The Dacian myth: Origin of Romanians and Vlachs.

[Aspar]

Yes I agree this is nonsense in this thread haha.

However our language is very similar to Aromanian because at one point there was a continuous area of Latin speakers and it was basically the same dialect that broke apart when you Slavs migrated south. I wonder what the subclades of J2a and R1b the south Vlachs have are. We have a lot of R1b too, but most is in the local or native clade (I and a few others in Transylvania am an exception and have the more western Italo-Celtic version)

There was also some in Daco-Romanians too, since most I have seen on 23andme score from 2 to 8% Italian on there. But it was more diluted with us. Some Aromanians have some Turk also however. They are not the same as Greeks but mixed with Greeks in the last 1000 years probablyl

The f... you are talking about?
Slavs were living 1500 years ago...
Macedonians are modern population.
Macedonians derive a part of their genetics from the Slavs but overwhelmingly we are native...
In fact, you Romanians are even more Slavic than us as seen by the OP's map.

[Wrong]

Transylvania has around 20 % E-V13 in both Cluj and Brasov(Martinez-Cruz,Dracula's DNA),while Western Wallachia has even more,three studies confirm that.


Martinez-Cruz has also proved what many of us suspected for long ,Dracula and the House of Basarab weren't Cumans but Romanians,most of the Basarab surnames are E-V13,even if all of these don't reach the Middle Ages,it is still indirect evidence,after all,even Ilona invokes clan-based relations among Vlachs.

Basarab E V-13 clusters into the old Wallachian core ,Western Wallachia(Gorj) and Southern Transylvania(Sibiu,Tara Amlasului).


https://ro.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Țara...asRomanian.svg




http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...e.0041803.t002


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0041803

Have you looked into J2b2-L283(M241) of these areas?

[ovidiu]

Romanians have nothing to do with vlachs you idiot. There is one group that separates itself from other people in the Balkans and that's Albanians! Why wouldn't Romanians be genetically close to Albanians if they had a common origin? Vlachs of the southern Balkans just also happened to be latinized, that's the only connection they have to Romanians. A lot migrated to Romania in recent times, but other than that. There is no connection, it's propaganda. It's what genetics show, not what you want to believe.

I'm sorry but that's simply inaccurate. Vlachs refers to all speakers of descendants of Proto-Romanian, including Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian, also known as Eastern Romance. It's not common for someone to argue this but I try not to be as biased.

None of these people historically called *themselves* Vlachs, it was an exonym from others. They all used descendants of romanus as their ethnonym. Nowadays some Aromanians or Megleno Romanians use vlasi but that was a more recent development.

The languages are too close together to have nothing in common other than just deriving from Latin. It's not like the difference between Romanian vs. Italian or vs. French or Spanish. The languages have wayyy too many common particularities and idiosyncracies (which are not found in any other Romance groups) to be the result of completely unrelated Latinization events; trust me, I've studied linguistics in depth. Every serious linguist sees Romanian and Aromanian (as well as the other languages I mentioned above), as having been one solid language at some point, possibly as recently as 1000 years ago.

Romanian linguists in the past have gone as far as saying it is a dialect of their language, which I disagree with. Over the last millennium, they have changed enough to be separate languages. Romanian got more Slavic and Hungarian influence while Aromanian got more Greek and Turkish. They *both* share a common body of some *basic* early South Slavic borrowings, which end up essentially the same between them, and they *both* have a few hundred words in common with only Albanian. Some Greek found its way into (Daco-) Romanian as well, but through different routes.

If you look at this list of Aromanian words derived from Latin, almost all of them have a close cognate with Romanian, and in many cases they look quite different in the Western Romance languages. Their orthography (system/mode of spelling is a bit different so some words may look more different than they are).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categ...ved_from_Latin

There are also visible connections in that shepherding was in the past a very important aspect of Romanian life (focusing on sheep), while Aromanians were big shepherds of goats.

I'm not saying the Vlach migration theory is true and for a long time I was very against it but now I am beginning to see some merit in some of the ideas. But I'm for an ad-migration model, where some proto-Romanians/Vlachs were already on the north side of the Danube river, maybe partly into the territory of what is now Romania but not all over it, certainly not in Moldova or the far north and east. But I think Oltenia and southern Transylvania at least had some continuous settlement from the original Latinized inhabitants, to which more was added to later by Latinized peoples from the south of the river. In fact, it's mentioned that many of the colonists and soldiers were driven back south across the river after Germanic and Hun invasions, to be settled in Moesia or a "new Dacia" in what's now northern Bulgaria/east Serbia. It may be that some of these same peoples descendants then later went back across. And probably many of the leftover people that they encountered north of the river were free Dacians mixed with Slavs and Germanics and Scythians and stuff anyway, so in a way there WAS some continuity of some sort regardless of language.

