DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Zinfandel

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Good articleZinfandel has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 24, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Zinfandel (pictured) was grown for table grapes in Boston long before it made wine in California?
Current status: Good article

Why is Grgich omitted?

[edit]

After all, it was the owner of Grgich Hills who helped fund the study to identify Zinfandel - and I might say he produces a superior Zinfandel wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.67.225 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-29

Yes, I've had some excellent Zinfandels from Croatian wineries in California. I think, though, that financial contributors to a research effort aren't really relevant to this article, even if one of the contributors happens to make wine. More relevant would be a description of the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A New York Times Article on the origin

[edit]

This suggests that the origin of the grape if Dalmatia, the origin of the name is from Hungary, and the reasin is a mislabeling:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/02/garden/l-zinfandel-s-origins-390586.html

Timur lenk (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old comment, but it deserves a reply.
It's a letter to the editor, which we wouldn't be able to cite. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Improving structure and sourcing consistency regarding Kratošija (synonym of Zinfandel)

[edit]

Hello everyone, I’m a relatively new editor and prefer to work in consensus with experienced and objective editors. My intention is to help by making the article more complete and verifiable, while fully respecting Wikipedia’s core policies — WP:NPOV and WP:V.

While reading through the Zinfandel page, I have noticed a few areas that could (or should) be improved with additional reliable sources — especially newer peer-reviewed studies and well-documented historical materials. This addition is in line with WP:CSB.

Since the Zinfandel article already presents the Croatian and Italian aspects in detail, there are also peer-reviewed and historical references that document Kratošija (Kra-tosh-ee-ah) — the Montenegrin grape variety which is confirmed by DNA studies to represent the same cultivar as Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag. Knowing the significance of the Kratošija name and its connection to the Zinfandel story, as well as the importance of new scientific findings that support historical records, I believe this information deserves inclusion — supported strictly by reliable sources.

Another subject I would like to point out is the matter connected with the structure itself in the “Distribution and wines” section. I have noticed inconsistency between the title and the accompanying text. I also noticed that both the historical reference to “Cratosia” and the genetic identification of Kratošija currently appear in this section. These details don’t actually relate to that section, which focuses mainly on modern wine production, vineyards, and the types of wines produced across regions (California, Italy, Croatia, etc.).

Montenegro is currently listed under “Other regions” with non-specific data, and the content there refers more to historical documentation (not entirely accurate) and DNA research than to actual vineyards and wine production. Finally, the current title “Distribution and wines” might also be reconsidered, since it primarily evokes commercial distribution and, to be honest, may not fully match the content that follows (wine regions, vineyards, and the descriptions of wines). Perhaps a title like “Vineyard regions and wine” or “Zinfandel wine regions and wine characteristics” could fit better — though of course that should be open for discussion and consensus.

Therefore, for better logical flow and accuracy, and considering the significance of Kratošija, it might make sense to:

  • Move Kratošija out of the “Other regions” section and assign a separate subsection.

Kratošija is the most important and indigenous Montenegrin grape variety, accounting for around 90% of the vineyards in the Skadar Lake Basin region, although it is present across all viticultural areas of Montenegro. Numerous scientific papers (verified data and references are available), as well as the renowned wine writer Jancis Robinson, also confirm this. On her educational website Terroirs du Monde Education, it is stated, among other things, that: “Kratošija is the main and probably the oldest Montenegrin variety. The grape variety is dominant in all vineyards older than 60–70 years. Furthermore, it often represents about 90% of the grape varieties in the Skadar subregion, and is even more prevalent in the coastal area.”

  • Second, move the historical note about Kratošija to the “History” section (with appropriate, verified and verifiable references, along with a suitable brief explanation, since those are not fully correct). I will return to this subject as a separate issue later. Also, in this section, add appropriate data that belong, in terms of meaning, to this section.
  • And third, move (integrate) the DNA identification of Kratošija into the section “Relationship with Primitivo, Crljenak Kaštelanski and Tribidrag," with reference examples:

- Calò, Antonio; Costacurta, Angelo; Maraš, Vesna; Meneghetti, Stefano; Crespan, Manna (2008). "Molecular correlation of Zinfandel (Primitivo) with Austrian, Croatian, and Hungarian cultivars and Kratošija, an additional synonym." American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59 (2): 121–127. [1] - Maraš, V.; Popović, T.; Gazivoda, A.; Raičević, J.; Kodžulović, V.; Mugoša, M.; Šućur, S. (2015). "Origin and characterization of Montenegrin grapevine varieties." [2] Several other reliable DNA sources also exist, which will be addressed later on the talk page.

These adjustments would improve structure and factual consistency while adding verifiable and scientifically supported context. If editors find this relevant, I can provide full reference details, original quotes, and short example wording for each section so we can review and refine it together.

I’d prefer to start gradually and work toward consensus, inviting feedback from neutral editors interested in the subject. My only goal is to support a balanced, well-sourced, and verifiable presentation of this topic, in line with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards. I believe that for any content, the type of source is of crucial importance. You know, a newspaper article — no matter how reputable it may be — just can’t really be compared to a scientific paper, a doctoral dissertation, or experimentally verified research. For Wikipedia, such sources are far more reliable and should not be overlooked, ignored, or omitted in any way, as this seriously affects the accuracy and verifiability of the article. And of course, science moves forward and new discoveries are constantly emerging… We have to stay in line with that. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that.

With sincere respect and appreciation for your work.

@Jonesey95, Liz, Agne27, and Bethling: – pinging neutral editors and a few active contributors who might be interested; your input would be welcome if you have time. — VitisArchivum (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Follow-up (10 November 2025):


Proposal: Inclusion of verified historical and ampelographic sources on Kratošija (Montenegrin synonym of Zinfandel/Tribidrag)

[edit]

I propose adding this historical subsection to provide sourced documentation from Montenegrin, Italian, international and regional ampelographic sources — confirming the independent historical record of Kratošija (the Montenegrin synonym of Zinfandel/Tribidrag) in the Statuta civitatis Buduae (Budva Statutes, 1426–1442) and subsequent scientific references.

These sources collectively show a clear line of continuity between early regional documentation (Budva Statutes, Ljubić 1882) and modern genetic studies (Calò et al. 2008; Maraš et al. 2019; Tello et al. 2020, La Rioja Institute). The purpose is not to replace existing content in the "Origin and history" section, but to complement it by incorporating verified archival, regional, and molecular evidence in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Summary and context:

The table below outlines a continuous line of verifiable research — from medieval documentary sources to modern molecular studies — all converging on the same conclusion: that Kratošija, the Montenegrin synonym of Zinfandel/Tribidrag, has been cultivated in Montenegro since antiquity and later spread northward along the Adriatic coast.

Importantly, these findings were reached independently by several research teams from Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Italy, and Spain, which reinforces their neutrality and verifiability.

Acknowledging this continuity in the Zinfandel article would not replace existing references, but complement them — ensuring that the History section accurately reflects the full geographic and scientific scope of the evidence.

For clarity and ease of verification, the detailed sources are listed in the table below.



Scope Source Key information
Primary (historical) Ljubić, Šime (1882). Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum Meridionalium. Pars I: Statuta et leges. Vol. III: Civitatis Buduae, civitatis Scardonae, et civitatis et insulae Lesinae. Zagreb: JAZU, pp. 185, 612. Croatian historian and archivist Šime Ljubić produced the authoritative Latin transcription of the Medieval Statuta civitatis Buduae.
  • p. 612 contains the note: “Cratosia. Vigna de cratosia … Kratošija ora uva e vino nero nel Montenero”.
  • p. 185 includes the Venetian confirmation dated 1 August 1442.
Primary (historical reprint) Luketić, S. & Bujuklić, A. (eds.) (1988). Budvanski statut (Statuta civitatis Buduae, 1426–1442). Budva: Skupština opštine Budva, p. 144. PDF Modern Montenegrin edition that **reprints Ljubić’s 1882 Latin–Italian text**, including:
  • Cap. CCLXI. DE VIGNE DE CRATOSIA
  • “Ordinemo⁽⁴⁾, che qualunque nostro cittadino desse vigna cratosia a lavorar a mezzo…”
Secondary (ampelographic) Bulić, S. (1949). Dalmatinska ampelografija. Zagreb: PNV, **pp. 110–115**. Describes Kratošija (synonyms: Gartošija, Grakošija, Kratkošija) in **nine coastal districts of Montenegro**. Rare in Dalmatia → likely spread **from Montenegro**.

Cited in Terroirs du Monde Education and several modern studies (e.g., Maraš 2019).

Secondary (ampelographic) Ulićević, M. (1959). Prilog rejonizaciji vinogradarstva u Crnoj Gori. Naša poljoprivreda i šumarstvo (2/V), pp. 70–74. PDF Identifies Kratošija as the **principal and oldest Montenegrin grape variety**, dominant for >70 years (up to 90%).

States that Zinfandel is identical to Kratošija and may originate from Montenegro.Used as one of core reference in Terroirs du Monde Education.

Yugoslav period works Stojanović (1929) — Link;

Pejović (1988) — Link; Burić (1995) — Link; Maraš (2000) — Link Link;

All identify **Kratošija and Vranac** as **autochthonous Montenegrin varieties**, cultivated only in Montenegro before spreading to Macedonia and Dalmatia.

These were neutral, independent studies, togather with Bulić (1949) and Ulićević (1959, 1966), conducted before the discovery of the connection to Zinfandel and long before DNA markers existed—so there is no bias or retroactive reconstruction.

Molecular correlation Calò, A.; Costacurta, A.; Maraš, V.; Meneghetti, S.; Crespan, M. (2008). AJEV 59(2):121–127. DOI Confirms Kratošija shares identical DNA with Zinfandel/Primitivo.
Genetic diversity (Montenegro) Crespan, M.; Giannetto, S.; Maraš, V. (2014). Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin 48(2):119–127. DOI Shows extremely high **genetic polymorphism** and ancient heterogeneity of Kratošija.

Proposes Montenegro as the **origin and dissemination center** of the Zinfandel group.

International collaboration Tello, J.; García-Escudero, E.; Ibáñez, J.; Ocete, R.; Popović, T.; Gazivoda, A.; Mugoša, M.; Maraš, V. (2020). Scientific Reports 10(15000). DOI Joint Montenegro–La Rioja (ICVV) project.

Joint research between Montenegrin ampelographers and the Institute of Grapevine and Wine Sciences (ICVV, La Rioja, Spain). Confirms Kratošija as the one of the oldest Balkan varieties, In line with their results and the documented evidence, they support the hypothesis that Kratošija may have originated somewhere in Montenegro, which is consistent with previous findings.Confirms Kratošija as a **parent of Vranac**.

Italian national ampelography Scienza, A.; Del Zan, F.; Failla, O. (2009). La vite e l’uomo. MIPAAF–CRA, pp. 686–687. Describes Kratošija as Montenegrin local grape, cultivated since antique times; linked to monastic viticultural heritage; part of Proba plantela communia.
Regional continuity in the scientific literature Maraš, V. (2019). “Ampelographic and Genetic Characterization of Montenegrin Grapevine Varieties.” In: Advances in Grape and Wine Biotechnology. DOI Cites **all earlier Yugoslav authors** (1929–2004) identifying Kratošija and Vranac as **autochthonous Montenegrin varieties**, cultivated only in Montenegro before regional spread.

Provides continuity between early ampelography and modern DNA findings.

Tertiary synthesis (expanded) Terroirs du Monde Education — “Kratošija” profile Comprehensive synthesis of historical, morphological, and genetic evidence:

"Montenegro claims that the first mention of the Montenegrin grape variety Kratošija, identified in 2008 as identical to the variety Tribidrag (Calò, 2008), appears in the statutes of the medieval town of Budva (Luketić & Bujuklić, 1988), dated 1426–1442, originally published in Latin and later translated into Italian. The text was written during the reign of Emperor Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (July 26, 1308 – December 20, 1355) in the 14th century and contains references to the ruler. The original no longer exists, but it was translated into Italian by the Venetian authorities in the early 15th century (they ruled the city from 1442 onward). The document mentions the vineyards of Kratošija, indicating the importance of the variety in Budva (Montenegro) at that time."

"The Kratošija variety shows significant genetic polymorphism in Montenegro, with a very heterogeneous population. The greater the genetic polymorphism, the older the variety is considered to be — which is one of the main arguments supporting the identification of its origin."

