thus cannot remain. As such, it would be best to find more recent academic research on the event and include it in the article, removing the aforementioned two citations. I will also try and search for some recent sources, so far I have come across a mention in page 408 of Bojka Djukanović's Historical Dictionary of Montenegro (2023):

Zetski Zbor. Zetski zbor is the name for the assembly of 51 tribal chiefs, representatives of Zeta areas, held on September 6, 1455, on the island of Vranjina in Scutari Lake. At that meeting, Voivoda Stefan Stefanica Crnojević, with the consent of the tribal representatives, signed an agreement with the Venetian Republic, according to which Zeta was placed under the jurisdiction of the Venetian Republic. According to that agreement, Zetski zbor was placed under the nominal rule of Venice, and one of the conditions was that the Orthodox Zeta metropolitan should not be subordinated to the Catholic Church. Among the signatories, there were tribes that survived formally until the middle of the 20th century. Some of those were Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, and Pješivci. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I know about that, i just don't know if that source is to early for WP:AGEMATTERS

If you think that using that source is fine, i will rephrase it and add it tomorrow. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Although i will tell you that the text i am using is direct quote from the original document itself which is stored in Venice. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Milaković and Erdeljanović are problematic under WP:AGEMATTERS as with other sources from the beginning of the 1900s and earlier, discussions surrounding their use (particularly Erdeljanović) can be found on this TP and others. They should be removed as on other articles. Regarding the primary source itself, this should be avoided as per WP:PRIMARYCARE as it can become an issue. The best course of action would be to find recent secondary sources on the matter. Could you also provide the page number and quotations from Petrović (1981)? Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, i might have to disagree on the primary care with you.

The agreement itself would be pretty easy to understand to anyone who can read Latin. And i think Latin is no different than other languages, which are currently used in source materials (English, Serbian, Albanian, German, Italian)

I will try to look for the new sources, i wont fight you on this issue, i just think that the topic is not that hard to understand that the Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE would be an issue NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean to add it as an image (e.g., a screenshot of the page/excerpt) in the article or as a citation? Perhaps it may be okay to add it as the latter if no original research or interpretations are made, but usually, as a rule of thumb, primary sources are avoided in the majority of such articles. Someone more versed on the policies can chime in on this to clear things up. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not be able to add it soon, i would actually have to request the fascimile to be created. But esentially if i have a really old document or a book, i would prefer using an image of the page and then explain it.

For example, i quoted Lazaro Soranzo multiple times, he is a historian/writer from the 16th century, there's really not that much work on him, so the secondary sources of newer release date would be hard to find, if not impossible. But the description of the tribes at the end of the 16th century that he wrote about should be included in some way. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I see, perhaps that could work as long as no original research is done, although someone more knowledgeable on the rules than me would know better. Do you have access to Lazaro Soranzo's work? I have yet to find a digital version which mentions the Kuči and other nearby tribal communities, it would be great if you could link it or provide some relevant quotations. Also, can you please quote what Petrović writes regarding the agreement of 1455? Lezhjani1444 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will provide you with the documents as soon as possible (i am at work rn). I have the fascimile of the original book.

Petrovic agrees with the Erdeljanovic, and goes to the same conclusion. Most of the research done on the agreement was just sharing what that agreement was about (just like Bojka Djukanovic wrote in the book that you quoted)

The only original thing added by Petrovic and Erdeljanovic is that this would be pretty indicative of tribes feeling towards Catholic church at that time, and that tribe itself was always close to the Montenegrin state and thought of self as a part of Zeta region and Serbian church. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw, since it's literally the same thing, i don't mind changing Rastislav for your source. It's literally the same thing, with the same point. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok so here's the translation of the Rastislavs quote and imgur link with the screenshot of the book:

"They asked from their new lords that there should be no Catholics in their churches, but Orthodox priests which will be appointed by the Zeta metropolitan"

https://i.imgur.com/rtXUDIo.png - Quote from the book, page 21

And here's quote from Lazaro Soranzo who is basically saying that Serbs out of all want this the most (freedom from Turks), that the most fearsome and fiery Serbs are the ones in Dardania closer to the Albanian mountains and those are: Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, Climenti and tribes of Plav among whom there are some Albanians of Catholic faith.

https://i.imgur.com/5b5nHOS.png NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alltan I already gave you proof, the screenshot is in this image. What else do you need? Translate it yourself, if you are into that.

What else do you need? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, we need an author who actually interprets what the document says.

What I would like is the quotes for this section:

"In 1455, the Kuči tribe, in its nascent stages of development, forged an agreement alongside Stefan Crnojević and approximately 50 associated families or tribes of the Upper Zeta region, forged an agreement with the Republic of Venice, pledging their assistance during times of war. According to the agreement, the Kuči tribe and the associated tribes agreed to support Venetia in all conflicts up to the regions of Lezhë and Zadrima. In return for their service, the Venetian Republic would provide them with salaries, similar to the compensation they received under the rule of the Balšić family. The agreement also included a specific request made by the municipalities and tribal communities, which emphasized their religious autonomy. It stated that no priest, bishop, or archbishop of the Catholic Church should have authority over their churches. Instead, the churches were to be governed by priests of their own faith. The agreement further specified that there should be no Latin archbishop in their region, but rather the Metropolitan of Zeta, who would appoint Orthodox priests to oversee their churches.",

Specifically I want both Rastislavs and Djukanovics quotes on the matter. Alltan (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I gave you Rastislavs quote, it's here: https://i.imgur.com/rtXUDIo.png

And i had two more sources, which are Erdeljanovic who wrote about this at the beginning of the 20th century, and Milakovic who wrote about this in the 19th century.

