0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,983 Given: 2,435 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2 is a Greek colonist in Spain
Bosnians
"63.4 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 36.6 % ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o" "0.0106"
"61.7 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 38.3 % ITA_Collegno_MA_o1" "0.0108"
Bulgarians
"44.2 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 55.8 % ITA_Rome_Imperial" "0.0086"
"37.3 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 62.7 % ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity" "0.0091"
Macedonians
"50.5 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + "49.5 % BGR_IA" "0.0115"
"48 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 52 % ITA_Rome_Imperial" "0.0118"
Romanians
"39.2 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 60.8 % ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity" "0.0093"
"47.9 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 52.1 % ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o" "0.0107"
Albanian
"37.4 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 62.6 % Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2" "0.0093"
"31.5 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 68.5 % BGR_IA" "0.0101"
Croat
"59.8 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 40.2 % ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity" "0.0093"
"56.8 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 43.2 % Scythian_MDA" "0.0106"
Hungarian
"45.3 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 54.7 % HUN_MA_Szolad" "0.0095"
"58.4 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 41.6 % ITA_Rome_Late_Antiquity" "0.0115"
Serb
"58.2 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 41.8 % Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2" "0.0091"
"54.7 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 45.3 % BGR_IA" "0.0104"
Montengrin
"52.7 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 47.3 % ITA_Prenestini_tribe_IA_o" "0.0083"
"40.2 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 59.8 % Scythian_MDA" "0.0089"
Slovenians
"60.6 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 39.4 % ITA_Proto-Villanovan" "0.0094"
"55.6 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 44.4 % HUN_BA_o" "0.0095"
Moldavian
"42.8 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 57.2 % ITA_Rome_Imperial" "0.0079"
"41.8 % HUN_Avar_Szolad_Av2 + 58.2 % ITA_Collegno_MA_o1" "0.0086"
Last edited by vbnetkhio; 02-25-2020 at 04:25 PM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3,471 Given: 1,541 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3 Given: 2 |
Moldova, Transilvania and Wallachia are region names, not ethnic names. Plus they are foreign, with the exception of moldova, because romanians don't use ''transilvania'' nor ''wallachia'' nor ''vlah'' words, again these are exonymes. Transilvania is a latin exonym meaning 'over the forest'. The magyars translated this into 'erdely', and then romanians most likely romanised it into 'ardeal' (calling themselves ardeleni) which is what they used and use to this day. Wallachia is german form for Valahia (which apparently is also germanic in orgin), no idea why westerners took the german form, but in any case that's not what the romanians living there used, they were calling it 'Țeara Rumânească' (and themselves rumâni or rumuni), meaning 'The Rumanian Country/Land', which is a bastardization of 'rome', but not from the city of rome or the ancient roman empire, but rather the byzantine empire which was called 'the eastern roman empire' or simply... Romania, hence why greeks and vlachs alike called themselves 'romans'. Not sure what the origin of the word moldova is (other than the legend), there are some theories but apparently nothing certain, one thing clear is that MOLDOVA sounds awesome, and the inhabitants seem to have always prefered calling themselves 'moldovan' rather than 'rumân' (or romanian if we are to look at the modern day issue of moldovans from bassarabia and the political issues regarding their ethnicity and identity), though i would argue it's not because these people were any different (well yes, in a country, there are different regions with distinct cultural flavours, maybe even dialects in some cases, and that is the case of moldovans with the rest of the romanians, but they belong linguisticaly and culturaly in the same group, beyond that they belong in the eastern romance group, and beyond that they belong in the balkans, and beyond that in south eastern europe and etc etc, and i would argue even by blood despite most proximity to slavs and even recent russian admixture brought in by catherine the great and later the soviets) but rather because gradualy they created an identity over the territory, likely reinforced as well by the golden times of Stephen the Great. Same could be said for people who live in banat, maramureș, bucovina etc maybe historicaly they prefered regional names over 'roman' derivations, doesn't mean they were any different, it would be like trying to argue that thuringians, bayern, saxons etc are not germans. plus, let's say unlike italians who barely understand eachother north to south, at least we can despite our thick accents (some people use the word 'dialect', especialy in the case of moldovans, but in my opinion really it takes more than funny pronounciation and some regionalism to have a proprer dialect).
You are right to say that Romania as a nation is modern, but so is germany, so is italy... Some people try to use this fact and claim 'romanian' is an artificial identity, while completly ignoring the case of germany and italy. romania is a state created in the context of 19th century wake of nationalism and their desire to have an ethno state, of people who even in those days and i'd say even today (though ofcourse, we are now largely modernised like all the nations) were made up of pastoralist populations (well, some communities shifted towards agriculture in medival times, but the culture remained pastoralist nonetheless), who wore white tunic and white pants with motifs, a sheepskin hat, a sheepskin cloack in many cases or a vest with motifs, and opanak shoes, they all spoke what linguists call ''daco-romanian' (which true, has more accents generaly divided into southern, muntenian oltenian etc, eastern, largely modovan, and western, ardelenească etc), they were all tied to a 'roman' identity (in all actuality byzantine) often reflected in self denominations, they all had the same 'hora' dance, they all had similar folklore etc, it's in this context that romanians united and it didn't fell well with austro-hungarian and imperialist russian policies, and later diverse nationalistic policies, hence why there is so much controversy nowadays, fueled in part by the stupid choises romanians made of trying to modernise their society and ''purify'' the language. So, although romania as a nation is new, the romanian people themselves existed for centuries and it is not because the rest of the world adopted 'romanian/roumanian' instead of vlach that it makes them any different.
