Ethnoreligious Atlas of Europe

[blogen]

<< According to the existing evidence, it should be considered seriously that, if Basque, Aquitanian and Iberian are related languages, as the latest discoveries seem to prove, these linguistic family came into the Iberian Peninsula with the Urnfield culture. >>
La cultura ibérica desde la perspectiva de la epigrafía (Jesús Rodríguez Ramos)

Sure interesting theory but I do not speak in Spanish. And there is a huge problem with this theory again: the Urnfield was Indoeuropean proto-Celtic culture presumably and the Iberian was not Indoeuropean language.

[Windischer]

Sot this was a transitional zone between the East and West Slavs and they were Orthodoxes. Then the map is good on this part.

they were partly (minority) orthodox, partly roman catholic. R-C bishopric of eger administered the area.

[Loki]

Brilliant work. Thread stuck.

[blogen]

Amazing maps. Look very realistic! Where did you find them?

From my Ethnoreligious Atlas of Europe, based on hundreds of publications and dozens of atlases and the known contemporary factual data and original reports without any political narrative. This is what the science know about the last two thousands of years of the population movements in Europe and the Mediterranean region.

Hungary appears like an ethnic block at 1250 AD, when in fact a LOT of Slavs still lived in Pannonian Plains, let alone the hills and mountains of Northern Hungary, which were entirely Moravian in language, as toponymy shows even today. So I suspect the map maker of Hungarian nationalism or pro-Hungarian feelings. Moreover, it shows Slavo-Romanians only in Carpathians which is realistic and supported by toponymy, but in Transylvania they appear as Slavic while outside they appear as Romanian. In reality, we this was one bilingual people, the ancestors of modern Romanians, which is why map at 1500 AD shows Romanians in exactly the same areas in Western Carpathians where "Slavs" are put at 1250 AD.

No, in the plains not. This was the situation even in the 11th century based on the topo- and hydronyms:

This is Kniezsa's map, he was ethnic Slovak Slavicist.

There was no Vlachs in Transylvania before the 13th century. Zero Vlach toponym, zero Vlach arhaeological remanis, basically nothing about the Vlachs.

Also looking at 1500 AD map, I find following issues:
- Silesia is portrayed as completely German, which is inaccurate. Even after massive Germanization policies during 19th century, the eastern third of the province was Polish by language as late as 1930s. At 1500 AD, the whole eastern half was Polish ethnically, which is why

- Eastern Pomerania (Kashubia) is shown as predominately German, which is very inaccurate. At 1500 AD, there were few Germans there, except in Danzig.

The Germanization of Silesia and Pomerania ended with the medieval, except Eastern Silesia. This was the situation:

- Moldavia is shown as entirely Romanian (except for Bugeac region). In reality, toponymy shows a significant Russian presence in North, especially between Prut and Dniestr, in modern Chernivtsi province @ Ukraine.

Not in the 15th century, but in the 13th century.

- Vallachia is shown as entirely Romanian. In reality at that time there were still a lot of Slavic speakers and ethnic border between Bulgarians and Romanians was far from set (there were lots of Slavic/Romance speakers on the "wrong" side of Danube)

The imaginary Slavic/Romance speakers were never existed. This is only a Romanian nationalist legend. The Slavs were Slavs.

So I find a pro-German and pro-Hungarian bias in these maps.

Your nationalism is your problem.

[Yuffayur]

[Text]

Good work bro, but you made some mistakes, eastern egypt and sinai were not arab speaker in AD, there is some mistake for northafrica, especially for religion tunisia were the first islamised country so they didn't conservate christianism, unlike kabyle, and there is a lot of shia in the saharan northafrican anyway It's a good idea and a good job

[Kazimiera]

subscribed

[aherne]

I made some maps on to an other topic once. This is the full atlas. Based on dozen other atlases, books, publications. And I made the classification of the civilizations with Spenglers's method.

0AD

Have you made those maps yourself?

[blogen]

Good work bro, but you made some mistakes, eastern egypt and sinai were not arab speaker in AD,

The local population were nomads since the Ancient times, and at this time they were the Nabatean Arabs.

there is some mistake for northafrica, especially for religion tunisia were the first islamised country so they didn't conservate christianism, unlike kabyle, and there is a lot of shia in the saharan northafrican anyway It's a good idea and a good job

We have continuous sources onto the Christian presence and the last Christians here were mostly Berbers. Here is their short story.

[blogen]

Have you made those maps yourself?

Yes, but only the visualization.

[aherne]

Yes, but only the visualization.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying you have assembled other sources into this map? This sounds like a monumental task, given the impressive accuracy of maps given.

I've tried to do a similar thing, so I can point you out some errors:
AD 0:
- you place Scythians and Kelts into half the areal of Dacians:

even though we can argue these areas were mixed, all historical evidence speaks of Dacians there (this must be once again your Hungarian supremacist agenda)
- you make pretty much the whole Sweden into Lapp territory. This is totally lucridous: culture, placenames, every single evidence shows that Gothland, Svealand and Southern Norway were totally Germanic and the birthplace of Germanics.
- you make Sardinia Ligurian speaking. Sardes were not Ligurian at all, but pre-"Indo-Europeans"
- the majority of Spain being Keltic is not very believable IMHO. With a great amount of Basque-like placenames throughout the peninsula (which may indeed have been passed from Iberians to Kelts and from Kelts to Romans), plus the fact that Castilian, Aragonese, Gascon have Basque substratum and Basque phonetic reflexes, it is more probable the areas were just under Keltic rule, but with a mostly Iberian-speaking population. Western Iberia, indeed, must have been Aryanized thoroughly when Romans came...
- you make Pannonians Kelts, although it is generally agreed they were Illyrians (at least originally), with Keltic and Scythian superstratum.