Passify Romanians from Craiova (SW Romania)

[ixulescu]

I don't belive in Dacian theory, don't exist any decent arguments for this. I think local Romance population migrated from south of Danube 1000 years ago, latter atfter they spliting in different population, they formed different ethnicities.

Migration requires additional proofs.

Romanians starting as Latinized Dacians is the simpler theory. We know that local population was latinized, we have grave inscriptions to show that. Migration theory requires that this Latinized population somehow vanished and yet another Latinized population replaced it without anyone else noticing it. That's too much conjecture.

It also doesn't make sense that people South of Romania have less Italic admixture than Romanians. If Romanians came from the South and then absorbed locals from present day Romania, locals having no Italic admixture, then the resulting population would have had less Italic, not more. Demographically, the migration theory doesn't work from any angle you look at it.

[Aspirin]

Migration requires additional proofs.

We know that local population was latinized, we have grave inscriptions to show that.

Show me these proofs. First official record of Romance population northern of Danube is from year 1222.

[ixulescu]

Show me these proofs. First official record of Romance population northern of Danube is from year 1222.

I'm talking about grave inscriptions with Latin names that have been dated in the first millennia. These are archaeological proofs, they have nothing to do with recovered written records.

And btw you're wrong on written records. Bulgarians wrote a lot about their alliances with Vlachs and Cumans living north of Danube, in fights against Byzantines.

[Aspirin]

I'm talking about grave inscriptions with Latin names that have been dated in the first millennia. These are archaeological proofs, they have nothing to do with recovered written records.

And btw you're wrong on written records. Bulgarians wrote a lot about their alliances with Vlachs and Cumans living north of Danube, in fights against Byzantines.

What kind of graves? From what century?

[ixulescu]

What kind of graves? From what century?

Graves from 2nd to 6th century in Romanized Dacia.

I'll dig for a reference but that can take time. I do remember that most names were Latin, something like 15% Greek, and only 2% Dacian.

[ixulescu]

Graves from 2nd to 6th century in Romanized Dacia.

I'll dig for a reference but that can take time. I do remember that most names were Latin, something like 15% Greek, and only 2% Dacian.

In the paper I read this initially it was clearly specified that these were not any kind of inscriptions, but specifically graves inscriptions, and found in thousands.

I wasn't able to retrieve exactly that quote, but here are 2 more sources that mention these inscriptions:

Georgescu, Vlad (1991). Călinescu, Matei (ed.). The Romanians: a history.
Tóth, Endre (1994). "The Roman Province of Dacia".

they're also referred to in Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dacia#Colonists

[Jana]

You're done then.

For Romania, see this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...a0341/download

page 9, last row: 1.93 children/Roma woman

Lol, we have something like 50 times less Gypsies than Romania, even in percentage. It's obvious lot of them don't want to declare ethnicity (same thing everywhere), real numbers are much greater.

[Jana]

The most visible gypsies are the nomadic ones. They have more children on average, but are far fewer than the settled gypsies (maybe 15%). Settled gypsies don't have that many children anymore.

Also Romanian gypsies have particularly low fertility rates compared to other gypsies from the Balkans. There is an Italian study of nomadic gypsies from the Balkans living in Italy, and the Romanian gypsies had like 2.5 children / woman, while Yugo gypsies had more than 4.

Dude, in my country nomadic Gypsies don't exist. They all live in houses and have tons of children. Romania probably has close to 2 million Gypsies. No point to pretend their numbers are small, they aren't.

[ixulescu]

Lol, we have something like 50 times less Gypsies than Romania, even in percentage. It's obvious lot of them don't want to declare ethnicity (same thing everywhere), real numbers are much greater.

Actually for that study, 2 counts were kept, one for those who self-identified as Roma, and another one for those who authorities identified/tracked as Roma.

The fertility rate was obviously slightly higher in the self identified group, but not by much: 2.08 children/woman vs 1.93 children/woman.


Btw, if you say you have 50 times few gypsies percentually than in Romania I don't trust your statistics. You're fooling yourself if you think you have less than 1% gypsies. And from 1% population can balloon in short time if they have such crazy birth rates.

[Jana]

Actually for that study, 2 counts were kept, one for those who self-identified as Roma, and another one for those who authorities identified/tracked as Roma.

The fertility rate was obviously slightly higher in the self identified group, but not by much: 2.08 children/woman vs 1.93 children/woman.

Btw, if you say you have 50 times few gypsies percentually than in Romania I don't trust your statistics. You're fooling yourself if you think you have less than 1% gypsies. And from 1% population can balloon in short time if they have such crazy birth rates.

Dude, Romanian telling Croatian we are done with Gypsies is rich lol.
They exist only in northernmost Croatian county and yes, they are increasing their numbers there very fast.

It is still very minor compared to places like Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria or Slovakia.

Now I am waiting for you to tell me how it's a fake map and Gypsies are really not a big thing in Romania (country everyone in Europe associate with them)