And if you want one more confirmation that this is what happend, here's Monumenta spectantia HISTORIAM SLAVORUM MERIDIONALIUM written in 1894. that is describing the relationship between Venetian republic and Slavs year by year.

https://i.imgur.com/RxQwhou.png

https://i.imgur.com/H86ss3t.png

As for the Djukanovics quote, you should ask @Lezhjani1444 as he is the one that proposed we use that book as it is by far the newest one.

I prefer older sources, preferably from the time period i am working with, but i guess Wiki prefers newer sources and that's fine. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So the quote for that is in Erdeljanovic book, Milakovic book, Rastislav mentions it, Djukanovic has the quote, and Simo Ljubic in the book i mentioned has the quote in latin, probably just copied it from the agreement that is held in Venice today. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not speak Serbocroatian, please provide all quotes in English.

Erdeljanovic and Milakovic are part of Serbian Nationalist historiography, we dont use them and I am not interested in their quotes. From what I can see you just added Djukanovic and Rastislav to the already prepared edit, which is something called WP:OR. Please if you can translate the quote from Rastislav into english, and see if it does conform to: "In 1455, the Kuči tribe, in its nascent stages of development, forged an agreement alongside Stefan Crnojević and approximately 50 associated families or tribes of the Upper Zeta region, forged an agreement with the Republic of Venice, pledging their assistance during times of war. According to the agreement, the Kuči tribe and the associated tribes agreed to support Venetia in all conflicts up to the regions of Lezhë and Zadrima. In return for their service, the Venetian Republic would provide them with salaries, similar to the compensation they received under the rule of the Balšić family. The agreement also included a specific request made by the municipalities and tribal communities, which emphasized their religious autonomy. It stated that no priest, bishop, or archbishop of the Catholic Church should have authority over their churches. Instead, the churches were to be governed by priests of their own faith. The agreement further specified that there should be no Latin archbishop in their region, but rather the Metropolitan of Zeta, who would appoint Orthodox priests to oversee their churches.", Alltan (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Rastislav said this:

From all of this we can conclude that Kuči (at time) were not Catholics. We are made even more sure by the fact that Kuči, which Nenads are part of, in 1455. together with others from Upper Zeta, when they submitted to the Venetian Republic, requested from their new lords that there should be no Catholic priests in their church, but only orthodox priests, that are put there by the Zeta metropolitan.

Djukanovic quote goes like this:

Zetski Zbor. Zetski zbor is the name for the assembly of 51 tribal chiefs, representatives of Zeta areas, held on September 6, 1455, on the island of Vranjina in Scutari Lake. At that meeting, Voivoda Stefan Stefanica Crnojević, with the consent of the tribal representatives, signed an agreement with the Venetian Republic, according to which Zeta was placed under the jurisdiction of the Venetian Republic. According to that agreement, Zetski zbor was placed under the nominal rule of Venice, and one of the conditions was that the Orthodox Zeta metropolitan should not be subordinated to the Catholic Church. Among the signatories, there were tribes that survived formally until the middle of the 20th century. Some of those were Kuči, Piperi, Bjelopavlići, and Pješivci.

The full quote itself, in Latin, is still kept in Venice. It can be seen in the HISTORIAM SLAVORUM MERIDIONALIUM in which i gave you NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As for "WP:OR" we kinda broke that rule in the lead section, as we state something only concluded by the few of you here.

It was good two years ago, when it was only a tribe in the region of Montenegro, but now it's "of Albanian origin" so yeah NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest @Lezhjani1444 gives his hand at reworking the section based on these sources.

And no, there is no OR, the Kuci were Albanians. Be they Orthodox or Catholics. That part will not be ever changed, thanks to the genetic evidence which has provided concrete proof for its validity (but which is not mentioned in this article itself. Alltan (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, haplogroups again. We all know that nations == haplogroups

Albanians are only E-V13, and if you are not that haplogroup, thanks to genetic evidence, you are not Albanian. I guess half of the country is what, Greek? Slavic? Be whatever you like NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

btw, what do you want changed? Everything said is based on 5 sources, and those 5 sources are based on the original document. There's really no space for huge change. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph should be reworded to fit what is put forth by Djukanović. I'll try formulate an edit soon for this Lezhjani1444 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

New sources

@Maleschreiber There was already discussion, the sources were too iffy, so the new ones are added. There has been no edit war, i actually talked about adding some info a month ago. If you want to discuss it, i am willing to talk with you! NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There's not a single brotherhood in Kuçi which is of Slavic origin and most in fact are directly descended from Lale Drekalov. It is inaccurate to claim that Kuçi is of mixed origins because it isn't and it really doesn't view itself as such. The reference to Soranzo is inaccurate because Soranzo doesn't write that In the 16th century, the Italian traveler Lazaro Soranzo while writing about Serb uprising of 1596–1597 described the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence while the conversion of Kuçi from Catholicism is already discussed in the article. The editor who wrote that In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy needs to read about WP:NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't describe any religion as "propaganda".--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  >There's not a single brotherhood in Kuçi which is of Slavic origin and most in fact are directly descended from Lale Drekalov.