There is records of some possibly Vlach chieftains in Transylvania in the 800s. But the problem with the migration theory is there is simply no record of a widespread migration like that. If there would have been enough Vlachs to populate an area as large as Romania/former Dacia or to assimilate and force the existing inhabitants to speak THEIR language, you would think someone would have noted that in a chronicle or something. I mean what would compel a bunch of Slavs and Germanics or whatnot to willingly adopt the language of these simple Vlach peasants, who were mostly shepherds, pastoral, or agrarian people? That just doesn't add up...

[Dunai]

I'm sorry but that's simply inaccurate. Vlachs refers to all speakers of descendants of Proto-Romanian, including Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian, also known as Eastern Romance. It's not common for someone to argue this but I try not to be as biased.

None of these people historically called *themselves* Vlachs, it was an exonym from others. They all used descendants of romanus as their ethnonym. Nowadays some Aromanians or Megleno Romanians use vlasi but that was a more recent development.

The languages are too close together to have nothing in common other than just deriving from Latin. It's not like the difference between Romanian vs. Italian or vs. French or Spanish. The languages have wayyy too many common particularities and idiosyncracies (which are not found in any other Romance groups) to be the result of completely unrelated Latinization events; trust me, I've studied linguistics in depth. Every serious linguist sees Romanian and Aromanian (as well as the other languages I mentioned above), as having been one solid language at some point, possibly as recently as 1000 years ago.

Romanian linguists in the past have gone as far as saying it is a dialect of their language, which I disagree with. Over the last millennium, they have changed enough to be separate languages. Romanian got more Slavic and Hungarian influence while Aromanian got more Greek and Turkish. They *both* share a common body of some *basic* early South Slavic borrowings, which end up essentially the same between them, and they *both* have a few hundred words in common with only Albanian. Some Greek found its way into (Daco-) Romanian as well, but through different routes.

If you look at this list of Aromanian words derived from Latin, almost all of them have a close cognate with Romanian, and in many cases they look quite different in the Western Romance languages. Their orthography (system/mode of spelling is a bit different so some words may look more different than they are).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Categ...ved_from_Latin

There are also visible connections in that shepherding was in the past a very important aspect of Romanian life (focusing on sheep), while Aromanians were big shepherds of goats.

I'm not saying the Vlach migration theory is true and for a long time I was very against it but now I am beginning to see some merit in some of the ideas. But I'm for an ad-migration model, where some proto-Romanians/Vlachs were already on the north side of the Danube river, maybe partly into the territory of what is now Romania but not all over it, certainly not in Moldova or the far north and east. But I think Oltenia and southern Transylvania at least had some continuous settlement from the original Latinized inhabitants, to which more was added to later by Latinized peoples from the south of the river. In fact, it's mentioned that many of the colonists and soldiers were driven back south across the river after Germanic and Hun invasions, to be settled in Moesia or a "new Dacia" in what's now northern Bulgaria/east Serbia. It may be that some of these same peoples descendants then later went back across. And probably many of the leftover people that they encountered north of the river were free Dacians mixed with Slavs and Germanics and Scythians and stuff anyway, so in a way there WAS some continuity of some sort regardless of language.

There is records of some possibly Vlach chieftains in Transylvania in the 800s. But the problem with the migration theory is there is simply no record of a widespread migration like that. If there would have been enough Vlachs to populate an area as large as Romania/former Dacia or to assimilate and force the existing inhabitants to speak THEIR language, you would think someone would have noted that in a chronicle or something. I mean what would compel a bunch of Slavs and Germanics or whatnot to willingly adopt the language of these simple Vlach peasants, who were mostly shepherds, pastoral, or agrarian people? That just doesn't add up...