Yes, you are right also, many of the vlachs were absorbed into slavic communities, like the morlachs and others that don't speak aromanian anymore, it's only in the collective memory that they remained vlachs. I didn't want to mention this because it upsets serbs, macedonians and bulgarians and i didn't want to start a pointless fight with our southern fellow neighbours. When i first looked into this, it was via romanian sources, which claimed that they were an off-shoot of romanians who migrated south, while serbs and greeks claimed those were originaly slavic, helenic populations respectivaly that got romanised. I came to not accept either version. The serbian and greek version is just political bias as far as i am concerned, and i say this because the southern vlachs are very much like romanians, woman cloathing is a bit different, closer to female greek cloathing than romanian, but other than that, culture and folklore is virtualy the same. In regards to language, i'm not expert, but i'd say romanian opinion is biased in saying that it is obviously a romanian off shoot, because although it is extremly familiar, sometimes identical to romanian (especialy to archaic romanian and western and eastern romanian, bizarly), it still is fairly different and very difficult to understand by an average romanian, it will be something like german and swiss for example, or the italic languages, not exactly separate languages but not really mutualy inteligeble either. I think it's more likely those people always lived there, especialy since byzantine sources already confirm the existence of proto-eastern romance speakers in those areas. So obviously, what happened to these populations? they got slavicised, but you will notice, maybe less for serbia (though it is still very pastoralist and they have the traditional moravian cloathing which is basicaly the same as romanians and ancient balkan populations but a bit more modern), but in what concerns the bulgarians, come on, they are exactly like romanians, bagpipes and flutes, everything is related to sheep and milk, dances and music is the same
it's obvious to me, these are the same people living the same for probably thousand of years, only language and identity changed
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3 Given: 2 |
I am not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
Plus, i already said i take haplogroups with a grain of salt, i tend to base my arguments more on history, physionomy and folklore and culture
I think you mean to say that southern slavs have nothing to do with illyrians and thus they are purely slavic not of ancient balkanic stock? not sure what else to understand. If this is what you are saying, well, first and foremost, southern slavs doesn't mean countries from ex yugoslavia only, but bulgaria as well. Second, illyrians are not the only representative group in ancient times in the balkans, there were the greeks, the dacians and the thracians as well, with a majority of historian thinking that the dacian and thracian were very closily related, possibly speaking the same language, and by cultural extension illyrians come really close as well. Some people seem to think these people were exterminated by the romans, i find that very hard to believe, because i have yet to see an ethnic group as large as those peoples disappear due to being conquered, plus the romans were looking to subjugate people, not genocide. Saying that all the men of these peoples died in wars and the women mixed with the roman settles is another very naive claim in my opinion, because 'nations' don't go to war, not even in total war, it's the soldiers that wage war, and even in times like the great wars, they still represented only a fraction of the people they were fighting for, what about in ancient times then? I would really like to know if there was ever an episode in the history of humanity where one group of people exterminated another to the point where vast geographical areas where deserted and depopulated. the only example i can think of is maybe the native americans, and even with a large number of europeans, with advanced technology and killing methods, over a span time of a few centuries on top of everything, and still, there are millions of indians living today in the us. So no, i really find it hard to believe these ancient people that the greeks feared and admired, romans as well, could just simply vanish like that, or let's not talk in hyperbolics, but i really doubt they could get to a point of being so few that they wouldn't have any impact at all on modern day balkan people. I genuinly believe balkan people are largely of the same stock as these ancient people, maybe true with some slavic admixture, but look the french are still largely of the same stock as the ancient gauls despite some germanic influence.
I'd say maybe slovenians are less balkanic and more like western slavs, maybe because of germanic influence, maybe because i don't know, they remained more ''pure'' since the migration, but one thing is sure, what concerns macedonians, bulgarians and serbs at least, there's no doubt in my mind, these people have little to do with eastern and western slavs and they are closer to greeks and romanians
Last edited by Papură Vodă; 02-26-2020 at 03:41 PM. Reason: I felt like adding more words.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 8,216 Given: 5,754 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3 Given: 2 |
I say haplogroups and genetic study is important, but it is still a fairly recent science field and these people are still learning, plus even with a thousand people as a genetic pole, i still don't think that it is enough, especialy in a place like the balkans where turks and gypsies left behind an ugly mark.
One thing, most western europeans belong in the R1b group, and yet, from germany to the shores of the atlantic, from england to the mediteranean, people look very different from one another and their cultures as diverse as well. I really don't think haplogroups are the final conclusion.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,864 Given: 444 |
Haplogroups are good to see very distant ancestral starting points, but autosomal DNA is very good in giving a more general, complete overview of ancestry, and to compare to neighboring populations. If there is a sufficiently large sample size of autosomal DNA, then you can make a pretty accurate estimation of how did their ancestors group, mix up and where.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks