# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  What is your opinion about dacians?Were they south slavs or goths?

## mihaitzateo

I am from Romania and I saw the recent Y DNA tests for the romanian population.
These tests sugest that romanians genetics are mostly south slavic people,as serbo-croatian-bosnians.
(in Romania,as in serbs,croats and bosnians most present haplogrup is I2,exactly same branch of I2 as in serbo-croatian-bosnians ).
However,the dacians are told that they were blonde with blue eyes,which is not like today serbo-croatian-bosnians people are.
Since today most serbo-croatian-bosnians and romanians are brown haired with brown eyes.
As for phisical look some are saying that romanians are 35% dinarids,30% nordids 25% mediteranean and 10% alpine.
No ideea if this is true,but in Romania you can see a lot of people looking dinarid and also a lot of people looking nordid.
As for people looking meditarenean,I did not saw that many.
What is remained today and is certain are the dacians statues from the Arch of Constantine.
(you can search on google images dacians arch of constatine to see since I can not post links yet).
If you look how the dacians there are looking,with high cheekbones,straight forehead,straight noses is clearly that they were either blonde blue eyed dinarids or nordid,as the south swedes are looking today,or east nordids.
From the shape of the noses I could not pronounce if they are nordids of dinarids,the look between dinarids and nordids.
So I think those dacians were a mix between goths and and old dacians and is possibile that old dacians were dinarids,but dinarids blonde haired mostly with blue eyes.Their cheekbones are looking more like east nordid or dinarid,since are very prominent.
The names of dacians cities have a south slavic sonority,Sucidava,Argidava etc.

----------


## Taranis

Welcome to the forum.

You seem to have a lot of confusions. The Dacians were obviously neither "Gothic" nor "South Slavic". "Gothic" would imply Germanic, and it's very clear that the Dacians were not Germanic. The reason the Dacians and the Goths are often tied is due to the name "Getae" for the Dacians, which indeed sounds similar to "Goths", but is attested as early as the 5th century BC (Herodotus), long before the Germanic peoples started to be mentioned. Also, Dacian was clearly not a Slavic language: the Slavs didn't show up on the Balkans until the Migration Period. What the language of the Dacians shared with both Gothic (a Germanic language) and the South Slavic language is that it was Indo-European. What the Dacian language additionally shares with the Slavic languages is that it's a Satem language (which additionally applies for the Baltic, Armenian, Albanian and Indo-Iranic languages).

EDIT: Regarding Y-Haplogroup I2, I highly recommend reading what the administrator of this forum, Maciamo, has written on the topic. I can also highly recommend this detailed analysis of the Paleolithic remnants by board member sparkey.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I do not make any confussions.
The presence of the goths/ostrogoths on the actual territory of Romania is clearly atested by Pucioasele treasure.
Which have a ring written with runic letters.Go check on google/wikipedia Pietroasele Treasure.
Also seek on wikipedia Ring of Pietroassa.This ring is written with runic alphabet,more exactly Elder Futhark.
Is also attested,the pressence of goths and ostrogoths on the territory of Romania,by the Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture.Santana de Mures is in Transylvania,but they also found a site in south-east Romania,near Danube delta,the Pietroasele Treasure is found in central Romania and so on.
As for goths being from south sweden,how can contradict someone that,when Sweden still have some lands called Gotland Östergötland(east gotland in english,ostrogothia in latin,from where ostrogoths are suposed to come)?
All south Sweden is called "Östergötland"*.*And it have more counties in it,2 of which were mentioned a
How you can explain that in different periods of time both today Romania and Denmark are called by historians "Dacia"?First Romania is called Dacia and after some period of time,Denmark is called Dacia.
But the most clear evidence is the presence of I1A (M253) and I1C(M223) in both Romania and ex-Yugoslavia (in a test made in Moldavia,I1A+I1C where about 6-7%;what is more weird is that they found some samples of M170 that were not either I1A or I2 or I1C),which is pretty clear that is of gothic descent,from south Sweden.Sure no one tells that goths only had I1A on their paternal line,very likely they had also some R1B branch/es and M223.I1C is one of the most clear evidences ,which can be denied,of the pressence of goths and ostrogoths in today Romania.
Just look on the map,to see where it is present.


As for dacians beeing blue eyed and blonde haired and taller than other barbarians,these are most close from today europeans with south swedes (not with romanians).Which is again weird.

----------


## Taranis

> I do not make any confussions.
> The presence of the goths/ostrogoths on the actual territory of Romania is clearly atested by Pucioasele treasure.
> Which have a ring written with runic letters.Go check on google/wikipedia Pietroasele Treasure.
> Also seek on wikipedia Ring of Pietroassa.This ring is written with runic alphabet,more exactly Elder Futhark.
> 
> Is also attested,the pressence of goths and ostrogoths on the territory of Romania,by the Sântana de Mureș–Chernyakhov culture.Santana de Mures is in Transylvania,but they also found a site in south-east Romania,near Danube delta,the Pietroasele Treasure is found in central Romania and so on.


Yes, the Goths were present in Romania, but this was only shortly before and during the Migration Period. In the 2nd century BC, the Goths lived at the right-bank of the Vistula river, in modern-day eastern Poland. You can read this in the Geography of Claudios Ptolemaios (book 3, chapter 5), and in "Germania" by Tacitus (chapter 44). They migrated to the area of modern-day Romania only later. The Getae/Dacians were an unrelated people, and they spoke a non-Germanic language. Names like "Burebista" and "Decebalus" are clearly non-Germanic.




> As for goths being from south sweden,how can contradict someone that,when Sweden still have some lands called Gotland Östergötland(east gotland in english,ostrogothia in latin,from where ostrogoths are suposed to come)?
> All south Sweden is called "Östergötland"*.*And it have more counties in it,2 of which were mentioned a
> How you can explain that in different periods of time both today Romania and Denmark are called by historians "Dacia"?First Romania is called Dacia and after some period of time,Denmark is called Dacia.


First off, yes, it is believed that the Goths migrated from Scandinavia. But see above, the Dacians lived in the area of modern Romania before the Goths arrived. Also, nobody ever called Denmark "Dacia".




> But the most clear evidence is the presence of I1A (M253) and I1C(M223) in both Romania and ex-Yugoslavia (in a test made in Moldavia,I1A+I1C where about 6-7%;what is more weird is that they found some samples of M170 that were not either I1A or I2 or I1C),which is pretty clear that is of gothic descent,from south Sweden.Sure no one tells that goths only had I1A on their paternal line,very likely they had also some R1B branch/es and M223.I1C is one of the most clear evidences ,which can be denied,of the pressence of goths and ostrogoths in today Romania.
> Just look on the map,to see where it is present.


I edited my previous post. You can find some useful links on the mentioned Haplogroups there.




> As for dacians beeing blue eyed and blonde haired and taller than other barbarians,these are most close from today europeans with south swedes (not with romanians).Which is again weird.


Mediterranean peoples found features like blond hair and blue eyes exotic and thus exagerated the frequency such features did occur. Tacitus describes the Germanic peoples as all-red-haired, for instance.