  Sorry, but while all of Drekalovići are descended from Lale, there are many other in the Kuči tribe who are not. Your other implication and opinion of his origin is irrelevant.

  >The reference to Soranzo is inaccurate because Soranzo doesn't write that In the 16th century, the Italian traveler Lazaro Soranzo while writing about Serb uprising of 1596–1597 described the tribes in the region, including Kuči, as mostly Serbian with some Albanian presence while the conversion of Kuçi from Catholicism is already discussed in the article.

  Out of all things, Serbs want this the most (implying freedom from the Turks). The nation that lives from Danube to the mountains of Albania, and those in Dardania, the ones that live near those mountains, are best able to make the greatest stirres: And those are Piperi, Kuci, Clementi, Bjelopavlici and others in the region of Plav, and among them there are many Albanians of Roman rite.

  >Wikipedia doesn't describe any religion as "propaganda

  Catholicism isn't propaganda, but the spreading of any religion was used to call just that. The original author didn't imply that the catholicism is wrong, just that Rufim was against spread of Catholicism in the territory of the Patriarchate of Peć (Serbian Orthodox Church). If you think that the line itself should be changed a bit to better fit the context, i could agree with that. I was trying to be as truthful to the original as i could, as i was attacked earlier for not doing that. As i was attacked for using the original documents, and for not using modern sources etc etc

  Now that we have all of that, i don't see the problem. I assume many of the sources given are much better than what some professor of agriculture wrote on some dead website that is given as a ref NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Compare the statement which was written and what Soranzo actually writes and you'll see the contradiction.

Rašović writes that Ови дошљаци бјеху Срби и Арбанаси, људи храбри и енергични, претставници непомирљиве борбе са Турцима. Готово сви су овамо дошли као јака братства, која себи и силом заузимаху сједишта међу старим Кучима, па се и доцније, на њихову штету, ширише и натјераше тиме многе старе породице, да се раселе. I'm not certain to whom he refers because the phrasing is ambiguous but there is no relation to Kuçi in this statement, nor is there anything in the recorded genealogy of Kuçi about such events. Based on our modern knowledge which relies on genetic genealogy, there is also no Old vs. "New" Kuçi (Drekalovići) division. Both of them have the same ancestor. When Drekale settled in Kuçi, he was in fact settling among his cousins and nobody was pushed out. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

>Compare the statement which was written and what Soranzo actually writes and you'll see the contradiction.

We can change that. Soranzo wrote about the uprising of Serbs. The original quote is:

Serbs out of all wants this the most. Nation that lives from mountains of Albania to Danube, and those who are in Dardania and closer to these mountains are uprising a lot. And those are: Piperi, Kuči, Klimenti, Bjelopavlići and tribes from the region of Plav: among whom there are many Albanians of Catholic faith.

If you want to rephrase it, i am all up for that. I just wanted to give some context for the writing of Soranzo, and that context is the Serb Uprising at the end of 16th century.

>Rašović writes that Ови дошљаци бјеху Срби и Арбанаси, људи храбри и енергични, претставници непомирљиве борбе са Турцима. Готово сви су овамо дошли као јака братства, која себи и силом заузимаху сједишта међу старим Кучима, па се и доцније, на њихову штету, ширише и натјераше тиме многе старе породице, да се раселе. I'm not certain to whom he refers because the phrasing is ambiguous but there is no relation to Kuçi in this statement

The book itself is about Kuči. Rašović started a bit earlier, and talked about people who lived in the tribe before the formation of the tribe, and before all of the migrations (before Old Kuči). So his "Old Kuči" are not Mrnjavčević, but the people who lived there in the 13th century and before. "New Kuči" in this context are both Mrnjavčevići and Drekalovići.

So for him, migrations that were happening during the 14th and 15th century consisted of Catholics and Orthodox people, both Slavs and Albanians.

I also agree with you that Drekalovići are of same origin as Mrnjavčevići, and i support the idea that Drekale was son of Nikeza. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lezhjani1444 your opinions on this? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber Let's not let this discussion die out. I hope you have an idea on how to rewrite the article so that we could include new sources NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other than that, i would also love to add: SLAVIC-ALBANIAN INTERACTION IN VELJA GORANA: PAST AND PRESENT OF A BALANCED LANGUAGE CONTACT SITUATION as a source, which is a scientific paper done by Maria S. Morozova and Alexander Yu. Rusakov, (Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg State University) that was presented at “Multiculturalism and Language Contact” event organized by the Scientific Institute “Max van der Stoel” and Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts‘ research Center for Areal Linguistics. Editors of the publication: Prof. Dr. Veton Latifi Prof. Dr. Victor A. Friedman Prof. Dr. Marjan Markovikj.

Quote itself is:

The best-known example is the case of the Kuči, which had been an Orthodox Serbian tribe until the fifteenth century. From the beginning of the fifteenth to the end of the seventeenth century several Albanian (Catholic) and Serbian (Orthodox and Catholic) groups from other regions settled in the territory occupied by the Kuči. The population in the area had been (partially) bilingual in Albanian and Slavic for a long time, but after the gradual Slavicization of Albanians, most of the tribe became Slavic-speaking. The only exception is the small area of Koći / Kojë, which is inhabited by Albanians and Albanized Serbs.

Also, there's an interesting article by Adnan Čergić, the professor of Montenegrin language that is disagreeing with Erdeljanović, on the "Serbian" part of the tribe, exclusively calling it Slavic based on the name that Albanians around the tribe called Slavs in the Kuči tribe, and that word is "Škja". Čergić insinuates that before the arrival of Serbs there was a different layer of Slavic people living there, and Albanians called like that. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, thanks to @Jingiby and his new sources, while we have 2 new stating Kuči were of Albanian origin (based on the Franscian report from the 17th century), the Cambridge one actually states there was a mixture of population. Based on that, and the defters, Lazzaro Soranzo and his reports from the 16th century, we should rewrite the article together NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@NekSeOvajVijekGordi: You posted a quote based on Erdeljanović (1907) which directly contradicts what we know today. Kuçi, the main part of Trieshi and the main part of Koja all have the same patrilineal ancestor - all of them. There is not a single brotherhood of Slavic origin in Kuçi, just as there is not a single brotherhood of Albanian origin among the Drobnjaci. Hence the article cannot include information which directly contradicts reality based on sources which are either outdated or discuss the topic superficially. Research is beyond the point where we just compare & contrast how many sources use the term "Albanian" and how many use the term "Slavic".The key points which you have raised have been answered but we cannot discuss Erdeljanović (1907) again because his works are not reliable sources. I think that there's not much to discuss any longer because you're trying to gain consensus for changes which truly contradict everything we know today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Back in early 2020, when I had little knowledge of the advances in genetic genealogy I wrote that Kuči is not a tribe (pleme) of the same patrilineal ancestry. Rather, as many other tribes in the region, it formed as consecutive waves of groups settled in the area and formed the Kuči community. This statement which I wrote was wrong in all possible ways. There were never several groups of different patrilineal origins in Kuči. The statement which I then wrote does find support in reliable bibliography, but it's an absolutely wrong statement. If editors like NekSeOvajVijekGordi want to actually engage with such topics they have to learn how to approach reality as it is. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but when you have nothing else to say you go back to genealogy. Did you know that Yugoslav people are not Slavic? I mean, their genealogy says it like that.

Did you know that only 30-35% of Albanians have E-V13 haplogroup?

We focus on the primary palaeo-Balkan lineages of modern Albanians – haplogroups E-V13 (27-35%), J2b-Z600 (15%), and R1b-BY611>Z2705 (12-14%)

What are the rest of them? Greeks? Serbs? Is your nationality defined like that?

I dont want to go into this as haplogroups != nations, and if we would to draw a line based on them you would get a very, very different map than you have right now.

As for the sources:

1. We need a way to implement Lazzaro's statements into the article, that's why i wanted your help.

2. I agree that " In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" quote should be changed not to include the word propaganda, as it can be misinterpreted.

3. Bojka and Rasovic have the same idea of origin, Bojka is of course much newer source, and nobody had problem with her, so i assume there's no problem with using them as a source?

4. We established that the tribe was orthodox in the 15th century as the tribe itself was a part of Zetski Zbor and requested no catholic priests to be present at their territory, and that there was process of albanization during the 16th century and then slow return to orthodoxy based on Franciscan report and the quote i gave you about vojvoda Lale and his conversion to Orthodoxy. We established that by the end of 15th century, based on the defters that are quoted in the aritcle, the villages in Kuci were 35% Albanian, 35% Slavic and 30% mixed. So during the creation of a tribe, and the time of the first Vojvoda of Kuci, tribe was most definitely mixed.

I agree that most of Kuci share same paternal ancestor (still not all, as there are many of those who are neither Old Kuci or Drekalovici, but families that actually moved to the region of Kuci tribe and stayed there. Even in the article itself you have one such person, and that is Muamer Zukorlic), but we are not sure who that one ancestor is and you are not including the maternal line which is also impornant to the history of the tribe (one of the reason Lale converted to Orhodoxy was that his wife was an Orthodox Serb). In my opinion, last known ancestor is known as Nenad (which tells you that even the oldest known ancestor had a Slavic/Serbian name).

I love to discuss this with you, and i am willing to as this is really cool, but i would like to first solve first three issues that i mentioned NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The point isn't that E-V13 = Albanian, of course it doesn't, the point is that E-BY165837 is an Albanian subclade of E-V13. Based on phylogeny, diversity, TMRCA, and other factors we are able to tie certain subclades to specific ethno-linguistic groups, just like how there are Serbian clades as well as Albanian ones. In light of this genetic research, I have also had to change some of my opinions. It now appears that the Bankeqi of Trieshi and the core of Koja e Kuçit stem from the same tribal community as the Kuči, sharing an ancestor who lived in ca. 1373 CE. This, surprisingly, corroborates some of the oral traditions of the Bankeqi which do in fact point to common ancestry with the Kuči. In these traditions, for example, the Nikezići are depicted as descended from a certain Mara Ponti who appears to have been a historical figure. This is based on the fact that sons of Mara are recorded in 1485 in the village of Pantalesh. The patronym Nikezići is also interesting since it appears to be derived from the personal name Nika, with the addition of the Albanian diminutive suffix -(ë)za.

Aside from Soranzo's ambiguity regarding ethnic and geographic descriptions (of which are open to different interpretations), another issue is that he doesn't specifically describe the ethnic composition of the Kuči - contrary to what was claimed in the previous edit. As such it can be argued to be irrelevant to the article.

Regarding the Zetski zbor, things aren't as clear cut as is being presented. The Kuči didn't make these requests independently, they were only a single tribe out of 51. There are also economic aspects that must be considered which influenced the majority decision of this assembly, taxes under the Zeta bishopric being different from if the tribes were directly subordinate to the Venetians. Furthermore, a number of Albanian tribes and communities partook in the assembly (e.g., Hoti, Gruda, Tuzi, Matagushi, Kryethi, etc), some of which would've still been Catholic Christians at this point. As such, the participation of the Kuči in this assembly does not rule out an Albanian character during this period in time.

There is no evidence 'that there was a process of albanization during the 16th century', let's also not neglect the fact that the Kuči are first attested in an ethnic Albanian community. In 1485, ~41.5% of household heads bore typical Albanian names, while ~35.9% bore Slavic names (2/3 of these being restricted to two settlements). The remainder bore mixed anthroponymy. It is an established fact that medieval Albanians adopted Slavic personal names as a result of the political and religious influence of the South Slavic polities, thus this still doesn't refute an Albanian origin or character. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This falls under WP:OR, as there are no genetic studies on the Kuči. Of course, you can find information on amateur websites such as the Serbian DNA Project where people submit the results of their own genetic tests. However, not only is this an amateur website, but if you look at the results in question, you will find that there are too few members of "clans" or "families" who have been tested to draw any conclusions. And even if it turned out that all Kuči people have the same common ancestor who lived 800 years ago or whenever, genetics doesn't have nationality, whatever the case may be: you can't know if when the tribe was formed, it wasn't already largely slavicized. After all, what does it mean to be Slavic or Albanian? It's not a matter of genes; it's primarily a set of cultural and linguistic traits shared by a group of individuals. You can't know if when the Kuči tribe emerged as an Orthodox Slavic tribe during the early modern period, it hadn't already largely adopted a Slavic character, both linguistically, of course, but also culturally, such as the adoption of the typical South Slavic family organization, the zadruga, or the adoption of the Slava as a family tradition. Krisitor (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but this information isn't included in the article itself and so WP:OR isn't really relevant. It is only being brought up in this TP since it corroborates the sources and claims of an Albanian origin.

And no, a sizeable number of the core brotherhoods have been tested, enough to determine the genetic genealogy of the core population of the tribe. Genetics itself doesn't have a nationality true, but if a subclade and it's parallel branches are all represented by a specific ethnic group; we can assume that the haplogroup originated in that population. Nobody is arguing that genes determine ethnicity, only that certain haplogroups are characterised by certain groups - as is understood in population genetics. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in the article, but you and others often use this WP:OR "genetic evidence" as an argument on this talk page. It would be best if you avoided doing so as Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, you are not on Poreklo or Anthrogenica here and must rely on WP:RS, nothing more. I would, however, gladly continue this amateur discussion of genetics "genealogy" outside Wikipedia. Krisitor (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

>the point is that E-BY165837 is an Albanian subclade

Again, based on what? The only thing you get by using geneology here is just that many members of Kuči tribe share the same ancestor (again, not all of them. Many in the tribe are not E-V13). I'll have to agree with @Krisitor here, and say that this is only used when there's nothing else to be said. Haplogroups, even subclades are not nationalities. And not every member of this tribe is E-V13

>>In these traditions, for example, the Nikezići are depicted as descended from a certain Mara Ponti who appears to have been a historical figure. This is based on the fact that sons of Mara are recorded in 1485 in the village of Pantalesh. The patronym Nikezići is also interesting since it appears to be derived from the personal name Nika, with the addition of the Albanian diminutive suffix -(ë)za.

I think the personal name is Niko, as it's short for Nikola. Both Albanians and Serbians use Niko and rarely Nika (at least for a male, Nika is used in Montenegro as a female name)

Mara/Marin Pantov (Not Ponti, as it comes from the name "Panto") is a historical figure that was one of the 5 sons of Panto: Petar, Djuradj/Gjerg, Tiho, Mara and Lesh (as this is an Albanian name that is not used in Montenegro, i am not really sure how to write it so sorry). In fact it was the combination of the names Panto and Lesh that gave name to the village.

>Aside from Soranzo's ambiguity regarding ethnic and geographic descriptions (of which are open to different interpretations), another issue is that he doesn't specifically describe the ethnic composition of the Kuči - contrary to what was claimed in the previous edit. As such it can be argued to be irrelevant to the article.

There's really not many different interpretations. Soranzo is describing a Serb uprising, and stating that the most fearsome fighters and those who want freedom the most are Serbs from the region of Brda and Plav. He then lists the tribes, and states that among them also live Albanians of Catholic rite.

I think it's pretty importnant to have this in the article, and not irrelevant at all. It gives you an insight to what a third party that is neither Catholic nor Orthodox priest thought of the region, basically a "neutral pov".

>There is no evidence 'that there was a process of albanization during the 16th century', let's also not neglect the fact that the Kuči are first attested in an ethnic Albanian community. In 1485, ~41.5% of household heads bore typical Albanian names, while ~35.9% bore Slavic names (2/3 of these being restricted to two settlements). The remainder bore mixed anthroponymy. It is an established fact that medieval Albanians adopted Slavic personal names as a result of the political and religious influence of the South Slavic polities, thus this still doesn't refute an Albanian origin or character.

But you really don't know what happend, as even the Mrnjavčević moved from the Skadar region north to the Kuči region today so you have no idea of the original population of the region. What you do know is that in 1485 the split was basically 50%-50%. So when the tribe was created, you can definitely state that it was already mixed.

There was most definitely a process of albanization, oldest known ancestor that we can find with 100% proof of existence is Nenad. Nenad had three sons. Lazar, Đurađ/Gjerg and Grča. Grča was the one that moved to village called Bardhanje which can be found in the defters. Grča had son called Panto and then you have three generations of either Albanian names or in a case of Nikeza, a name that has a deminutive from Albanian language in it. Mainly Nikeza, his son Drekale, and then his son Lala (I am not sure about origin of this name, as it is still used in Serbia, even though it's a bit strange, but we 100% know that he was originally catholic, but then changed his religion and that it was the last big change in the tribe). And the fact that the tribe itself was part of the Zetski Zbor tells you that for at least half a century there was no catholic priest in the region. So if there was a statement in 17th century that Kuči is becoming orthodox, it tells you that during 16th century something happend, as in the 15th century there was no presence of Catholic church in the tribe.

But we go back to this:

1) We need a way to implement Lazzaro's statements into the article

2) In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against Catholic propaganda, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy" quote should be changed not to include the word propaganda, as it can be misinterpreted.

3) Even you use the defter of 1485. So if you know that 50% of the tribe was Slavic during the creation of the tribe, how can you state anything else other than that the tribe was mixed during it's nascent stages of development? NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll avoid discussing the genetic evidence here to avoid WP:NOTAFORUM as suggested by @Krisitor, and will instead tackle the issues which are relevant to the article itself and could potentially be implemented.

Taking oral traditions at face value is problematic as they do tend to be inaccurate. It is certain that the tradition of origin from the Mrnjavčevići has no historical basis and is a later fabrication, and we cannot say for certain that the Nenad who was deceased by 1416-7 is the same as the one in the oral traditions. Even if he was (certainly a possibility), he did not father Grča - a figure that doesn't appear to be historical. His sons were Gjergj (Giergi), Lazër (Lazzaro), and Jon (quite possibly a Venetian corruption of Gjon). He also appears to have fathered a daughter named Nesa who was the widow of a certain Jon Progani. That their father was named Nenad is not evidence that they were Serbs, as has been noted earlier, it was not uncommon for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponyms during this period and the names given to his sons were typical of Albanians.

Judging by the historical evidence, if this Nenad was truly the ancestor of the tribe, Panta would rather have been the son of a certain Llesh (hence the village of Pantalesh), not Grča. Regarding Panto Lleshi, Pulaha (1975) writes (my translation):

On the other hand the names of Panta's sons, Pjetri and Lesh, correspond to the katunds and villages of Petrovići and Leshevići recorded in the years 1497, 1570, and 1582. We will also add that in the register of 1485 the head of the village of Pantalesh is recorded as Vuksan son of Mara, and that other inhabitants of the settlement bore the surname Mara or are noted as sons of Lleshi and Gjergji, corresponding to the names of Panta's sons: Mar, Llesh, and Gjergj... this indicates that Panta Lleshi lived during the first half of the fifteenth century.

This information could be of value in the article.

Soranzo doesn't specifically write about the Kuči and his 'demography' is very vague. If you want you can propose an example here, although I personally think we should avoid using this source for the reasons argued here and above. As for the defter of 1485, it by no means suggests that 50% of the tribe was Serbian. Simply put, there is no way to figure out the exact ethnic composition or character of the community. However, judging by the fact that, due to political and religious reasons, it was more common for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponymy than vice versa; it is highly likely that the Albanian element was way higher than can be interpreted solely by Albanian anthroponymy. As is suggested by RS scholars such as Pulaha.

As for Rufim Boljević, it could just be said that he actively worked against the Catholic Church's influence and authority in the region. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

>It is certain that the tradition of origin from the Mrnjavčevići has no historical basis and is a later fabrication

Of course, and that is why i am only calling them Mrnjavčević as they call themselves like that. You can find my opinion about it in the comment above yours where i stated that the oldest known ancestor is definitely Nenad. And not Mrnja. Oral traditions say that Nenad was son of Gojko, and that Gojko was son of Mrnja. While Gojko was pretty popular name in the Kuči region during the 15th century, i really doubt there ever was a Gojko Mrnjavčević as he is only mentioned in the Serbian poetry. We could discuss the age of the myth tho, i think it really might have been from the 15th/16th century, but that's not something we will ever know.

>Even if he was (certainly a possibility), he did not father Grča - a figure that doesn't appear to be historical.

While Grča is not mentioned in the defters, there's enough time from the Venetian documents to the first defters for him to move and settle in the region of Kuči. There's actually a katun in Kuči, north of the Hotska Korita, called Grča, named after him.

>That their father was named Nenad is not evidence that they were Serbs, as has been noted earlier, it was not uncommon for Albanians to adopt Slavic anthroponyms during this period and the names given to his sons were typical of Albanians.

It's not a proof that they were Serbs, but that they actually were Slavic just like many others in the region. Slavs are a ethnolinguistic group. But in the Balkans, it's more linguistic than anything else. As you love to mention haplogroups, you would probably know that Hungarians are more Slavic than Yugoslavs. If you already know that people were already mixing cultures and taking names during 14th century, how can you say that the tribe itself is Albanian at the end of 15th?

>Judging by the historical evidence, if this Nenad was truly the ancestor of the tribe, Panta would rather have been the son of a certain Llesh (hence the village of Pantalesh), not Grča. Regarding Panto Lleshi, Pulaha (1975) writes (my translation):

You misunderstood me, i never stated that Grča was the father of Llesh. Grča was father of Panto, and the rest is pretty much confirmed. Panto had 5 sons, as i stated above: Petar, Đurađ/Gjerg, Tiho, Mara and Llesh.

We know about them, because you can find them in the 1485. defter as you stated. You can find them by their children in the village Pantaljesh.

The numbers they appear at are: 1. Vuksan Marinov, 2. Gojko Đurđev , 43. Nikač Petrov and 64. Gojko Lješev

The only son missing is Tiho, but in one of the defters there is a village in Hoti region named Tihomir, so while it's not confirmed, it's possible that he moved before the defter.

So nobody is questioning the existence of Panto, or that Panto was a father of Llesh. I literally stated in one of earlier comments that the village got the name by combining the names of Panto and his oldest son Llesh.

Soranzo doesn't specifically write about the Kuči and his 'demography' is very vague. If you want you can propose an example here, although I personally think we should avoid using this source for the reasons argued here and above.

I agree that the document is not specifically about Kuči, but in my opinion it's integral to the article so that the reader could know that even then the ethnic composition of the tribe was complicated. It pretty much depended on who you met from that region.

As for Rufim Boljević, it could just be said that he actively worked against the Catholic Church's influence and authority in the region.

What do you think about this:

In 1675. a Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Rufim Boljević, an active protester against spread of Catholicism in the region, converted vojvoda Lale Drekalov from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. This event marked the end of major religious changes within the Kuči tribe. From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe.

There are two or three sources that i can provide for the statement. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The presence of Slavic names does not suggest whatsoever that they were Slavs or necessarily mixed with Slavs (albeit some intermixing in this region should be expected). Pulaha (1974) and other scholars have covered this issue in detail and their arguments can be found online.

My point was precisely that Grča was not the father of Panta, but rather a figure named Llesh was Panta's father. Judging by similar toponyms found in the region in medieval documents and present times, such settlements inherited their founder's name, both first and second - of which the majority were patronyms. This being especially true for settlements founded by Albanians. Examples include Vuksanlekaj, Gjon Branka, Mensabardh/Melshabardh and others. I doubt that Pantalesh took its name from Panta and his son Llesh, especially since the Leshoviqi developed later from the community.

Which sources do you want to cite? Lezhjani1444 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The presence of Slavic names does not suggest whatsoever that they were Slavs or necessarily mixed with Slavs (albeit some intermixing in this region should be expected).

Well the Slavic names and culture didn't fall out of a sky, it had to come from somewhere. So there was definitely some mixing. But this begs the question, when did Kuči stop "being an Albanian tribe" and why? Where do you draw the line? Because the article itself doesn't state that the tribe is currently Albanian. So i am interested in what period did the tribe stop being Albanian and why is that? Where do you personally draw the line? Religion? Culture?

Because from what we can see, even back to the 14th century you can find slavic names, and even back to the 14th and 15th century you can find orthodoxy in the pre-tribe population, so while i agree that E-V13 is not a Slavic haplogroup, neither is I2 which is the most common in Yugoslavs, and haplogroup can't be used as an argument against slavic identity.

>My point was precisely that Grča was not the father of Panta, but rather a figure named Llesh was Panta's father. Judging by similar toponyms found in the region in medieval documents and present times, such settlements inherited their founder's name, both first and second - of which the majority were patronyms. This being especially true for settlements founded by Albanians. Examples include Vuksanlekaj, Gjon Branka, Mensabardh/Melshabardh and others. I doubt that Pantalesh took its name from Panta and his son Llesh, especially since the Leshoviqi developed later from the community.

That could be debatable, as we have no proof of Panto's father, but what we definitely know is that he had son names Llesh. I still prefer the Grča theory, as the name Grča is not really common in the ex-Yugoslav co

Btw, i am interested in the Albanian surname traditions, this has nothing to do with text, but in Montenegro and Serbia there was a long tradition of people using fathers name as the surname which can also be seen in the example of village of Kuč where there's a "Gjergj Nenada" where Nenada is genitive case which in serbo-croatian can either be Nenada or Nenadov. I am interested in the linguistic building of surnames in Albania during that period of time, if you have any sources on that that i could read i would really appreciate it.

>Which sources do you want to cite?

Институт славяноведения и балканистики (Российская академия наук) - Османская Империя и страны Централной, Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы в 17 в.. 2(2001) and Павле Ровински - Етнографија Црне Горе, том I (1998) NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Gjergj Nenada = Gjergj, son of Nenad similar to Lazër Nenada = Lazar son of Nenad. Symbiosis of Slavic and Albanian names is not uncommon in these areas, even among tribes which in general are not considered of Albanian origin like the Drobnjaks hence anthroponymy needs to be taken into consideration within its specific historical context.
  • It is WP:FORUM that this is still being discussed, but there seems to be a need to repeat some topics. The argument is not one about haplogroups. There is no argument which states Kuçi ~ E-V13 ~ Albanian. The Kuçi belong to a specific subclade of E-V13 which expanded with Albanian movements since the Middle Ages (E-BY168279), but this isn't explicitly discussed in the article because no papers have been published yet. It is certain that this subclade didn't exist in medieval Montenegro and it moved there only in the late Middle Ages from Albania. The same sub-branch (E-BY165837) as Kuçi includes Koja e Kuçit and the major Trieshi lineage and all of their upstream "cousins" are other Albanian lineages from further south in central Albania.
  • The proposed statement From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe. cannot be further inferred from the sources, nor can we assume that because Lale switched to Serbian Orthodox, all of Kuçi became immediately Serbian Orthodox, nor is this an argument for linguistic identity. Just a few years earlier, Bolizza in his report recorded them all as Of Roman rite are: 490 houses - Chuzzi Albanesi (Albanian Kuçi), commanded by Lale Drecalou (Lale Drekalov) and Nico Raizcou (Niko Rajckov) When some Kuçi brotherhoods settled in Plav-Gucia/Plav-Gusinje around 1700, they were certainly Albanian-speaking or bilingual, but not monolingual Slavic-speakers. This occurred about 80 years after Lale's conversion. Slavicization among the Orthodox Kuçi didn't happen in a single moment but probably lasted several centuries.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Gjergj Nenada - Gjergj, son of Nenad similar to Lazër Nenada - Lazar son of Nenad. Symbiosis of Slavic and Albanian names is not uncommon in these areas, even among tribes which in general are not considered of Albanian origin like the Drobnjaks hence anthroponymy needs to be taken into consideration within its specific historical context

  Didn't say anything against the symbiosis, just that the symbiosis itself is much, much older than the 15th/16th century.

  It is WP:FORUM that this is still being discussed, but there seems to be a need to repeat some topics. The argument is not one about haplogroups. There is no argument which states Kuçi ~ E-V13 ~ Albanian. The Kuçi belong to a specific subclade of E-V13 which expanded with Albanian movements since the Middle Ages (E-BY168279), but this isn't explicitly discussed in the article because no papers have been published yet. It is certain that this subclade didn't exist in medieval Montenegro and it moved there only in the late Middle Ages from Albania. The same sub-branch (E-BY165837) as Kuçi includes Koja e Kuçit and the major Trieshi lineage and all of their upstream "cousins" are other Albanian lineages from further south in central Albania.

  It's fine to discuss it. You can say E-BY1628279 is an illyrian or tracian or whatever the tribe was called that the haplogroup originates from, i couldn't care less. What's not for debate is that haplogroup, even when it's shared by others is not what defines your identity. Sure, you can say that it's shared with Koja e Kucit, or some North Albanian tribes, but the fact remains, identities are not built around haplogroups and that is definitely not for discussion.

  The proposed statement From then on, the Kuči predominantly identified as a Serbian Orthodox tribe. cannot be further inferred from the sources, nor can we assume that because Lale switched to Serbian Orthodox, all of Kuçi became immediately Serbian Orthodox, nor is this an argument for linguistic identity.

  Of course not, but that's the last written "large" change of religion in the tribe. Not a single Vojvoda after Lale changed religion, he is the last and probably the largest one that influenced tribe the most.

  Just a few years earlier, Bolizza in his report recorded them all as Of Roman rite are: 490 houses - Chuzzi Albanesi (Albanian Kuçi), commanded by Lale Drecalou (Lale Drekalov) and Nico Raizcou (Niko Rajckov)

  I would assume that's the Catholic part of the tribe. It's hard to know exactly how impactful Lale's change of religion was to that part of the tribe, but again, that's definitely the last time any big figure in the tribe had a change of religion.

  Just half a century later Antonio Vladagni writes to Vatican that in the tribe itself, other than in the region of Trieshi, Kuči are all schismatics and that there are 500 houses strongly opposed to the holy rite of the Vatican.

  So i assume that Lale had some impact on the tribe itself.

  As for the rest of the statement, i agree that the slavicization of the tribe lasted a long, long time, even before the tribe formed in the late 15th century, and i agree that many of the tribesman were bilingual, as the tribe itself was mixed. NekSeOvajVijekGordi (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  ALBANIANS CAN YOU PLEASE STOP STEALING OUR HISTORY 110.175.35.134 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)