Agreed, which is why I'm not bothered by his unqualified contributions. It's just noise. I also happen to agree that the Balkan "nucleus" was different to other LGD-friendly areas, if for no other reason, then the simple fact that the very region is a remarkably interesting place itself, especially for adventurous historians and independent thinkers. The crossroads. Whereas many other mountaintops in Europe had overgrown collies at the foundation for the mastiff infusion to make them mountain mastiffs, the proto-Shar and its cousins from the 'hood were mountain mastiffs already. But that is also a word that causes problems, since technically only the English Mastiff is a mastiff...But whatever, we use terms like dogmen, not like showies do. Anymutt, one would benefit from seeing history [u]in waves[/u] instead of retracing unreliable steps for neatly precise clues. Trends and migrations are what has influenced history and our understanding of it without most of us even realizing that because we have OUR times and OUR troubles tainting our perspective. And those things always come in waves. If we leave out, as we probably should, the inhuman/national aspects and focus on dogs as types, families and breeds as they relate to historical trends and migration patterns, some things ought to become clearer. A region is hit with a wave of people escaping from (or being transplanted from) some other region, they establish a society of theirs, thrive for a few decades or centuries and then another wave hits that same region and this brings a completely different culture with it, turning the area into a literal breeding ground for "the 3rd option", as it were. Then the region is hit with a trend which promotes one thing while annihilating all else, affecting every layer of society and each walk of life. And then another trend, another tragedy, another migration, another new beginning and so on and so forth. Where are the dogs in this picture? What are the dogs in this picture? When and who? If you want to know what had really happened or what was likely the case when data doesn't match up, occupy yourself with studying history in its broadest sense and waves of migrations and trends in the narrowest. Interested in a region?Learn that region's history, not just the national histories of the "tenants" and all that drivel. Follow the trends of invasions and migrations while looking at a map. Then "zoom in" on the specifics, understand them in context and zoom back out and follow logic. Too many get stuck on details which, while not always irrelevant, are almost exclusively growth-stoppers in terms of learning. Go fractal.