----------


## Franco

> I am from Romania and I saw the recent Y DNA tests for the romanian population.
> These tests sugest that romanians genetics are mostly south slavic people,as serbo-croatian-bosnians.
> (in Romania,as in serbs,croats and bosnians most present haplogrup is I2,exactly same branch of I2 as in serbo-croatian-bosnians ).
> However,the dacians are told that they were blonde with blue eyes,which is not like today serbo-croatian-bosnians people are.
> Since today most serbo-croatian-bosnians and romanians are brown haired with brown eyes.
> As for phisical look some are saying that romanians are 35% dinarids,30% nordids 25% mediteranean and 10% alpine.
> No ideea if this is true,but in Romania you can see a lot of people looking dinarid and also a lot of people looking nordid.
> As for people looking meditarenean,I did not saw that many.
> What is remained today and is certain are the dacians statues from the Arch of Constantine.
> ...



Blond romanians don't look nordic to me.They all have the typical easternish flavour: wide faces, big and very round eyes (nordic people tend to have a bit slanted eye-shape), etc.

----------


## julia90

Dacians could have been similar with Thracians, being a clan of them.For sure they weren't slavic, because slavs arrived much later than Dacians, who were present in Romania at the time of Ancient Romans.I would exclude Goths too.

----------


## Taranis

> Blond romanians don't look nordic to me.They all have the typical easternish flavour: wide faces, big and very round eyes (nordic people tend to have a bit slanted eye-shape), etc.





> Dacians could have been similar with Thracians, being a clan of them.For sure they weren't slavic, because slavs arrived much later than Dacians, who were present in Romania at the time of Ancient Romans.I would exclude Goths too.


All discussions about the outward appearance and the supposed ethnolinguistic affiliation based on that are completely moot in my opinion, anyways.

----------


## mihaitzateo

The dacians from Arch of Constantine do not have at all rounded eyes.
I do not think the dacians were thracians either.

Thracians seems to be the ancestors of today norwegians bearing the branches of norse R1A1,check the tests made by David Faux on R1A1 branches that the vikings were bearing,he propose and I think he got some arguments, that those branches of R1A1 are from Central Asia in origin.
(you will find the pdf is you search david faux central asian ).
And vikings were described as red haired,with blue eyes,like the thracians were.More Snori Sturlson in his Prose Edda tells that the vikings came from Troy.Beside is pretty clear that thracians were sea farers,the ruins of Troy were found near sea shore.Also the thracians are described in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey as excelent sea farers,now neither bulgarians neither romanians or yugoslavians have any traditions linked with sea.
Sure dacians were allied with thracians,but that does not means they were same people.

I highly doubt you will find some norse R1A1 in Romania or Bulgaria,where the thracians could have come.
(or ok maybe you will find something like 1% from all Y DNA or so,but that can be from the raids vikings made in Europe).

As for today romanians with rounded eyes,I have not saw such a thing till now,maybe there are and I did not looked good enough at them.See that you can find on youtube a video with romanian male faces,just search romanian male faces.
And tell what you think about those faces.

----------


## Yetos

> The dacians from Arch of Constantine do not have at all rounded eyes.
> I do not think the dacians were thracians either.
> 
> Thracians seems to be the ancestors of today norwegians bearing the branches of norse R1A1,check the tests made by David Faux on R1A1 branches that the vikings were bearing,he propose and I think he got some arguments, that those branches of R1A1 are from Central Asia in origin.
> (you will find the pdf is you search david faux central asian ).
> And vikings were described as red haired,with blue eyes,like the thracians were.More Snori Sturlson in his Prose Edda tells that the vikings came from Troy.Beside is pretty clear that thracians were sea farers,the ruins of Troy were found near sea shore.Also the thracians are described in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey as excelent sea farers,now neither bulgarians neither romanians or yugoslavians have any traditions linked with sea.
> Sure dacians were allied with thracians,but that does not means they were same people.
> 
> I highly doubt you will find some norse R1A1 in Romania or Bulgaria,where the thracians could have come.
> ...


well strabo verifies that Visii Getae lived in today S Romania - Bulgaria, 
in some othaer post about Dacian Language I strongly supported that they were a link language among Greek and Germanic, and Thracians I supported that they were Centum, 

personally I believe that they were a middle language among South and old Languages (Greek - Aryan - Sanshqrit ) and Northen Germano-Slavic (Baltic) 
I believe that they moved to Scandinavia and Return Back later to re establish the lost trade of Volga river as Goths-Germans,
possible is also that the climate condition in Baltic which was very warm in 1000 BC but almost non vital at 400 BC (Herodotus times) to have Goths from scandinavia moved to Dacia at about 600 BC and the later Visii Goths movements west, when at 1rst century AD starts a new warming era wich ends at about 600 AD when we have years of very cold weather, 


most possible for me is that they were pre or para Germanic which start to move west after pressure of Scythians before and after Roman empire,

it is not only the similarity getae -Goths but also the similarity Dac-Deutsch-Dutc 
and some other similarities in religion whic I expressed in another post,

It semms like Thraco-Dacians + scythians moved North and West as Goth-Germanic, while scythians + Sarmatians create Slavs, 
remember that Herodotus clearly identifies Sarmatians as Sauromates, and describe them as living in wooden houses and reign Deer breeders, 
the word that Herodotus Descibes is ταρανδος (ta-rando-s) from what I know the famous and originally reign Deer breeders were Suomi-Saami populations, considering also the description of their tents we might recogn Sarmatians as the today non IE populations of North, the finns 
while the rest mixed with Scythians and Getae create Slavic (or adopted Slavic when they adopted Christianity)

Romania is an area that was the start or the end of many devastations, and big and well fortified in some areas to keep ancient populations safe

----------


## Taranis

> Thracians seems to be the ancestors of today norwegians bearing the branches of norse R1A1,check the tests made by David Faux on R1A1 branches that the vikings were bearing,he propose and I think he got some arguments, that those branches of R1A1 are from Central Asia in origin.
> (you will find the pdf is you search david faux central asian ).


Thracians as ancestors of Norwegians? Sorry, that's complete nonsense and completely unnecessary to assume. Haplogroup R1a has been in Europe since the Copper Age, and R1a has been found in samples from Germany from circa 2600 BC, which belong to the Corded Ware Culture. An offshot of the Corded Ware Culture, the so-called Battle Axe Culture, spread into Scandinavia, and it stands to reason that R1a was present in Scandinavia since then. R1a is originally from the steppe, but it already arrived during the Copper Age, not in historic times.

Regarding David Faux, my honest opinion is that he has a lot of rather unsubstantiated and unlikely hypotheses. To pick an example, his idea that R1b-U152 is of Anglo-Saxon origin, for instance, can be readily dismissed.




> And vikings were described as red haired,with blue eyes,like the thracians were.More Snori Sturlson in his Prose Edda tells that the vikings came from Troy.Beside is pretty clear that thracians were sea farers,the ruins of Troy were found near sea shore.Also the thracians are described in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey as excelent sea farers,now neither bulgarians neither romanians or yugoslavians have any traditions linked with sea.


This is complete nonsense. The connection to Troy is clearly a frabrication of the medieval ages. There's a lot of similar medieval myths along these lines, such as the claim that the British are descended from Brutus. The Scandinavians were native to Scandinavia since at least the bronze age.




> Sure dacians were allied with thracians,but that does not means they were same people.


From what little is known of both languages, they were indeed closely related.

----------


## Taranis

> well strabo verifies that Visii Getae lived in today S Romania - Bulgaria, 
> in some othaer post about Dacian Language I strongly supported that they were a link language among Greek and Germanic, and Thracians I supported that they were Centum,


I've said before, the Getae and Goths were completely unrelated, and Thracian clearly was a Satem language, there's no point denying that (for example Thracian "zalmos" - "skin/hide" vs. German "helm"). 




> personally I believe that they were a middle language among South and old Languages (Greek - Aryan - Sanshqrit ) and Northen Germano-Slavic (Baltic) 
> I believe that they moved to Scandinavia and Return Back later to re establish the lost trade of Volga river as Goths-Germans,
> possible is also that the climate condition in Baltic which was very warm in 1000 BC but almost non vital at 400 BC (Herodotus times) to have Goths from scandinavia moved to Dacia at about 600 BC and the later Visii Goths movements west, when at 1rst century AD starts a new warming era wich ends at about 600 AD when we have years of very cold weather,


The Goths were present at the right-bank of the Vistula in the 2nd century AD (Ptolemy book 3, chapter 5).




> most possible for me is that they were pre or para Germanic which start to move west after pressure of Scythians before and after Roman empire,


Seriously, where does this idea come from that the Germanic peoples originated in the east? You keep bringing this up again and again.




> it is not only the similarity getae -Goths but also the similarity Dac-Deutsch-Dutc 
> and some other similarities in religion whic I expressed in another post


No offense Yetos, but this is complete nonsense. The words "Dacia" and "Deutsch"/"Dutch" are completly unrelated. There are the Germanic sound shift. Thus "Deutsch"/"Dutch" is a cognate with Irish "tuath", Welsh "tud", Lithuanian "tauta" - which all mean "people" or "tribe". There's also Latin "tota"/"totum", which means "all"/"whole" instead.

----------


## Yetos

> I've said before, the Getae and Goths were completely unrelated, and Thracian clearly was a Satem language, there's no point denying that (for example Thracian "zalmos" - "skin/hide" vs. German "helm"). 
> 
> 
> 
> The Goths were present at the right-bank of the Vistula in the 2nd century AD (Ptolemy book 3, chapter 5).
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, where does this idea come from that the Germanic peoples originated in the east? You keep bringing this up again and again.
> ...


and how sure you are that Daci had not similar shift and meant the same, 

besides the way that sarmatians moved south and back to north again the times I mention could be the same with Goths and Getae,

----------


## mihaitzateo

bolinthos - bull,in english
bríza "emmer-wheat, rye" Norwegian _brok_ "kind of grass"
germe - warm old prussian gorme,hot
skálmē - a knife, a sword old norse _skolm_ "short sword, knife"

So there are words from thracian in norwegian/old norse,prussian,english also.
How can you explain it?

----------


## Goga

> bolinthos - bull,in english
> bríza "emmer-wheat, rye" Norwegian _brok_ "kind of grass"
> germe - warm old prussian gorme,hot
> skálmē - a knife, a sword old norse _skolm_ "short sword, knife"
> 
> So there are words from thracian in norwegian/old norse,prussian,english also.
> How can you explain it?


Maybe these words have the same Indo-European roots? But that doesn’t mean that folks whose languages are distantly related to each other have the same roots ethnically speaking. With other words people can have and use common words without belong to the same 'race'.

So is 'Germe' in Kurdish (Iranic language) 'warm' / 'hot' too.

----------


## Alan

in Kurdish its "germ" for warm and not "germe"

----------


## Goga

> in Kurdish its "germ" for warm and not "germe"


Are you serious? Are you goin' to give me a lesson in my native language?  :Laughing:  What dialect do you speak??


"Germ*e*" is "warm" in Kurdish too.


2 Examples:

Mala ma germ*e* - our home is warm (with '*-e*')

Like, 'home' in Kurdish can be 'mal' and 'mala'. And in this sentence it's 'mal*a*'. Conjugated wit '*-a*'

Germ buja - it's became warmer (without '*-e*') ('buja' and 'became' have also the same 'Indo-European roots')

Germ katija - the 'heat' arrived

----------


## Alan

the "e" in your example is a suffix or shortcut for the word "is" andhas nothing to do with the word itself.

Example.
Our home is cold = Mala (The a is Izaffe) ma Sar ê (the ê is suffix used as is in Kurmanci)

----------


## mihaitzateo

Well if thracians went to Norway,and settled there,after greeks won the Trojan war and burned down Troy did they (the thracians who manage to escape unkilled) imposed their language?
I doubt,they were fugitives so is pretty common sense that they learned the native language there (whatever old norse was spoken those times) and brought only some terms,for things that were not known there,as how happened for the word used for helm.

----------


## Goga

> Well if thracians went to Norway,and settled there,after greeks won the Trojan war and burned down Troy did they (the thracians who manage to escape unkilled) imposed their language?
> I doubt,they were fugitives so is pretty common sense that they learned the native language there (whatever old norse was spoken those times) and brought only some terms,for things that were not known there,as how happened for the word used for helm.


I think that's basically a fairy-tale. Scandinavians and Germans are just native to their homeland. These Germanic folks have some very specific haplogroups that only belong to them. Like hg. 'I1' is only native to Northern parts of Europe. 

All folks in South-Scandinavia spoke Proto-Norse, close to Proto-Germanic. The first proto-IE folks that migrated into Norway were Battle-Axe warriors. With other words Scandinavians and Germanic people in Europe share the same proto-Indo-European (Battle-Axe) ancestors.

Modern Germanic tribes are actually an admixture of 3 main haplogroups: I1, R1a and R1b!

If Dacians were I1, R1a & R1b folks they were Germanic. If they missed only 1 of these haplogroups like 'I1' and were 'I2' instead they were NOT Germanic.

----------


## Taranis

> bolinthos - bull,in english
> bríza "emmer-wheat, rye" Norwegian _brok_ "kind of grass"
> germe - warm old prussian gorme,hot
> skálmē - a knife, a sword old norse _skolm_ "short sword, knife"
> 
> So there are words from thracian in norwegian/old norse,prussian,english also.
> How can you explain it?


I'd like to explain here what the Centum/Satem split is all about**:
the three sounds in question which the split is all about are reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European as *k´ *g´ *g´h. These are called the palato-velars.

- In the Centum languages (Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek and Tocharian), they are merged with the so-called "plain" velars (*k, *g, *gh).

- In the Satem languages (Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic) they are turned into fricative sounds (such as s, z, ʃ, etc.).

To pick some good example:

English "*h*undred", Breton "*k*ant", Latin "*c*entum", Greek "He*k*aton" vs. Latvian "*s*imts", Russian "*s*to", Sanskrit "*s*atam"
English "*g*old" vs. Latvian "*z*elts" and Russian "*z*oloto"
Gothic "tai*h*un", Gaulish "de*c*ametos", Latin "de*c*em", Greek "de*k*a" vs. Latvian "de*s*mit", Russian "de*s*yat", Sanskrit "da*s*a"

So, it's pretty clear that Dacian was a Satem language ("zalmos", "briza"). There's additionally Dacian loanwords in both Albanian and modern-day Romanian.

Oh, and by the way, Old Prussian is a Baltic language, not a Germanic one.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I did not said that those thracians were ancestors of all norwegians I said they were carrying those R1a1 norse branches.
Go check a little that pdf with what David Faux is suposing,with the central origins of some of the vikings.

It is pretty clear that other vikings were bearing some branches of N,on paternal line (like Rurik had),very likely others were bearing I1.But nothing supports the theory that vikings were bearing some branches of R1B,on paternal line.


You are making things much more simple than they are in fact.
Take for example I1,there are more branches of I1,same happens with R1a - R1a1 is a branch of R1a.
Now R1a1 have a lot of sub-branches,which includes different kind of branches found in different slavs,the norse vikings,some germans - everyone with different branches.
Most I1 from Norway is not same with most I1 from Sweden,as a example,are different branches of I1.

Ok now if you call the greatest poet of Iceland someone who "invented" things,that is something which I will not comment.
I guess than Carol Lundius also invented a lot of things.And Rasmus Rask,a well known danish scholar and philologist who showed pretty clear that icelandic comes from thracian language,with lots of evidences,was also wrong.
And so on.

As for proto-germans bearing branches of R1B,I am not that sure.This seems asociated pretty clear with celts and latin populations.

Also if some tribes ruled a country for some period of time,that does not means that those tribes are from that country/geographical area.
This is what I was wondering,if dacians did not actually came from south Sweden to rule Dacia,and they gave this name to the land.Because it seems that the ancient population here was bearing mostly I2 .
What remained are the figures from sculptures,but it seems no one want to make a little effort to study them.

In case you did not knew,the thracian language is considered to be one of the proto-indo-european languages.

----------


## Taranis

> I did not said that those thracians were ancestors of all norwegians I said they were carrying those R1a1 norse branches.
> Go check a little that pdf with what David Faux is suposing,with the central origins of some of the vikings.


As I said, such stories about a connection with the Thracians and the Balkans are completely uncalled for. R1a has been in Europe since the Copper Age, and as I mentioned, the oldest find to date was amongst the Corded Ware Culture of the Copper Age:






The ancestors of the Scandinavians were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age.




> It is pretty clear that other vikings were bearing some branches of N,on paternal line (like Rurik had),very likely others were bearing I1.But nothing supports the theory that vikings were bearing some branches of R1B,on paternal line.
> 
> You are making things much more simple than they are in fact.
> Take for example I1,there are more branches of I1,same happens with R1a - R1a1 is a branch of R1a.
> Now R1a1 have a lot of sub-branches,which includes different kind of branches found in different slavs,the norse vikings,some germans - everyone with different branches.
> Most I1 from Norway is not same with most I1 from Sweden,as a example,are different branches of I1.


Yes, they were not exclusively carriers of R1a, but also for instance I1 (which is a survivor of Europe's Mesolithic lineages), N (which is of Finnic/Uralic origin) and R1b-U106. This is obvious. It's also clear that there's different subclades of R1a, some which can be linked with the Slavic migrations, some which can be linked with the Norse, the Scythians, etc. None of this changes the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that the Norse somehow migrated from Dacia.




> Ok now if you call the greatest poet of Iceland someone who "invented" things,that is something which I will not comment.
> I guess than Carol Lundius also invented a lot of things.And Rasmus Rask,a well known danish scholar and philologist who showed pretty clear that icelandic comes from thracian language,with lots of evidences,was also wrong.
> And so on.


It's just wrong to assume that medieval representations of the ancient Norse religion were completely unbiased. They were clearly influenced by other stories and by Christianity. The idea that the Vikings are supposed to be descended from Trojans is just a fantasy. It is based off the myth that the Romans themselves had that they were descended from the Trojans.




> As for proto-germans bearing branches of R1B,I am not that sure.This seems asociated pretty clear with celts and latin populations.


R1b-U106 (also known as R1b-S21) is generally thought to be associated with the Germanic peoples. It may not be exclusively so, however.






> Also if some tribes ruled a country for some period of time,that does not means that those tribes are from that country/geographical area.
> This is what I was wondering,if dacians did not actually came from south Sweden to rule Dacia,and they gave this name to the land.Because it seems that the ancient population here was bearing mostly I2 .


I've said before, the *Dacians* never came from Sweden to Dacia. Herodotus mentions the _Getae_ in the 5th century BC. This is about a millennium before Germanic people arrive on the Balkans.




> In case you did not knew,the thracian language is considered to be one of the proto-indo-european languages.


Your statement makes no sense. The term "Proto-Indo-European" denotes the reconstructed ancestor language from which all branches of the Indo-European language family (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic, Indic, Slavic, etc.) are descended. Thracian is an old Indo-European language, but it's clearly not the oldest.

The oldest Indo-European languages that we known (from the Bronze Age) are Mycenean Greek, Hittite, Luwian and Rigvedic Sanskrit.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?
And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.

I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.

As for dacians,no one told anything relevant to see what haplogroup they might carry on paternal line.
And a few more facts:
I am still wondering how is possibile that after second roman-dacian war,Dacia is rulled sometime by goths/ostrogoths (called gepids) and after,no kings are present here anymore,at least nothing is written in history about them.
First king in Dacia,now split in 3 parts,and not called Dacia anymore,is around the year 1310,Basarab I,in what is called now Wallachia,which name is clearly gave because people here are speaking now a romance language.
As for Denmark being called later Daciam,you can check with google translate,from latin to english,to see how Daciam is translated,from latin.

There are also people in Scandinavia who are calling themselves "of Dacia" but no ruler in Moldavia,Wallachia and Transylvania takes this tittle.
For example:
Jacob_the_Dacian,Petrus de Dacia,Swedish_monk,Petrus de Dacia,mathematician,all from Sweden or Denmark,lived around 1200-1300.
How can you explain this?

As for some of the norse vikings being the only descendants of thracians,fantasy,oh really,take David Faux DNA testing and compare with the few samples of R1a1 from Bulgaria,and see that is some bulgarian R1a1 there with markers that are iddentic with Norse R1a1 dna,on the following markers:
393,390,19,391 and 389i,392,389II.
David Faux did not gave vallues for middle markers I mean 385a,385b,426,388,439 that only for 2 branches of norse dna.
However,strangely enough,if you combine the vallues that differ in norse dna,with the middle vallues,you have exactly same dna in Bulgaria of 3 R1a1 bulgarian from 13 R1a1 bulgarian samples,with norse dna,which is just weird.
Guess these are "fantasies also".

----------


## Taranis

> I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
> *Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?*
> And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
> You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.


Please, I did not say that:




> I've said before, the Dacians never came from Sweden to Dacia. Herodotus mentions the Getae in the 5th century BC. This is about a millennium before Germanic people arrive on the Balkans.


A "about a millennium after Herodotus" would be ca. 500 AD, not 1500 AD!




> I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.


I did not claim the Goths were "Germans". There's a distinction between "German" and "Germanic", and although that happens easily in English, you should not confuse the two. Swedish, like Gothic and German, is a German*ic* language too.




> As for dacians,no one told anything relevant to see what haplogroup they might carry on paternal line.
> And a few more facts:
> I am still wondering how is possibile that after second roman-dacian war,Dacia is rulled sometime by goths/ostrogoths (called gepids) and after,no kings are present here anymore,at least nothing is written in history about them.
> 
> First king in Dacia,now split in 3 parts,and not called Dacia anymore,is around the year 1310,Basarab I,in what is called now Wallachia,which name is clearly gave because people here are speaking now a romance language.
> As for Denmark being called later Daciam,you can check with google translate,from latin to english,to see how Daciam is translated,from latin.


Do you mean this guy? He was not a Dacian, and he certainly didn't speak Dacian either because I am pretty sure that people spoke the Romance language at that point of time as well. What I do not understand however is actually how you can assume that the ancient Dacians are descended from Goths if the Goths clearly arrived only after the ancient Dacians.

By the wayf you mean that _modern-day_ Romanians are in part descended from Gothic/East Germanic peoples, yes, this is certainly accurate.




> There are also people in Scandinavia who are calling themselves "of Dacia" but no ruler in Moldavia,Wallachia and Transylvania takes this tittle.
> For example:
> Jacob_the_Dacian,Petrus de Dacia,Swedish_monk,Petrus de Dacia,mathematician,all from Sweden or Denmark,lived around 1200-1300.
> How can you explain this?


The term "Dacia" was used as a _Medieval_ Latin name for Denmark or Scandinavia, but there's no relationship between it and the Dacians.

----------


## pipinnacanus

> Welcome to the forum.
> 
> You seem to have a lot of confusions. The Dacians were obviously neither "Gothic" nor "South Slavic". "Gothic" would imply Germanic, and it's very clear that the Dacians were not Germanic. The reason the Dacians and the Goths are often tied is due to the name "Getae" for the Dacians, which indeed sounds similar to "Goths", but is attested as early as the 5th century BC (Herodotus), long before the Germanic peoples started to be mentioned. Also, Dacian was clearly not a Slavic language: the Slavs didn't show up on the Balkans until the Migration Period. What the language of the Dacians shared with both Gothic (a Germanic language) and the South Slavic language is that it was Indo-European. What the Dacian language additionally shares with the Slavic languages is that it's a Satem language (which additionally applies for the Baltic, Armenian, Albanian and Indo-Iranic languages).
> 
> EDIT: Regarding Y-Haplogroup I2, I highly recommend reading what the administrator of this forum, Maciamo. I can also highly recommend by board member sparkey.


There is not a obvious dacian language or y-dna conclusive to be drawn, because only tiny few word is known to us, and has been filter through speaker of non-dacian language who record a unwritten language. 
To make claims that certain conclusion is totally known shows a lack of caution to make one serious point. Or too eager to demand certain conclusive, the other point.


Getae and Goths are use in history for same people in same place over time, and only goth legends about scandinavia that include myth are the cause to separate them. Many early histories say they are the same, and the getae disappear from history after goths arise, either they are mass murder by Hun, or the surivor of getae are called of goth now after they leave the east.


The Getae are separate from Dacian in all histories but they work together as neighbor with different custom and culture. Also, a servant / slave population reside in the area who are slave of the Sarmatian, the 'Limigantes', and no one know of their origin or race.


It is possible that I2 Hg is local natives, possibly the major part of the slave 'limigantes' who are natives there, this would also be the local Dacian early people who are broken by Romans. The R1a is the Sarmatian and Scythian and Slav. The Goth moved with their peoples to the west to be free of the Huns. The Hg E1b in modern balkans and greece is from some early mediteranean peoples and later ottoman turk periods. 


I think the major part of dacian and limigantes survive over time into modern romanian who are I2 Hg. They I2 are not actually slav, romanian, serbian, german or any other people originally, but are indigenousness to the lands in europe before the later culture arrives. 
In the case of the dacian they carry on as slave Limigantes to the Sarmatians until they regain their freedom. This is my belief but I tell you sure that the claims to ancient language are offered with confidence when no confidence is supporting the claim in such case where no direct language survive or only a few word that come from a greek translation of phonetical sounds.

The I2 in europe is very old and is present long before La Tene Celtic culture, germans or slavs.

----------


## pipinnacanus

[QUOTE=mihaitzateo;392249]I will stop argue with people here,I would have liked that someone from South Sweden would have come here to talk with me on this subject.
Germanic people arrived to today's Romania only in the year 1500?
And what are all the facts in history telling about goths and ostrogoths rulling Dacia,fabrications?
You are amazing,this is why I will stop arguing with you,cos it leads no where.

I do not belive that goths were germans,but south swedes,I am keeping this opinion.
(/QUOTE]

The Goths claim brotherhood with 'Geats', who are from lands of the south of Sweden. 

The Swedes are from the 'Svears' who are seperate from the Goths and Geats, and are from more nothern lands in sweden.

The land of the Svear is I1 Hg, and no one know where they came from, only that they take over Sweden from the control of the Goths and the Svear invade Finnmark leaving only I1, since the Geats/Goth did not come with them but were subject to them at home.
The Svear I1 Hg spread into europe continent when the Vikings and scandinavian farmers begin leaving during the mini-ice age of the dark ages.
The Goths-Getae maybe have some small bands of scandinavia Geats who flee the Svears treachery in sweden, and become together the masters in Ukraine. The small Geats bands flee Scandinavia in the epic Beowulf from the Svears dominion, and certainly go to the continent as well as in Beowulf into Britain.

The Geat may lead the goths-getae but after enter into europe, the most Y-dna is from the native getae-goths instead of the swedish geats who would be the few in number.

----------


## hope

Has anyone an opinion where the Lbk culture where it is believed the genetic variant that causes lactose persistence may have originated? I know the culture was settled around Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Netherlands and Germany but where did they originate before this? ( sorry I hope Im not changing the ongoing subject too much) :)

----------


## LeBrok

Hi hope, I've opened a new thread for you, please post your question there. 
Click on this link: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...264#post392264

----------


## zanipolo

a lot of people are or seem confused on these "gothic" names for tribes.

After reading a history of the goths plus
Cassidoros, Jordanes and the History of the goths:studies in a migration myth by Arne Soby Christensen.

This is what I found
the ancient thracians over time where divided by the greek historian into sub-groups, Dacians in the north west, Getae in the north east ( on the black sea), moesians south of the dacians and Odrysians in the south of the getae and bordering the argean. They where not always present at the same time in history.

In regards to Goths, most people say they where east-germanic also known as Gottones and moved to sweden and back to the contintent. 

The Gepids , they where east-germanic residing below the venedi , who where on the coast next to the vistula river.

The goths never settled in dacia but the GEPIDS did..........so it seems people think the gepids are goths. Well, they are not , sometimes in alliance , sometimes at each other throats.

IIRC, the goths went to Italy and beyond, the Gepids never ventured further than dacia

----------


## Diurpaneus

Of course Dacians and Thracians had substantial common background(also similar languages).
But they could also had distinct features. 
Dacians, Getae and Moesians they all spoke Dacian language.
I think the key in the Slavic genesis is Chernyakhov culture.
Some Dacian tribes(Costobocae,Carpi & others) played a significant role here.
There are more common Dacian/Balto-Slavic phonetical features than Dacian/Thracian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dava_(Dacian)

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_8.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov

----------


## mihaitzateo

Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
(I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
I will not start to contest this.)
What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
And here some few examples:
In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in w*a*ter or in b*a*nan*a* or how you say the indefinite article,as example *a* chair etc.
Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
In romanian language,the same sound,that is called schwa in english and wrriten in romanian as an a with small cap above - *ă* - ,is very present.In the words that are said to be coming from dacian language,is also very present,same sound (not as much as in english but is a very common sound).
For example as in ap*ă* varz*ă* etc.
If you do not believe me,just put those words on forvo.com and see how you pronounce them.
(choosed words you can found on forvo.com ).
Listen how the z in varză is pronounced,is exactly same as you pronounce *s* in rai*s*e*s* or *z* in *z*ero and so on.

Now this sound,z is also very present in words of dacian origin and pretty present in romanian words.
Can you see this sound pretty present in other romance languages,except french,where very likely is not a latin ancestry?
Because from what I know the latin language did not had the z sound or letter.
I might be wrong,please search examples and prove me that I am wrong.

Another example,take how you pronounce the *ch* in *ch*air or how you pronounce it in *ch*est,is exactly as the romanian pronunciation for the group of letters *ce* as in romanian word *ce*r or *ce*ară and so on.
I saw that swedes/norwegians usually have dificulty to pronounce this ch in english,they pronounce it almost as the *sh* in *sh*arp.
(another resemblance with germanic language,the sound as it is in *sh*arp,is pretty common in romanian language,we have even a letter for it,is s with a small coma under it,I do not know how to write it here;from what I know is also pretty present in german language,but almost absent from romance languages.)

Sure a lot more examples of sonorities specific to german languages very present in romanian language could be given,above just a few were given.

And what is very easy to see,on most romanian people from today,is the lack of resemblance between them and people of latin countries,as italians etc.
Most romanian people have a wide forehead and are heavy boned,which are not features of the mediteranid profile to which most population of Italy,Spain and Portugalia belongs to.
Also the facials lines are much straight and harsher for romanians,that you see for mediteranid populations,who have faces that gives the impression of roundness.
Almost all romanians have high cheekbones and their eyes are a little slanted,not rounded as someone else told above.
Not to mention that majority of romanian people are brachycephals,while most people in latin countries are dolichocephalics.

Go see how good can the usual romanian pronounce in english,they are pronouncing better than even scandinavians,who are known that can learn english and pronounce pretty well.
However,romanians are pronouncing even better in english.
The people from latin countries,including France (which is not really latin) can not pronounce well in english,same happens with greeks and germans have some problems with some sounds also,like schwa or how you should pronounce s in rai*s*e*s*.
So I think dacians were clearly a germanic people,and today romanians are almost a germanic people.

----------


## zanipolo

> Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
> (I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
> I will not start to contest this.)
> What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
> And here some few examples:
> In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in w*a*ter or in b*a*nan*a* or how you say the indefinite article,as example *a* chair etc.
> Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
> Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
> ...


what's your bases for dacians are germanics? ......linguistic? ...if so, then you would know that many, many saxons went to romania as miners during the late middle ages and renaissance period. 
Is it not this german language from this period an influence of romanian language?.

----------


## Yetos

> Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
> (I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
> I will not start to contest this.)
> What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
> And here some few examples:
> In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in w*a*ter or in b*a*nan*a* or how you say the indefinite article,as example *a* chair etc.
> Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
> Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
> ...


I think the opposite, 

if Thracians were the R1b and R1a means that they went west and North,

Germany is an exonym, as thracians was an exonym, 
while Getae and daci might be inner name, 

I controversary think that today Germanic people are older tribes and nations + Thracians + Scythians
while Slavic people is a mix of older people (thracians included) + scythians + Sarmates, 


All modern Natons share heritage from past but are new Nations, new unification movements,

----------


## Franco

> Well since Taranis was asking about language,there are some very strange resemblances between romanian language and germanic languages.
> (I will not deny that a lot of romanian words are of latin source,or at least this is how is told.
> I will not start to contest this.)
> What is clear is that the sonority of romanian is most close from european languages with the english language and not with romance languages.
> And here some few examples:
> In english language a very common vowel (maybe most common) is what is called schwa,the sound as you pronounce the a in w*a*ter or in b*a*nan*a* or how you say the indefinite article,as example *a* chair etc.
> Here you can see a guide from bbc ,about this sound:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbYVN077--M
> Now in romance languages (italian,spanish,portughese,french) from what I know this sound is not present at all.
> ...


Nonsense.Romanian does not sound like Germanic languages more than other Romance languages. There may exist individual sounds in Romanian than coincidentally exist in Germanic languages and not in other Romance languages. But the same happens in let's say Spanish. The TH sound does not exist in any other Romance languages but it does in Icelandic. Is Spanish related to Icelandic? No, the TH sound appeared in Spanish in the XVI century, it's just coincidence. Romanian does in fact sound pretty Romance, more than French. A person speaking Romanian may even be took for a Portuguese by a person not very familiar with Romance tongues as both sound quite similiarly. Not to mention that in Catalan there are many words that are spelled and even pronunced exactly like in Romanian.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I have no ideea what dacians where but as phisical look they were is you look at statues from Arch of Constantine and other old statues,they are either dinarids or nordids.
That asociated with blue eyes and blonde hair shows that they were either some kind of germans or some kind of scandinavians.

The ideea with romanian "romance language" came from some romanian people in Transilvania,which studied at jesuits schools (in latin) so no wonder they made out of romanian "romance language".
But today romanians are mostly germanics and this is atested first by how they look and second about how their language is.
In Romania and Germany there are common popular traditions,linked to the fir tree,take for example that in older Romania traditions if people would not have priest,they would weed young people at fir tree since they consider this tree holy.How can you explain that?
That was long before the fir tree was introduced for use as Christmass tree.
Beside,in Romania P37.2 (I2 branch),the branch you find also in bosniaks and croats is at high percentages,but I think is a different branch of I2 than Serbia and Croatia,a more german I2 branch,considering the differences in look of the people.
Sure more genetic testing should be done.
As for romanian language being romance,the greatest romanian poet,Mihail Eminescu, made studies in german language (in Vienna) .He is romanian,how he could learn german language easy and even make studies in it and so on?
A romanian is not having absolute any problems to pronounce every german word,for english the *th* like in *th*e is not that natural,even if it is very close to romanian z,is not found in usual romanian words.
Edit:
Just remembered,romanian language share with german language,the sound tz as in german ei*ns z*wei which in romanian is a common sound and have the letter t with a small underscore to represent it - ț -.
So if you write eins like this - einț - and you take a romanian who have no ideea about german language and put him to pronounce it,it will be the correct pronounciation.Same if you write zwei țwei or țvei because in romanian v is pronounced as w,and f is how you pronounce the german v.
How come most romanians are learning english only by watching TV,how come I made french in school from 5th grade till 12th grade and barely know to count to 10 and most romanians are having problems with learning french?
However,I only studied a few lessons of english after a little in school (4 years) and can speak english without any problems and pronounce as a normal englishman from UK.

As for the brachycephali of most romanians,that is clearly asociated ,considering language ,with a germanic ancestry,so it seems the native people of Romania did not mixed too much with latins from Roman empire.
How can you explain that the native population of Romania did not fought with gepids and goths,which were germanic or scandinavian tribes?
As for people saying that you find a lot of romanians with black hair,that is pure nonsense,maybe 1 from 10 romanians have black hair,but not even that often,most romanians have nuances of brown hair,with darker nuances of brown hair being more common.
As for black eyes,I did not saw any romanian with black eyes,most romanians have various nuances of brown eyes(most have a little lighter nuance of brown).A lot of romanians have blue or green eyes,for example when I made highschool in my class 6 boys from 12 were with brown eyes and 6 with green or blue eyes.

If you want to make DNA tests,you need more deep DNA tests,to see what kind of R1a1 have romanians here ,what kind of I2A,what kind of R1b.

----------


## razor

The Dacians (Getans) were an Indo-European people with their own language and culture, similar to, but different from, the Thracians to the south. They were not Germanics at all. Their archaeology is quite distinct from that of the Germanic peoples. Anyone who has bothered to read the literature would know this. The first Germanics with whom the Daco-Getans had dealings were the Bastarnians, who assimilated some of them and created the hybrid Poeneshti-Lukashovka culture of the 2nd/1rst c. BCE. This is all elementary stuff.
After the Roman conquest of Dacia, there were very large changes in the structure of the population. Contemporary Romanians are descendants of many inputs, from the Dacians onwards, including Roman colonists from all over the Empire, other Balkan populations, and a smattering of Germanics, Cumans, and especially Slavs. All modern populations are analogical mixtures.

----------


## mihaitzateo

I do not belive that the so called "south slavs" are in fact slavs.
That branch of I2,which is very present in Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia and Bosnia does not seems slavic at all.
How come south slavs are looking more close to south germans,if you take cepahlic index,how their beard is prominent,how their forehead is than to how other slavs are looking?
And I am not saying about russians,since russians are not really slavs,but slavs very mixed with vikings,so those are not a example of slavic look.
In the North of Russia,most people have N on paternal line,which is either finn or viking and not slavic.In the other parts of Russia,there is a serious pressence of I1A (10% or more),which is clearly of viking origin,also you can found a lot of russians with branches of norse R1a1.No ideea how much from the R1a1 in Russia is of slavic origin and how much of viking origin.

----------


## razor

You should take a refresher course in genetics. Y-DNA has nothing whatever to do with people's looks.

----------


## Taranis

> The ideea with romanian "romance language" came from some romanian people in Transilvania,which studied at jesuits schools (in latin) so no wonder they made out of romanian "romance language".
> But today romanians are mostly germanics and this is atested first by how they look and second about how their language is.
> In Romania and Germany there are common popular traditions,linked to the fir tree,take for example that in older Romania traditions if people would not have priest,they would weed young people at fir tree since they consider this tree holy.How can you explain that?
> That was long before the fir tree was introduced for use as Christmass tree.
> Beside,in Romania P37.2 (I2 branch),the branch you find also in bosniaks and croats is at high percentages,but I think is a different branch of I2 than Serbia and Croatia,a more german I2 branch,considering the differences in look of the people.
> Sure more genetic testing should be done.
> As for romanian language being romance,the greatest romanian poet,Mihail Eminescu, made studies in german language (in Vienna) .He is romanian,how he could learn german language easy and even make studies in it and so on?
> A romanian is not having absolute any problems to pronounce every german word,for english the *th* like in *th*e is not that natural,even if it is very close to romanian z,is not found in usual romanian words.
> Edit:
> ...


I do not wish to sound offensive, but you really seem to have no understanding of linguistics. Romanian is a Romance language, and there's no point in denying that. Much of what you see as "Germanic" features in Romanian are just coincidentially similar: these features in German are not typical of Germanic but only occur in Standard German, as well as middle and upper German dialects (including Swiss German): they are the product of the Second Germanic Sound Shift.




> I do not belive that the so called "south slavs" are in fact slavs.
> That branch of I2,which is very present in Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia and Bosnia does not seems slavic at all.
> How come south slavs are looking more close to south germans,if you take cepahlic index,how their beard is prominent,how their forehead is than to how other slavs are looking?
> And I am not saying about russians,since russians are not really slavs,but slavs very mixed with vikings,so those are not a example of slavic look.
> In the North of Russia,most people have N on paternal line,which is either finn or viking and not slavic.In the other parts of Russia,there is a serious pressence of I1A (10% or more),which is clearly of viking origin,also you can found a lot of russians with branches of norse R1a1.No ideea how much from the R1a1 in Russia is of slavic origin and how much of viking origin.


Sorry, but the South Slavic languages are clearly Slavic languages. As razor said before, the modern-day inhabitants of the Balkans are the melange of the inhabitans and immigrants during history, and to claim that they are just descended from one specific ethnicity. Seriously though, all this talk of yours about cephalic index, "dinarids" and "nordids", and forehead shape is just reminscient of the racial theories of the late 19th century. These have been disproven as complete nonsense, and they have no place here,* if only for the fact that the adherence to certain Y-Haplogroups has no effect whatsoever on physical appearance.*

----------


## mihaitzateo

I really doubt that people responding here,including taranis,even checked the sonority of romanian words.
I think some people are just having some pre-fabricated conceptions about romanians,which they refuse to check if are suported by some real evidences or not.
Is no point to try continue the discussion here,is like I am talking to walls.

----------


## Taranis

> I really doubt that people responding here,including taranis,even checked the sonority of romanian words.
> I think some people are just having some pre-fabricated conceptions about romanians,which they refuse to check if are suported by some real evidences or not.
> Is no point to try continue the discussion here,is like I am talking to walls.


Well, the sonority of Romanian is kind of irrelevant, French and German have similar sound inventories despite being part of Romance and Germanic families, respectively. Welsh for instance has sounds in it's inventory that generally do not exist in other European (including other Celtic) languages. What is critical is it's vocabulary, and if you take a look, it's clear that Romanian (even the name of language suggests it) is fundamentally derived from Latin. You can easily compare this:

(English) -Latin - Romanian - French - Italian
(gold) - aurum - aur - or - oro
(silver) - argentum - argint - argent - argento
(tin) - stannum - staniu - étain - stagno
(iron) - ferrum - fier - fer - ferro
(brother) - frater - frate - frère - fratello
(cow) - vacca - vacă - vache - vacca

There's really no point in denying that Romanian is a Romance language.

----------


## zanipolo

> Well, the sonority of Romanian is kind of irrelevant. What is critical is it's vocabulary, and if you take a look, it's clear that Romanian (even the name of language suggests it) is fundamentally derived from Latin. You can easily compare this:
> 
> (English) -Latin - Romanian - French - Italian
> (gold) - aurum - aur - or - oro
> (silver) - argentum - argint - argent - argento
> (tin) - stannum - staniu - étain - stagno
> (iron) - ferrum - fier - fer - ferro
> (brother) - frater - frate - frère - fratello
> (cow) - vacca - vacă - vache - vacca
> ...


you are wrong on cow - vacca is northen italian ( actually venetian ) while in Italian its Mucca

Linguists have divided Romance into 2 seperate classes based on the linguistic isobar 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spez...%93Rimini_Line

check the maps and one of them has the area in which romance does not exist anymore

another east romance word is for Pig, its Maiale in italian and I was told romanian , but its Porsel in northern Italy

----------


## mihaitzateo

How about :
english tendon - romanian tendon
english absurde - romanian absurd
english rock - romanian roca (put it on forvo to listen how it is pronounced)
english accent - romanian accent
english incredibile - romanian incredibil

(the meaning of the words is exactly same).

or how about
german gratis - romanian gratis


And examples could continue.
Sure romanian language have a lot of words taken from latin,but that does not make it a latin language,if you take how you pronounce words, from this point of view romanian is a germanic language.
Or more exactly,a latinised germanic,the way in which you pronounce words was kept,but a lot of loan words from latin were taken.Or who knows,maybe latin borrowed some words from old dacian language also and romanian took the dacians words.

----------


## Taranis

> How about :
> english tendon - romanian tendon
> english absurde - romanian absurd
> english rock - romanian roca (put it on forvo to listen how it is pronounced)
> english accent - romanian accent
> english incredibile - romanian incredibil
> 
> (the meaning of the words is exactly same).
> 
> ...


"*tendon*" is not a native Germanic word. It was borrowed from French into English after the Norman conquests. In fact, the native Germanic word in English is "sinew", which has cognates in other Germanic languages:


German - "Sehne"
Danish, Norwegian - "sene"
Icelandic - "sin"
Swedish - senan"


conversely, "tendon" has cognates in other Romance languages:


French - "tendon"
Italian - "tendine"
Portuguese - "tendão"
Spanish - "tendón"


The common etymology of this Romance word is from Latin "tener" ("soft", "delicate").


"*absurd*" is also borrowed into English from French ("absurde"). The Latin source is "absurdus" ("unreasonable", "discordant", "harsh").


"*rock*" is also a French loanword ("roc"). The native Germanic word in English is "fell", which is a cognate with:


German - "Fels"
Old Norse - "fjall"
Danish - "fjeld"
Swedish - "fiäll"


"*accent*" - also from French, ultimately from Latin "accentus".


"*incredible*" is also from Latin, specifically "credere" ("to trust", "to believe").


German "*gratis*" is clearly a borrowing from Latin ("gratia" - "thankfulness").

Not one of these words is Germanic in origin. That should tell you something.




> And examples could continue.
> Sure romanian language have a lot of words taken from latin,but that does not make it a latin language,if you take how you pronounce words, from this point of view romanian is a germanic language.
> Or more exactly,a latinised germanic,the way in which you pronounce words was kept,but a lot of loan words from latin were taken.Or who knows,maybe latin borrowed some words from old dacian language also and romanian took the dacians words.


There is nothing Germanic about Romanian, or about the ancient Dacian language. Every linguist, every historian, and even common knowledge will tell you that you're wrong. Do you think it's a coincidence that the language is named "_Romanian_"?




> you are wrong on cow - vacca is northen italian ( actually venetian ) while in Italian its Mucca
> 
> Linguists have divided Romance into 2 seperate classes based on the linguistic isobar 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Spezia–Rimini_Line
> 
> check the maps and one of them has the area in which romance does not exist anymore
> 
> another east romance word is for Pig, its Maiale in italian and I was told romanian , but its Porsel in northern Italy


I wasn't aware that the word "vacca" was a dialect word in Italian (and I thank you for pointing that out). But, this changes nothing about my statement, namely that Italian (just like French, Portuguese, Spanish etc. and Romanian) is a Romance language that is derived from Latin. I think you can agree on that.

----------


## spongetaro

> There's really no point in denying that Romanian is a Romance language.


Is it true that Romanian is the language that diverged the least from Latin?

----------


## mihaitzateo

The ideea that if a word is same in romanian and in latin is almost same,it should have come in romanian from latin is not supported by arheological findings,since dacians,who were allied with thracians are proved to be a much older civilisation than Roman Empire.
It seems more logic and clear that latin borrowed words from old dacian,and not reveresed,which dacian was derived from thracian,which is one of the proto-indo-european languages.
Since latins could not pronounced diacritcs,they took the words without diacritics.
However,in english there are words who are said to be taken from latin,but could not be found in other so called "romance language".How can you explain this?
I also doubt about the theories that normans brought some french words,how come tendon in english is pronounced more close to romanian,than to tendon in french?


Now coming back to some of those words told above:
How can you explain that *absurd* is found also in german and danish and is pronounced in these languages as in romanian,but exactly as in romanian?
Same with gratis,is pronounced exactly same in german and romanian and have same meaning.Even more weird is found with same meaning and pronounciation in swedish and norwegian and danish ,but not in romance languages.
http://translate.google.com/#ro|no|gratis
http://translate.google.com/#ro|sv|gratis
http://translate.google.com/#ro|da|gratis
http://translate.google.com/#ro|af|gratis
(afrikaans is an old germanic language).
So let me see,germans,swedes, norwegians,danes and so on and romanians all took gratis from latin,however,the romance speakers did not took it.Even more weird,all are pronouncing the word exactly same.Ha ha.
This is just a pure nonsense.

And to have a little more fun:
potato,is called in romanian cartof.
And here how is called in icelandic and german:
http://translate.google.com/#ro|is|cartof
http://translate.google.com/#ro|de|cartof
(kartöflu in Icelandic and Kartoffel in german;very likely this is taken from latin also,however,there is small problem,when the potato was brought into Europe,Latin empire was not existing anymore).

Ok and an old word,which is linked with music,flute:
romanian - flaut
icelandic - flautu
english - flute
german - Flöte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute
(the oldest flute was found in Germany and is dating from 35.000 years ago).
Taranis,you should try a little better to contradict what I am writting here, with more reasonable arguments.

----------


## Yetos

I must repeat my believes again

I do not believe that Romanians are Germanic, 
I do not belive that Germans are Romanians,

I say that the time Herodotus describes Thracians and Dacians Baltic and Scandivia was a cruel land to live, 
but from the History of the climate conditions we know that Balitc and scandinavia was a sweetable place to live at about 2000 Bc 

even North sea (did exist but was dry land) was a paradise that times, and inhabited, (>2000BC

It seems like Thracians and Dacians were either a North nation who went down to Balkan at 900 (major 600) BC 
Herodotus describes Tarandos (reignDeer) in Ucraine not far from Crimea, which today exist in Finland and in far North areas as it is consider a low temperatures animal,
then Thracians and Getae moved again North and West, under pressure of Scythians etc,
the description of Strabo that Vissi are the strongest and the leaders of Getae is CLEAR 
Vissii -Getae = Visi-Goths 
search the Scandinavian Mythology about the connection with Thracians, 

Thracians Getae move West and North, 
what was left behind of Thracians was romanised or Greek assimilated (Roman or Greek Byzantium culture), 

much Later came the last Reserve of Scythians Sarmatians (Slavs) and Huno-Bulgars Cumans Germano-Wallachians Germano-varragians etc and create the modern Nations of Balkans, 

It maybe is, or maybe not, a coincidence But Satem language exist only were Turkic speaking populations co-exist,

----------


## Taranis

> This is just a pure nonsense.





> Taranis,you should try a little better to contradict what I am writting here, with more reasonable arguments.


Indeed, this is pure nonsense. I have a _very reasonable_ argument: you're not going to waste anybody's time here any longer with this. Closed.

----------