"The exceptionally heterogeneous population, the large number of biotypes, the high rate of viral infections, and the wide presence of this grape variety in all wine-growing regions of Montenegro are indicators of a long tradition of its cultivation in the country — and perhaps of its heritage status. Because, beyond the question of the variety’s origin, there is also a significant media impact, which could place Montenegro at the center of attention if it were ultimately confirmed as the country of origin of this globally important variety in the long-standing “search for parentage” of grape varieties."

Summarizes Yugoslav-era consensus (1929–2004): Kratošija is **autochthonous Montenegrin**, concentrated historically in Montenegro before spreading to Macedonia and Dalmatia. Highlights Bulić (1949) and Ulićević (1959, 1966) as key pre-genetic authorities.

VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial note:
It is important to clarify that the studies cited above, In the Yugoslav period works section, together with Bulić, S. (1949) and Ulićević, M. (1959), were classical ampelographic investigations carried out throughout the 20th century. At that time, the origin of Kratošija was not being researched in connection with Zinfandel—the relationship between these varieties had not yet been discovered, nor was it a subject of inquiry. The research was conducted within the established framework of ampelography, based on field observation, morphology, local viticultural practices, and available historical records. DNA markers did not yet exist, and the later international interest in the Zinfandel question was entirely unknown to the researchers of that period. VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For this reason, the conclusions reached by authors such as Ulićević, Bulić, Pejović, Burić, Božinovik, and others were formed independently, without any possibility of bias or agenda. Despite coming from different republics of the former Yugoslavia — Montenegro, Croatia, North Macedonia, Serbia — they all documented the same pattern: that Kratošija was a long-established, autochthonous Montenegrin variety which subsequently spread regionally.
What makes this especially relevant today is that modern DNA research has confirmed these earlier, fully independent ampelographic findings. This note is offered solely as contextual clarification — a chronological link between verified sources from different periods, all of which converge on the same conclusion.
(This is my own contextual addition, not a citation — a chronological bridge between verified sources from different periods, all of which support the same conclusion.) VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional historical excerpts and contextual notes (full quotes)

Additional historical excerpts and contextual notes

[edit]

(Note: All available URLs and access points for the printed ampelographic works and archival editions cited below are already listed in the reference table above. Many of these sources do not exist in digital form, so full bibliographic citations are provided instead of direct links.)

Below is a set of historical excerpts and explanatory notes related to the Budva Statute (1426–1442) and the early documentation of the name Cratosia / Kratošija. All quotations are reproduced exactly as published in the cited editions.

Citation from Šime Ljubić (1882), p. 612

Ljubić, Šime (1882). Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum Meridionalium. Pars I: Statuta et leges. Vol. III: Civitatis Buduae, civitatis Scardonae, et civitatis et insulae Lesinae. Zagreb: JAZU, p. 612.

Quotation: "Cratosia. Vigna de cratosia, forse di costa. Cratens, secondo du Cange, vale magro e sottile, 261. Kratošija ora uva e vino nero nel Montenero."

This is the earliest published scholarly transcription linking the word “Cratosia” to vineyards (“vigna”) and to “black wine of Montenegro” in the Budva Statute tradition. So far, Ljubić’s edition serves as the foundation for all later studies that reference the medieval Budva Statute.

Excerpt from Šime Ljubić’s book, cited at montenegrina.net

“…The first written confirmation of the Statute, that is, of the then laws of Budva, dates from the time of the Despotate, under Despot Đurađ Branković. Based on this confirmation, the Statute was later recognized by the Venetian Republic, in the following manner. On August 1, 1442, an agreement was reached in Kotor between the Venetian representatives and the citizens of Budva, according to which the Venetian Republic accepted the people of Budva as its subjects and granted them all the privileges they had enjoyed under Despot Đurađ Branković [...]”

(Please note the remark in the last sentence):

“…Scritta VI mille, VIII cento, XVIII del mese di april di 6 in Budua.”

According to the Byzantine (Anno Mundi) calendar — which begins in 5508 BC and reckons the new year from 1 September — the notation “year 6818” roughly corresponds to AD 1309/1310 (depending on the month) (see Byzantine calendar). For the purposes of the article, the conventional date of 1442 (Venetian agreement and subsequent Latin translation) is retained.

Citation from “Medieval Statute of Budva” (Luketić & Bujuklić, 1988), p. 144

“CAP. CCLXI. DE VIGNE DE CRATOSIA.”

“Ordinemo⁽⁴⁾, che qualunque nostro cittadino desse vigna cratosia a lavorar a mezzo, che colui, che la torrà, sia tenuto per mezzo⁽⁵⁾ il mese di marzo d’ararla et scavarlа [...] Et chi facesse il contrario, paghi di pena perperi 4...”

This chapter contains the earliest preserved legal reference to “vigne de Cratosia” in medieval Budva.

From the Italian national ampelographic reference (Scienza et al., 2009, pp. 686–687)

"Secondo la pubblicazione ampelografica nazionale italiana La vite e l’uomo – dal rompicapo delle origini al salvataggio delle reliquie (Scienza et al., 2009, pp. 686–687), la Kratošija è descritta come una varietà locale montenegrina, tradizionalmente coltivata fin dai tempi antichi e associata al patrimonio viticolo dei possedimenti monastici.

La stessa fonte riporta che faceva parte della Proba plantela communia (Negul, op. cit.), un termine che si riferisce alle prime piantagioni viticole comunitarie del Montenegro.

Tale indicazione conferma la continuità storica della varietà Kratošija nella regione, indipendentemente dalle successive identificazioni genetiche con le varietà Zinfandel, Primitivo e Tribidrag."


This provides an Italian external confirmation of Kratošija’s long-term historical presence and viticultural continuity in Montenegro.

From the Dalmatian ampelographer Stjepan (Mihovil) Bulić (1949), pp. 110–115

“Kratošija — also known as Gartošija, Grakošija, and Kratkošija — was widely cultivated along the Montenegrin coast (Budva, Grbalj, Luštica, Krtole, Kotor, Paštrovići, Prčanj, Tivat, Herceg Novi) and rarely found in Dalmatia, suggesting that the variety probably spread from Montenegro.”

From Ulićević (1959)

“Kratošija is almost equally important as Vranac. It dominated Montenegrin vineyards for over 70 years and often accounted for 90% of the assortment. It is therefore the main and probably the oldest Montenegrin grape variety. Ulićević (1959) also stated that Californian Zinfandel is identical to Kratošija and likely originated in Montenegro, exported by Montenegrin emigrants.”

From Crespan et al. (2014)

“All authors from the former Yugoslavia reported Vranac and Kratošija as Montenegrin autochthonous grapevine varieties.Moreover, they stated that Vranac and Kratošija were grown only in Montenegro. From Montenegro, these varieties spread to Macedonia and Dalmatia. […] Kratošija shows high genetic heterogeneity and several biotypes, indicating a very old origin.”

From Maraš (2019)

“Montenegro is a small country on the Balkan Peninsula with a long tradition of grapevine growing dating back before the Roman period. […] One of the oldest written documents that points out the importance of grapevine cultivation and autochthonous varieties on the territory of today’s Montenegro is the Medieval Budva Statute from the fifteenth century.”

“The earliest mention of the Montenegrin variety Kratošija is found in the Medieval Statute of Budva [14] in the fifteenth century (1426–1431). It specifically refers to the ‘vineyards of Kratošija,’ indicating the importance of this variety at that time in Budva (Montenegro). The Dalmatian ampelographer Bulić [17] described Kratošija (taking into account its synonyms Gartošija, Grakošija, and Kratkošija) from nine municipalities of the Montenegrin coast (Budva, Grbalj, Luštica, Krtole, Kotor, Paštrovići, Prčanj, Tivat, and Herceg Novi). Moreover, the author noted that this variety was rarely found in Dalmatia, where it had likely spread from Montenegro.”

“Ulićević (1959) states that Kratošija is almost as important as Vranac. In the same paper he writes that Kratošija dominated Montenegrin vineyards for more than 70 years and often accounted for 90% of the varietal composition. Therefore, Kratošija is the principal and probably the oldest Montenegrin grapevine variety. Ulićević (1959) also asserts that California Zinfandel is identical to Kratošija and that Zinfandel likely originates from Montenegro, having been exported by Montenegrin emigrants."

My non-quote (editor’s) note: (After the sentencefrom the quote“ Ulićević (1959) claims that the Californian Zinfandel is identical to Kratošija and that Zinfandel probably originates from Montenegro, having been exported by Montenegrin emigrants“, me, as an editor, believe it is interesting to note here that - Montenegro is a small country in the Balkan Penisula, that lies on the Adriatic Sea, directly across from the Italian region of Puglia , also known for Primitivo, when it comes to the world of wine. The city of Bari in Italy lies directly across the sea from the town of Bar in Montenegro, a town that is mentioned in the Medieval Statute of Budva …For years, there was direct boat- line Bar-Bari…)

From Telo et al. (2020)

“Wine production continued during the Byzantine period, and documents such as the Medieval Statute of Budva reflect the importance of viticulture in Montenegro during the Middle Ages. The Statute, dated between 1426 and 1442, highlights the relevance of certain grape varieties for local wine production, such as the variety ‘Cratosia,’ which most likely refers to the grape variety known today as Kratošija (which in Montenegrin means ‘short neck’).”

“… “The use of nuclear DNA markers, mainly microsatellites (or simple sequence repeats, SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), has greatly contributed to the identification of grapevine varieties“…”

“The most frequently found genotype among 419 grapevine samples corresponded to the variety Kratošija, which was identified 106 times, followed by Vranac (76), Lisica (35), Razaklija (27), Krstač (22), and Bioka (8).”

“. […] The results indicate the leading role of Razaklija and Kratošija in generating the diversity of Montenegrin grapevine varieties, as they are included as ancestors in 14 and 12 pedigrees, respectively.”

Although I am aware that this contribution is unusually long for a talk page — and although many more details could be added — I believe that this overview was necessary. In accordance with everything presented above, I would now like to propose an amendment to the History section. Immediately after the Tribidrag citation (although it could also be placed above), I propose inserting the following text:

Proposed variant A

[edit]

While the sources currently cited in the Zinfandel article represent an important stage in the research history, many predate the broader wave of international DNA studies published after 2000. Since then, several collaborative research projects — including work by the University of La Rioja (Spain), the University of Montenegro, the University of Zagreb, and other European ampelographic centres — have provided additional historical and molecular data relevant to the variety known regionally as Kratošija.

One earlier historical reference appears in the Budva Statutes (1426–1442), published by Šime Ljubić (1882), where the term Cratosia is associated with vineyards and “black wine” in medieval Montenegro. This record, together with its modern reprint (Luketić & Bujuklić, 1988), is part of local documentation surrounding the historical presence of the variety under the Montenegrin name Kratošija.

Throughout the 20th century, several ampelographic works from the former Yugoslavia — including those by Ulićević (1959; 1966), Pejović (1988), Burić (1995), Božinovik (1996), and Maraš (2000; 2004) — described Kratošija’s long-standing cultivation, the presence of multiple biotypes, and its distribution across Montenegrin wine-growing regions. Dalmatian ampelographer S. Bulić (1949) also documented the variety (and its synonyms: Gartošija, Grakošija, Kratkošija) in nine coastal municipalities of Montenegro, noting that it was “rarely found in Dalmatia”. His work has subsequently been cited in modern ampelographic and genetic literature, including Maraš et al. and the tertiary source Terroirs du Monde Education.

These regional studies — while morphological in nature and predating genetic tools — form a continuous body of literature that later DNA analyses helped contextualise. Modern molecular studies (e.g., Calò et al. 2008; Crespan et al. 2014; Tello et al. 2020) demonstrated the genetic equivalence of Kratošija = Tribidrag = Zinfandel, allowing earlier regional historical records to be re-evaluated within a broader genetic framework.

This broader perspective, now reflected across both historical and contemporary scientific sources, does not contradict the material already presented in the article; rather, it complements it by showing how regional historical documentation and modern DNA studies together contribute to a fuller understanding of the variety’s complex history. Incorporating this material in an appropriate section (e.g., “History” or “Origin and historical documentation”) would help ensure that the article reflects the complete scope of verifiable scholarship. VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Version B

[edit]

In addition to the Dalmatian records of Tribidrag, several regional and international research initiatives have pointed to the long-documented presence of the same genetic variety under the name Kratošija in Montenegro. The variety is referenced in the medieval *Statuta civitatis Buduae* (1426–1442), published in the Latin edition of Šime Ljubić (1882) and reproduced in the modern Montenegrin critical edition by Luketić & Bujuklić (1988), where vineyards of “vigne de Cratosia” are explicitly mentioned. This constitutes an independent archival record predating the modern debate surrounding Zinfandel’s identity.

Moreover, a broad body of 20th-century Yugoslav ampelographic literature — spanning authors from Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, and North Macedonia — consistently described Kratošija as an autochthonous Montenegrin variety and suggested that it likely spread from Montenegro into neighbouring regions such as Dalmatia and Macedonia.These earlier conclusions have since been supported by modern genetic surveys (Calò et al. 2008; Crespan et al. 2014; Maraš 2019; Tello et al. 2020), which report that Montenegro preserves the most heterogeneous and polymorphic populations of this grape, a pattern considered consistent with long-term local cultivation and subsequent outward dissemination. VitisArchivum (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: Jonesey95, Liz, Agne27, Bethling — any thoughts are welcome, if you have a moment.


Clarification – Budva and Venetian administration

[edit]

DalidaEditor – Just to clarify, Budva was never part of Venetian Dalmatia, but belonged to the Venetian Republic (Repubblica di Venezia) as one of several coastal communes on the territory of present-day Montenegro — together with Kotor, Bar, Ulcinj, and Perast. The Statuta civitatis Buduae originated during the period of Zeta’s rulers from the Balšić and Branković dynasties, reflecting the legal environment established under Emperor Dušan. When the Venetian authorities took control in the early 15th century, the statute was translated and revised, preserving many of its original clauses while adding new administrative provisions consistent with Venetian law. Just to add a brief clarification on dating: the year 1700 refers only to the date of the surviving Venetian copy; the statute text itself contains internal references to earlier dates, which Šime Ljubić also reproduces in his 1882 edition, placing it in the 1426–1442 period rather than in 1700.

This clarification is factual and based on verifiable historical sources (per WP:V and WP:NPOV).

Note on process (WP:BRD / WP:CONSENSUS)

This is the second factual correction (first regarding the Statuta Buduae date, and now the Venetian Dalmatia attribution). To avoid any risk of edit warring, and to maintain verifiability and neutrality (per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS), I suggest that all substantial future edits, be proposed here, on the Talk page first, so we can reach agreement before updating the article.

I’m assuming good faith and I’m open to any additional reliable sources or discussion.

I would also welcome input from other editors, so that we can reach a stable and broadly supported wording.

VitisArchivum (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation note – History subsection update

[edit]

For transparency: I have now added the previously proposed History paragraph (Variant B) to the article, as outlined earlier on this Talk page. Since no objections were raised, I proceeded under consensus by silence (WP:CONSENSUS).

The updated History section can be seen in the current revision of the article here: link. I accidentally omitted the edit summary when publishing; the later small edit only removed the remaining earlier sentence so that the new paragraph fully replaces it.

VitisArchivum (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted. I have missed the talk page discussion, otherwise I would have objected earlier to including AI-generated content such as you proposed, and then added. Not only that, but you have compounded the problem by using an AI to substitute for your own personal communication.
It's fine to use an AI to help you find sources, but Wikipedia isn't interested in including AI-generated content. There are alternative wikis for that, such as Grokipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violations

[edit]

Hi VitisArchivum,

I have noticed you mentioned me above on talkpage so I would like to clarify few things:

  • your recent edits for Zinfandel [3] are WP:TE.
  • you recently created Kratošija article, citing Serbian Wikipedia as your primary source [4]. I redirected that article per WP:POVFORK. After you reported it as an incident [5], the redirect was approved.
  • you uploaded an image of a text snippet on commons as “File:Excerpt from the Medieval Statute of Budva, page 144.png”[6] with false informations in description (name itself, autor being anonymous, date being 1442) and providing a source link to PDF on montenegrina.net. The PDF is of a 1988 book that is a Serbian language translate of a primary source multi-volume book Monumenta Slavorum. The 1988 book literally rips out from Monumenta solely the part with Budva statute, scan-pasting the pages, and adds an introduction with point of view centered on medieval Serbian kings.
I redid the file page adding real book source, authors, year and changed misleading name into “File:Excerpt from 1882–3 transcript of Statuto di Budua from 1700.png”[7]. The source I provided is University of Innsbruck digital librairy containing full file of this Monumenta Slavorum volume
  • The earliest, digitally alvailable, mention of Kratošija vine is as “Cratosia” in transcript of statue of Budva, coming from the above mentioned and linked Monumenta Slavorum volume, authored by JAZU and Šime Ljubić and issued in Zagreb in 1882-3.
As stated in the foreword of Monumenta, the part with Budva statute is transcribed from a manuscript from 1700 (kept in Library of Saint Mark in Venice, under signature: MSS. Ital. cl. II. n. 37.) since it was the oldest known. That makes the manuscript oldest known mention of Cratosia, but it’s not digitally alvailable.
The year 1442, that you misleadingly indicate, is when Budva fell under Venetian rule, recieved it’s privileges and it’s first potestate was installed, which is documented in statute and adjointing documents, all transcribed in Monumenta. This information, as well as that the manuscript from 1700 is basis for Monumenta, was acknowledged in Serbian translation in it’s own words.
  • The first genetic research that proposes Montenegro, the only country where name Kratošija is used, as the best candidate country for the origin and spreading centre of Zinfandel is this [8]. It is from 2013-14.

With all my respect but it seems to me that you are trying to build up a nonexistent story. Dalida Editor please ping or message me 21:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged and asked to take a look at this. The latest additions were low quality and poorly sourced. The newbie may have a point, and this could be useful for the article, but to be included in wiki-voice it needs to be written and sourced much more carefully. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what exact point do you imply? Dalida Editor please ping or message me 14:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sadko,
Thank you for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate you noting that the edits I proposed could be potentially useful for the article. I understand the concerns about wiki-voice and sourcing and will try to address them more carefully. VitisArchivum (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Response to DalidaEditor: clarifications, sources, and proposed article changes

[edit]
Hi @DalidaEditor:
I am replying to your comments from 17 November below.
I can see that you have addressed this issue with the title “NPOV violation”, which is completely unfounded. “Violation“? The first and most important proof, of non violations , is that I have not made a single edit to the Zinfandel article, not even a minor one, without first posting it on Talk:Zinfandel page as a proposal, after the sitiation on Kratošija artilce. Did you do the same? And I waited a reasonable amount of time, around 7 days, for consensus to be reached. You didn`t react. Second point is that titles on talk pages should remain descriptive and neutral WP:TALK, WP:NPOV . I would prefer that we handle this in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, focusing on the sources and wording rather than on speculations about each other's intentions. I will respond to each of your points with reference to the relevant sources and policies.
In addition, several more comments, contained personal accusations (for example, implying that I am imposing my own point of view, or assumption that my intention comes from bad motives). This is inappropriate and falls under the principles of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please focus on the content and the sources, and not on attributing motives, which is quite tendentious. I strongly prefer avoiding escalation between editors. I am fully prepared to continue this discussion in a calm, policy-based way.
I would like to respond to the previous comments.
You said: "Your recent edits to Zinfandel [3] su WP:TE". On what basis did you write this? Which part exactly do you mean when you say this?
This edit cannot be called a “violation” of any WP policy, but your reaction to each of my edits, undoubtedly resembles a violation of WP:OWN. The repeated removal of my contributions with the cited sources, the immediate reverting of changes, without substantive explanation (and now, also, with inaccuracies in the explanations), and the lack of engagement on this Talk page, before editing the main article (you were invited to the Talk page, before the text was published, with enough time to give your opinion, instead of waiting for it to be published, and only then reacting).
Editors should not control or dominate an article, and discussion is necessary when they disagree with contributions, made in good faith.
Besides that, honestly, the current text, on the other hand, regardless of when it dates from, contains serious characteristics of WP:TE in the part about the origin and history of the variety, as only one regional perspective is currently represented. It neglects a large number of reliable primary and secondary sources. In particular, the current “Croatia-only” framing of the origin is difficult to justify, especially, under WP:WEIGHT, given the range of high-quality sources that also discuss Montenegro (especially under the traditional name Kratošija), as a central historical area for this variety.
This imbalance should be addressed per WP:NPOV.
Your next point:
"You recently created Kratošija article, citing Serbian Wikipedia as your primary source [4]. I redirected that article per WP:POVFORK. After you reported it as an incident [5], the redirect was approved".
It was not my intention to open the topic “Kratošija” for now, because it requires special attention and that topic is by no means closed; it will be addressed with great care, but it is separate from the Zinfandel article edits. However, since you already mentioned it, I will clarify: The article Kratošija was redirected unilaterally, without consensus and without discussion, without giving time (not even a day), nor an opportunity for discussion, which was noticed by the respected editor Liz. [9]
One might now ask what the reason is for raising the topic of the Kratošija article on the Talk:Zinfandel, now? I was supposed to raise it here, but I left it for latter, because , simultaneously there are removals of all mentions of Kratošija in Zinfandel article: the name “Kratošija” from the sentence where the synonyms are listed, from the infobox ("Also called"), from the regions section ("Montenegro"), and the "Notes" section, without explanation.
The intention of every editor should be in accordance with WP:AGF. What we are here for, is to improve the Zinfandel text with many reliable and verified and peer- reviewed sources, avoiding any form of misleading.
Furthermore, the claim that I am “citing the Serbian Wikipedia as a primary source” is simply incorrect. As some kind of “proof”, a link to a Sandbox , of an invisible and inaccessible Kratošija article was provided, although a sandbox is not a source and cannot be used as evidence for sourcing claims, thereby indirectly mischaracterizing me, which is not in accordance with WP:AGF.
First, I am fully aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a primary or secondary source. I wrote both, the English and Serbian versions of the Kratošija article myself. It is based entirely on scholarly literature. All sources in these articles were carefully selected and cited. Several of these peer-reviewed and historically significant references are also listed in the table on Talk:Zinfandel. Some more will be added in the future. A userspace draft is not a source, and neither Serbian Wikipedia, nor my sandbox has ever been cited as a source in the article. The Serbian article is only mentioned, to indicate that the topic has an entry there. The claim that it served as a primary source is not accurate.
It is also unclear why the text in the Kratošija`s sandbox, which has been practically invisible for months, and which was last edited by me on 18 September, (and has never been the main version of the article, it was practically invisible) , was edited by @Inertia6084: on 16 November, one day before @DalidaEditor:’s response on the Zinfandel talk page (17 November), on the same topic — the Statute of Budva? [12]
Your next point:
"you uploaded an image of a text snippet on commons as “File:Excerpt from the Medieval Statute of Budva, page 144.png”[6] with false informations in description (name itself, autor being anonymous, date being 1442) and providing a source link to PDF on montenegrina.net. The PDF is of a 1988 book that is a Serbian language translation of a primary source multi-volume book Monumenta Slavorum. The 1988 book literally rips out from Monumenta solely the part with Budva statute, scan-pasting the pages, and adds an introduction with point of view centered on medieval Serbian kings"
Even though this is not related to the Zinfandel article subject, I will clarify: What I added was not “false information.“ The Statute is in that edition in Latin and translated into Montenegrin, with preface in Montenegrin, published by the Historical Archive of Budva, preserved in the "Annals of Budva" Library. The "point of view centered on medieval Serbian kings" is with justified reason. Even though the term “kings” is also terminologically inaccurate here, because not all of them were kings; the rulers held various titles— Tsars,emperors, despots etc. The Statute has achieved scholarly consensus, regardless of which edition it appears in, because it is in accordance with Monumenta Slavorum and is a critical commentary on it, which means that it is a reliable secondary source. In it, through the text, referenced authors are: Šime Ljubić, Statuta et leges civitatis Buduae, civitatis Scardonae, et civitatis et insulae Lesinae. Zagrabiae, 1882–1883. (Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 3) [13], Jireček, Konstantin — , "Das Gesetzbuch des serbischen Caren Stephan Dušan", Archiv für slavische Philologie 22 (1900): 144–214, at p. 155. (Access (viewer): [14] Access (PDF): [15]
Ilija Sindik (1957). “Odnos grada Budve prema vladarima iz dinastije Nemanjića” (“The relationship of the town of Budva toward the rulers of the Nemanjić dynasty”) (in Serbian). Historical Journal, VII: 23–36. Istorijski institut SAN (Serbian Academy of Sciences). ^
Therefore, there is nothing incorrect in the description of the image. It could be technically improved in the data, and there are good-faith editors who can help with that. I was not describing the year of one of copys of manuscript, but the Statute itself.
Your next point:
"The earliest, digitally available, mention of Kratošija vine is as “Cratosia” in transcript of statue of Budva, coming from the above mentioned and linked Monumenta Slavorum volume, authored by JAZU and Šime Ljubić and issued in Zagreb in 1882-3. As stated in the foreword of Monumenta, the part with Budva statute is transcribed from a manuscript from 1700 (kept in Library of Saint Mark in Venice, under signature: MSS. Ital. cl. II. n. 37.) since it was the oldest known. That makes the manuscript oldest known mention of Cratosia, but it’s not digitally alvailable…"
The statement that the first appearance of Cratosia is “in a 1700 statute” is not accurate, since The Statute is not from 1700. The statute contains earlier layers, and this is visible directly in the same Monumenta volume. This can be seen in every codex, including the one you cited, the 1700 copy. It helps to read the cited reference itself, not just the publication date, but what the edition actually says and, especially, which period it describes.
I will repeat: The description I added came from the 1882–83 Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium edition (Ljubić), then on Montenegrin critical edition (Luketić & Bujuklić), from 1988, published by Historical Archive of Budva, preserved in the ‘Annals of Budva’ Library, which explicitly cites the medieval Statute (1426–1442). Both are secondary sources.
Ljubić 1882 identifies the 1700 date as belonging to one specific Venetian manuscript copy. This is not the only copy of the Statute that Ljubić used for his edition. It is just one of several codices. You did not mention them, so it presents an incomplete picture, which can easily lead to wrong conclusions about the Statute and its dating. Also, in Ljubić edition, it is clear that there is earlier ( older) codex, Codex I, kept in the library of St Mark in Venice , under the shelfmark MSS. Ital. Cl. II. no. 38. Ljubić himself says in the preface, that this is older and more correct than all codices, and therefore he used it as the basis for his edition. And that edition, also cited, could not have been later than the mid-17th century.
Therefore, the 1700 edition is not the “oldest known.” [16]
Here it is clearly seen that the privileges and ordinances were first granted under Lord George the Despot, and later under the Blessed Republic of Venice.
As another secondary historical source, Ilija Sindik (1957) also discusses the Statute of Budva and cites Ljubić's edition. His article "Odnos grada Budve prema vladarima iz dinastije Nemanjića" (“The relationship of the town of Budva toward the rulers of the Nemanjić dynasty”) (in Serbian). Historical Journal, VII: 23–36. Istorijski institut SAN (Serbian Academy of Sciences). ^ German summary (“Zusammenfassung”): 35–36 ^ examines the historical context of the Statute and refers to earlier scholarly research.
Relevant pages in the main text: pp. 24-25 (see the quoptes within the collapse section below). It describes that Statute, in the volume in which it is, in the edition of S. Ljubić, consists of 295 chapters of which 12 are dated. They are not arranged systematically. The first dated chapter is 251 from 1426. Last chapter is 289 from 1469) as a basis for a chronological division. Chapters 1–250 are attributed to the Nemanjić period (Budva under them in 1186–1371, effectively to ~1360), then 251–287 chapters cover 1360–1442, and 288–295 articles belong to the first Venetian period.
Several other independent secondary sources likewise, describe the Statute's origins as dating from before the Venetian period. For example, Constantin Jireček, "Das Gesetzbuch des serbischen Caren Stephan Dušan", Archiv für slavische Philologie 22 (1900), p. 155.
Access (viewer): [17] Access (PDF): [18]
According to Jireček (1900, p. 155), the statute of Budua is the most significant document for comparison with the legislation of Tsar Dušan. He notes that the text is preserved in an old Italian translation, published by Ljubić in the Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium. Jireček (1900, p. 155) precisely dates Budva’s municipal Statute to the period of Stefan Dušan’s rule (as King, 1331–1346; as Tsar, 1346–1355), and concludes that the title “misser lo imperador” mentioned in the document can only refer to Dušan himself.

Your next point:

"The first genetic research that proposes Montenegro, the only country where name Kratošija is used, as the best candidate country for the origin and spreading centre of Zinfandel is this [8]. It is from 2013-14." Why is that exact date important? Why is it so crucial for the article text itself, information which paper is "first"? It is normal that science moves forward, that new discoveries and researches bring new knowledge and results. First, there are older ampelographic work, then molecular correlation, then later population-genetic work and origin hypotheses. For Wikipedia is important that article reflects the whole body of sources, and the present state of research. We should not give some special weight around one year (2013/2014) or one single paper.

If we go back to the question, when Montenegro “first appears“ in the literature as a centre of spread of this variety, the answer does not start with genetic papers, at all. That idea is not something that appears suddenly in 2013/2014 year. It is part of a long, consistent description in regional ampelographic literature. Ampelographic researches of scientists from almost all countries of the region (Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia), in their independent, separate studies (genetic analysis did not exist at that time), reached the same conclusion. This shows that the idea of Montenegro, as a centre of cultivation and spread is not a recent invention, suddenly in 2013/2014 year. (Look at the table above on this page )Talk:Zinfandel.

Also, the information that Montenegro is the “only“ country where the name Kratošija is used is simply inaccurate. Again see the table. Bit again here: All authors from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, of which Montenegro was a part until June 1991. Examples: Stojanović (1929) ^, Bulić (1949) Dalmatinska ampelografija. Zagreb: PNV, pp. 110–115. ^, Ulićević (1959) Prilog rejonizaciji vinogradarstva u Crnoj Gori. Naša poljoprivreda i šumarstvo (2/V), pp. 70–74. ^, Pejović (1988) ^, Burić (1995) ^, Maraš (2000) ^, and others, in their works, named the variety- Kratošija as varietal name. The name Kratošija has been used continuously, and has never disappeared from regional records.

The Dalmatian ampelographer Bulić described 'Kratošija' (also noting its synonyms: 'Gartošija', 'Grakošija', 'Kratkošija') in nine municipalities of the Montenegrin coast (Budva, Grbalj, Luštica, Krtole, Kotor, Paštrovići, Prčanj, Tivat, Herceg Novi). He also stated that this variety was rarely found in Dalmatia and that it most likely originated in Montenegro.

Therefore, the most widespread name of this variety in the Balkans is Kratošija. It is treated as a normal varietal name across several states, not something that is named “only” in Montenegro.

All subsequent genetic studies cited in the extended section, and the table in previously shown Talk:Zinfandel.(especialy, the most resent one, Ibáñez, Javier (2020) ^), have indicated Montenegro as the primary center of genetic diversity for this variety. Although the ultimate origin remains a subject of ongoing research, these new findings consistently point to the Skadar Lake basin as the most likely area for its historical dispersal and early cultivation.

In line with all pointed here, the section “Relationship (Zinfandela) with Primitivo, Crljenak Kaštelanski, and Tribidrag” should also be updated to include the relationship with Kratošija. A proposal for this addition will be submitted later.

Final response to your remark that I am “trying to build a non-existent story”.

What exactly did you mean by „ non-existent“? The content here is based on verified references, with direct quotations. I would like us to remain fully within the framework of the guidelines WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The wording that suggests I am “trying to build a non-existent story” is not in line with those guidelines. Some of your statements also appear to address my presumed intentions rather than the content itself, which raises concerns under WP:ASPERSIONS. All information I have presented are based on verifiable, published sources. As for the article itself, I would also like an approach in line with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, so that content based on reliable sources is discussed here, on the Talk page, rather than being removed from the article page multiple times.

In accordance with all provided here, I suggest including the name Kratošija in the first sentence, as a synonym for Zinfandel, and also in the infobox. I also propose, for the sake of NPOV, to include two important regions in the infobox, due to their importance and prevalence: the Skadar Lake region - Montenegro and North Macedonia - the Vardar River Valley.

Questions regarding sources, origin claims, and NPOV in the Zinfandel article

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:No original research and defining primary, secondary and tertiary sources, stands sentence: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". So, I have few questions about the current situation in the main Zinfandel article, outlined below in collapsible section:

Suggestions for additions and changes

[edit]

- Including the name Kratošija in the first sentence, as a synonym for Zinfandel, and also in the infobox. Using acronym “ZPC“ as 'scientific' (in infobox), is incorrect, while excluding Kratošija is a clear bias.

Labeling the abbreviation 'ZPC' as 'scientific' is factually incorrect and misleading. In botanical and viticultural taxonomy, "scientific names" are established by official bodies (like the OIV or VIVC), not by creating acronyms. 'ZPC' is an informal shorthand used by some authors for brevity. Giving it a 'scientific' prefix is inconsistent with WP:OR. It is an attempt to elevate a casual shorthand into a formal taxonomic category. No peer-reviewed taxonomic authority recognizes 'ZPC' as a scientific designation. Calling it 'scientific' gives the reader a false impression of official varietal nomenclature. If an official taxonomic reference can not be provided, the word 'scientific' must be removed. It is a shorthand notation, not a scientific classification. Instead, I propose changing the wording in the article to use the full names: “Zinfandel, Primitivo, Kratošija, Crljenak Kaštelanski”, or “ZPC (acronym), Kratošija”.

- Include two important regions in the infobox, due to their importance and prevalence: Skadar Lake region - Montenegro, (Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU), Lexicon of Montenegrin Viticulture and Winemaking- entry: "Vinogradarski region Crnogorski basen Skadarskog jezera" (V. Maraš), CANU entry ↑), and North Macedonia - Vardar River Valley.

- Updating section “Relationship (Zinfandel) with Primitivo, Crljenak Kaštelanski, and Tribidrag“ by including the relationship Zinfandel with Kratošija.

- Removing phrase “Venetian Dalmatia”, from section History, given that Budva was never part of Venetian Dalmatia. This is also inaccuracy.A more accurate term is “Venetian Albania”, but the most accurate wording is, that it was part of the “Venetian Republic“ ( this should be in the article, explained earlier here on talk page). - Replace the year 1700 in the “History” section with the phrase “Middle Ages” until consensus about age is reached with the paragraph:

“In addition to the Dalmatian records of Tribidrag, several regional and international histoirans and researchers, have pointed to the long-documented presence (since Middle Ages) of the same genetic variety under the name Kratošija in Montenegro. The variety is referenced in the medieval *Statuta civitatis Buduae* , in chapter 261, as “vigne de Cratosia". At that times, Budva was part of Venetian Republic, today is town in Montenegro.

Ljubić 1882 [29]; Sindik 1957 [30]; Jireček 1900 [31] ; CANU 2024 [32] M. Luketić & Ž. Bujuklić 1988 [33]

Throughout the 20th century, leading ampelographers from Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, North Macedonia, such as Stojanović (1929) [34], Bulić (1949)[35], Ulićević (1959)[36], Burić (1995)[37], and Maraš (2000) [38] regularly identified Kratošija as an autochthonous Montenegrin variety, noting its likely spread from Montenegro into Dalmatia and Macedonia. Modern genetic research supports these earlier claims (Calò et al. 2008 [39]; Crespan et al. 2014 [40]; Tello et al. 2020 [41]). These studies highlight that Montenegro holds the most heterogeneous and polymorphic populations of the variety, which indicates long-term cultivation in the area and subsequent dissemination to neighbouring regions".


In case there is a disagreement or room for discussion, please have it happen here on the Talk page, so we can avoid repeated removal of text. For a long time (too long), an incorrect figure (1700 years, which refers to the publication of one of the codices, not to the origin of the Statute of Budua) has remained in the main article, precisely because I didn't want to engage in edit wars, which I oppose. But I also think that incorrect information cannot remain in the article. I am a proponent of consensus, if possible.

Apologies if my English or the structure of this comment isn’t perfect.That can always be improved later (if needed), or another editor may address the wording and other technical issues in good faith.The focus here should be content and the sources. VitisArchivum (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]