eupator
destroyer of delusions
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 282
- Points
- 63
- Ethnic group
- Rhōmaiōs (Rumelia + Anatolia)
Thank you.
What's your R-L23 subclade, mate? What does yseq clade finder give you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thank you.
I think that the newly founded South Danubian provinces of Dacia and Moesia superior were the homeland for the Vlachs/Romanians. This would also explain the gene and reciprocal influence of Albanians and Vlachs, since I think that the Albanian homeland was the neighbouring province of Dardania. This would have made the Daco-Romans and Proto-Albanians direct neighbours.
Why Albanians ended up with more E-V13 than the Vlachs is the only remaining mystery and it might be attributed to a strong group of tribal Dacians which were resettled into those provinces and became a socially dominant part of the emerging Proto-Albanians - IMHO.
Such tribal Dacians would have had a much higher proportion of E-V13 than the already mixed Daco-Roman population of the provinces.
You pose yourself good questions and you answer yourself with biased answers from the likes of poreklo and Huban.
You will see for yourself where E-V13 comes from when aDNA comes soon. Don't try to make excuses here and there.
If you refer to the Proto-Albanians, a combination of a Dardanian-Triballi mix base with resettled Daco-Romans/Dacians is the most likely explanation for different branches of E-V13 which likely reached the Central Balkans in multiple waves before. Then this Dardanian-Dacian-Roman mix moved South from Dardania to create modern Albanian ethnic territories. You don't agree?
We will find E-V13 in Dardanians (which mixed with Triballi and had a Thracian substrate as well as Southern Thracian influx) and Daco-Romans, even more so Dacian tribals (like Costobocci and Carpi) - a bit will be spilled in with Slavs since they assimilated Dacians in the North Carpathians and on the way. That will sum it up, by and large.
What exactly is wrong about that summary? The Daco-Roman/Dacian resettlement into the Danubian and Central Balkan provinces for sure did increase E-V13 in the Balkans overall.
Nothing wrong, it's your opinion, feel free to express yourself, but i have the feeling you are biased. Everytime you go on how resettled Dacians and Slavs increased E-V13, then a reality check comes in from the fact Albanians and Greeks have far more E-V13 2-3 times more than the actual areas and actual people you refer as references.
And, to me it looks like Balkan Slavs have created this exclusive E-V13 Dacian-Slavic connection to wrap it up their identity. I can go on and on and say how many of Montenegrins and Serb E-V13 are actually Albanian, or whatsoever, but the reality might be far more complex, i rather don't engulf with this specific subclades, i prefer a more cautious evaluation of the situation.
Since you like to throw the word Vlach around in the context of "Daco-Romans" why not look at less slavic representatives of "Vlachs" e. g. Aromanians/Vllehë? The distribution, presence of E1b-V13, R1b-Z2103>CTS1450, J2b-L283 and R1b-PF7562>PF7563 totally refutes something like an unbroken continuity of romanized "Daco-Romans". They certainly did not form in the far Eastern Balkans or let alone Romania.Concerning the references, we don't have Dacian and Daco-Roman references. Modern Vlachs and even more so Romanians are not pure Daco-Romans, yet along Dacians, by any stretch of imagination.
And these people will come out not 30 % E-V13 like modern Albanians and some Greek regions, but more likely 60-90 % E-V13. There is no modern population which is remotely close to such numbers.
"Small population like Proto-Albanians were" A lot of your posts look indeed like quotes out of Poreklo clown forum. Look at the territory we find ancient samples of E1b-V13, R1b-Z2103>CTS7556, J2b-L283 and R1b-PF7562>PF7562 in. Just the Central-/South Western Balkan sphere from modern northern so called "Serbia" to southern "North Macedonia" to southern Albania you have anything but a small merging area for the formation of the Para or Proto-Albanian ethnos.This also means that if a small population (like Proto-Albanians were) would have received a strong RELATIVE input from say a Dacian or Daco-Roman core group, before extensively mixing with locals from the Central Balkans which had lower numbers, it would have drastically increased their frequency.
Wait how much slavic do aromanians have? For most southern Romanians it's 41 percent slavicSince you like to throw the word Vlach around in the context of "Daco-Romans" why not look at less slavic representatives of "Vlachs" e. g. Aromanians/Vllehë? The distribution, presence of E1b-V13, R1b-Z2103>CTS1450, J2b-L283 and R1b-PF7562>PF7563 totally refutes something like an unbroken continuity of romanized "Daco-Romans". They certainly did not form in the far Eastern Balkans or let alone Romania.
"Small population like Proto-Albanians were" A lot of your posts look indeed like quotes out of Poreklo clown forum. Look at the territory we find ancient samples of E1b-V13, R1b-Z2103>CTS7556, J2b-L283 and R1b-PF7562>PF7562 in. Just the Central-/South Western Balkan sphere from modern northern so called "Serbia" to southern "North Macedonia" to southern Albania you have anything but a small merging area for the formation of the Para or Proto-Albanian ethnos.
Find me one other living folks in modern Southeast Europe that trace their descent to these main Paleo-Balkan cultural spheres. Right, there is none and not even remotely at such a frickin' high concentration (uniparentals, auDNA).
Befor i thought as many others that romance speakers in the South Balkan, timok vlach and Romanians were not the same, and even argued for it, but this year after not trying to be bias and a bit of logic, i have come to the same conclussion what you wrote here, more or less that we are the same, but just diffred apart from each other during the years, and mixed with others, so autosomali we may not be identical today, but we came from the same ancestors
Ok maybe I overstated that initially (and it's a bit of a stereotype or generalization that northern Romanians are all gonna be more Slavic), but there is a little something to it. I know for a fact there were several hundred Ukrainian families that moved into the Maramures region several centuries ago as well, and have assimilated over time. Not even talking about Romanians in Bukovina, which probably have the highest amounts of any Romanian speakers.I know this old but things I disagree with is that north Romianians plot with eastern slavs that wrong all romanians plot with Balkanites( serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, and Bosnians) also on k13, g25 Romianians get little to no Germanic. They are just a mix of Balkan and Slavic just like all Balkanites check this dorkymon from athorgenica (rip) collected all this samples edit for the link ihad to make a different post I don't know why tho
Wait how much slavic do aromanians have? For most southern Romanians it's 41 percent slavic
Yep, I pretty much agree with most of this; it's what I've been saying. As far as one haplogroup becoming dominant at the expense of another, there could be many reasons for it, and the process could even be largely internal to a population, in which proportions of existing haplogroups change over time without too much external input as a catalyst. That said, external influences are more likely to be reasons sometimes.I think we have to distinguish between different Vlachs and Vlachs and Romanians, also Romanians of different regions.
Like the most likely origin of the Vlachs are the resettled Daco-Romans from the province of Dacia which were put into Moesia. There those Daco-Romans mixed with other Roman/Romanised people, including Thracians and Illyrians.
The only remaining question is, whether some Daco-Roman elements survived North of the Danube, in Southern Romania, probably some splinters even in more Northern parts of the country.
When the Southern Vlachs from South of the Danube expanded North again, they encountered probably other Daco-Roman remains as well as, and that was the majority, Slavs, with which they mixed and which they soaked up. That way, the more North one goes, the more Northern and Slavic-like Romance speakers become.
Those Vlachs and Romance speakers which remained in the South didn't just receive that Northern admixture as much, but mixed with locals from the Central and Southern Balkans, Aegeans, depending on their position.
The next issue is Romanians from different provinces, because very clearly, Northern Romanians and Moldovans are more likely to have Slavic, mostly Ruthenian admixture than those from Wallachia.
Something similar applies to other kinds of admixture, especially German and Hungarian-Szekler, which is also more likely for those Romanians which lived for a prolonged period of time in the direct vicinity of these people and either mixed with, or assimilated some of them.
I think all of that is pretty clear and straightforward but the question of how many Daco-Roman elements survived North of the Danube and were later incorporated into the Romanian people or even earlier into the local Slavic tribes as well. That's not as clear and can only be answered by ancient DNA.
Even the direct comparison of some more Southern Vlach/Romance groups is incomplete, because apparently there wasn't just a migration from the North to the South, but Vlach migrations in the opposite direction happened as well. This means more Northern admixture was brought by Vlachs as far as Greece. How much is up to debate, we need aDNA to answer that.
Most of the Daco-Romans from the old province of Dacia were transferred to Moesia, to the newly founded province of Dacia (ripensis):
I think that the newly founded South Danubian provinces of Dacia and Moesia superior were the homeland for the Vlachs/Romanians. This would also explain the gene and reciprocal influence of Albanians and Vlachs, since I think that the Albanian homeland was the neighbouring province of Dardania. This would have made the Daco-Romans and Proto-Albanians direct neighbours.
Why Albanians ended up with more E-V13 than the Vlachs is the only remaining mystery and it might be attributed to a strong group of tribal Dacians which were resettled into those provinces and became a socially dominant part of the emerging Proto-Albanians - IMHO.
Such tribal Dacians would have had a much higher proportion of E-V13 than the already mixed Daco-Roman population of the provinces.
Of course, the local Slavic element was long incorporated into the Romanians, with the exception of some Ruthenian areas in Northern Romania, in which a Slavic element survived for a longer period of time.
As for the Germanic, the problem is that G25 sometimes fails to recognise minor admixtures, especially if the wrong references being used. This can only be solved with more ancient DNA, like explained before.
What I forgot to mention before is the steppe admixture many Romanians have, which seems to be transmitted by one of the various steppe groups which lived in Romania (original Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans etc.). I noticed that the Romanian average has about 0,5-2 percent East Asian admixture from this source.
Since this admixture is so widespread, it might help to pin the exact origin of the core Romanian group down, since it seems to have spread with the core Vlach-Romanian group and is not a regionally very restricted phenomenon.
What's your R-L23 subclade, mate? What does yseq clade finder give you?
Yeah their is a link I put in this thread where this Moldovan from the rep been collecting them for yearsOk maybe I overstated that initially (and it's a bit of a stereotype or generalization that northern Romanians are all gonna be more Slavic), but there is a little something to it. I know for a fact there were several hundred Ukrainian families that moved into the Maramures region several centuries ago as well, and have assimilated over time. Not even talking about Romanians in Bukovina, which probably have the highest amounts of any Romanian speakers.
I will say that on most genetic charts I've seen, Moldovans (from the Republic of Moldova at least) tend to have some degree of genetic separation from Romanians proper, likely due to more Slavic admixture. But again, maybe it's overstated sometimes, I don't know.
Also, I don't think every region of Romania has equal amounts of Vlach (original East Romance speakers) input. I think places like Oltenia and southern Transylvania have a lot compared to other areas. There are parts of southern Romania where people look more "southern" than many Bulgarians even, but there are also parts where this is not the case. And in western Romania you get much more of a Central European vibe, or more Western Balkan leaning (Dinarid and such), while in southeastern, like Muntenia and Dobrogea, you get more Pontids. How exactly this corresponds to whatever the original Vlachs were, I'm not sure, because we don't know exactly what they were (assuming that all modern Vlachs diverged to some extent from that by mixing with other people). Sometimes linguistic overlays can occur on top of more ancient and established population patterns, and geography matters more. But with the advent of modern transportation, people are moving around everywhere and that doesn't hold true as much anymore.
I believe it varies based on where the Aromanians are to some extent, but it's less than that. Also, 41% sounds a tad high for southern Romanians, but I guess it depends on the study. Is that based on autosomal?
Also romanians from bukovina get the most slavic dna but it's still in mid 50 range. Yeah your right that regions of romania don't get equal input of vlachs input. Hell even countys in the different regions are different from each other but remember one thing every one in balkans have Balkan plus slavic dna including Romanian and Moldovans. Sorry for spamming this thread I am passionate for subjectOk maybe I overstated that initially (and it's a bit of a stereotype or generalization that northern Romanians are all gonna be more Slavic), but there is a little something to it. I know for a fact there were several hundred Ukrainian families that moved into the Maramures region several centuries ago as well, and have assimilated over time. Not even talking about Romanians in Bukovina, which probably have the highest amounts of any Romanian speakers.
I will say that on most genetic charts I've seen, Moldovans (from the Republic of Moldova at least) tend to have some degree of genetic separation from Romanians proper, likely due to more Slavic admixture. But again, maybe it's overstated sometimes, I don't know.
Also, I don't think every region of Romania has equal amounts of Vlach (original East Romance speakers) input. I think places like Oltenia and southern Transylvania have a lot compared to other areas. There are parts of southern Romania where people look more "southern" than many Bulgarians even, but there are also parts where this is not the case. And in western Romania you get much more of a Central European vibe, or more Western Balkan leaning (Dinarid and such), while in southeastern, like Muntenia and Dobrogea, you get more Pontids. How exactly this corresponds to whatever the original Vlachs were, I'm not sure, because we don't know exactly what they were (assuming that all modern Vlachs diverged to some extent from that by mixing with other people). Sometimes linguistic overlays can occur on top of more ancient and established population patterns, and geography matters more. But with the advent of modern transportation, people are moving around everywhere and that doesn't hold true as much anymore.
I believe it varies based on where the Aromanians are to some extent, but it's less than that. Also, 41% sounds a tad high for southern Romanians, but I guess it depends on the study. Is that based on autosomal?
And other Vlachs moved south toward northern Greece and southern Macedonia, mixing with locals there and becoming the basis for the Aromanians, and perhaps Megleno-Romanians (interestingly this language seems to be a bit closer to Romanian itself than Aromanian is, occupying a bit of an intermediate space between them; it seems to have split off of Common Romanian later than Aromanian did).
Among the countries that we can define as Slavic, the earliest historical sources mention the presence of Vlachs in Bulgaria. According to the testimony of Byzantine writer Georgios Kedrenos, David, the brother of the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, reigning in the late 10th and 11th century, was killed by “wandering Vlachs” travelling between Kastoria and Prespa. Byzantine princess Anna Commena, who writes in the 12th century, mentions numerous Vlachs, nomads living in Bulgaria. It should be noted that Anna Comnena wrote it at a time when the Bulgarian state did not exist for over a hundred years. Thus, it is necessary to ask, which territory in her chronicle could be called Bulgaria? It could only be Byzantine themata of Bulgaria, which was located in the western part of Macedonia.
The presence of numerous Vlachs in this area is confirmed during the construction of the second Bulgarian state after the great anti-Byzantine uprising of 1185. The creators of the restored state, Asen dynasty, appealed to the traditions of the Bulgarian state, but they were of Cuman-Vlach origin and adopted the title of tsar of Bulgarians, Vlachs and Cumans.
In 1203–1204 the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan wrote in letters to Pope Innocent III that he reigns over Bulgarians and Vlachs like his ancestors, tsars
Simeon, Peter and Samuel – the first rulers of the Bulgarian state in the 10th–11th century. More than that, in the correspondence between the Pope and Kaloyan of Bulgaria for the first time appeared the term “Blachia” in the territorial meaning.
Bulgarian tsar sent to the Pope the Archbishop of Bulgaria and Vlachia, Basil, while Innocent III in his edict of 25 February 1204 gave royal crown to Kaloyan and established the Roman Catholic Church for the province of Bulgaria and Blachia/Vlachia. It can be concluded that the Bulgarian state entered the territory so densely populated by Vlachs that it could have
been named Vlachia, and that it had to have some specific administrative framework as it was considered a province.
Additionally, chroniclers of the fourth crusade, Geoffroy de Villardhuin and Robert de Clari, referred to the Bulgarian tsar as John of Vlachia
(Blakia. One might ask where this Vlahia province was situated. Robert de Clari wrote that it was a province belonging to the Byzantine emperor, who rebelled against him. It was harsh and inaccessible land, which could have been accessed only by ravines. Undoubtedly, we cannot identify this Vlachia with the Wallachian Plain, as most recently historiography does, because 1) it could have been accessed very easily from the south, 2) it never belonged to Byzantine Empire. In the light of these chroniclers Vlachia must be placed in the Byzantine themata of Bulgaria, which was located in modern Macedonia. This province bordered on Cumania
This thread has been viewed 6726 times.