Many things were well pointed out. I agree, that a mass migration towards North of the Danube isn't attested by any historical documents, but we shouldn't rule out the fact that this area was conquered by two Eastern populations, the Bulgars in today's Wallachia, Dobrudja and Central Transylvania (the very strategic gold mines), while Pannonia and Western Transylvania down to Banat and Vojvodina by Avars. The Bulgars were too small in number to settle down the North Danubian territory, and they mostly kept outposts in an area already with already very scarce population, due to the many centuries of migrations and population exchanges. These were Slavic populations, but it is possible that Proto-Romanians already started moving into this area during this period, however the very thin archeological evidence of significant habitation, without any significant settlements tells us that that the early Medieval era has left this region hugely depopulated. We surely don't have evidence of settlements of Proto-Romanian character from this period, the archeological evidence is simply not there. The Avars on the other hand also left a huge vacuum in their formerly settled territories during the 9th century, after their defeat, as in their place the Bulgarians, Franks and Moravians only loosely managed to exercise their influence, thus leaving a Late-Avar (possibly Slavicized) and Romanized Pannonians (they were not Eastern Romance speakers, but Italo-Dalmatian). Again if we look at archeology, the 9th century compared to the previous ones is very thin in evidence for widespread habitation on the formerly Avar Khaganate.

About the Proto-Romanian migration towards the North of the Danube, we don't have any documents that specifies this exactly, however we have to keep in mind that these populations were of semi-nomadic lifestyle, constantly wandering in the trail of their animal flock, which represented their basis for livelihood. Usually such populations are known as the great silent populations of the early Medieval period, as they simply didn't carry out any significant military or political actions to get themselves noticed by the Byzantine chronicle writers, who were the only literate people in this area, known for writing down about the major events. Many other people were barely mentioned in this period, like the Proto-Albanians, Proto-Macedonians. However not coincidentally in my opinion, in the 13th century the Romanians or Vlachs start to be mentioned already quite often by Hungarian chronicle writers as being present in Southern Transylvania and later territory of Wallachia, meaning that in the prior centuries the Vlachs steadily realized the advantages provided by this largely uninhabited region, free for exercising their lifestyle, and steadily moved in. Mind that both Hungarians and Bulgarians only loosely exercised their control over the territories later to be known as Wallachia and Moldova, leaving them unpopulated, mostly because of strategic purposes, as buffer zones: the constant influx of Eastern invasions from the Pechenegs and Cumans, who even managed to integrate them into Cumania. After the fall of Cumania the local Vlachs saw the opportunity to finally organize themselves politically and together with Cuman remnants founded Wallachia. Later in the 14th century, other Vlachs, that already managed to settle into North Transylvania from the order of the Hungarian king, under Dragos have moved to East of the Carpathians to organize a defense state against the Tatar invasions, which became Moldova.

[Cutezator]

Have you looked into J2b2-L283(M241) of these areas?

I've looked,it's pretty bad...

[Cutezator]

Among Hungarians is popular theory that Vlach came to Romania in 13th century from Albania, Epirus and Thessaly.

Your people,the Slavs,used to call the mountain areas Zagora,Zagore,Zagorje,since they were lowlanders, most of these regions from the Balkans and Romania were occupied by the Romanians-Vlachs,who were shepherds.

The Byzantine and Crusader chronicles use both terms,Zagora and Vlachia, for Asens country,the core of the Second Bulgarian Empire

https://books.google.ro/books?id=S9n...lachia&f=false


The Vlachs from Croatia,the Morlachs,still live in the Dalmatian Hinterland,the Zagora



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_Hinterland


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlac...ory_of_Croatia


Wallachia's second name is Muntenia(The Mountain Land) and the early Moldavian chronicles written in Romanian use Tara Munteneasca,while in the Slavonic ones the term is Zemlja Zagorstvo.
.


The Hungarian name Erdely,latinized as Transylvania,which also means The Land Beyond the Mountains, is simply a translation of Muntenia-Zagora from Romanian.


http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2...lgars.html?m=1


Greece has a Zagori in the middle of the Aromanian place names,near Metsovo,south of Moscopole,Voskopoje,which is The City of the Shepherds,the largest Aromanian center.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fEpVWQVjfxI


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagori

[Pribislav]

Your people,the Slavs,used to call the mountain areas Zagora,Zagore,Zagorje,since they were lowlanders, most of these were occupied by the Romanians-Vlachs,who were shepherds.

Yes.
There is Zagorje region in nothwestern Croatia, Zagorje in Bulgaria, Stara and Nova Zagora in Bulgaria, Dalmatinska Zagora (Dalmatian Hinterland), Mirlović-Zagora (village in Dalmatian Hintherland), Zagora (village near Trebinje in Herzegovina), Zagora in Greece...

Among Serbs and Croats exist surname Zagorac.
Zagorac means man from Zagora.

[Wrong]

I've looked,it's pretty bad...

9 of the Basarab samples there are J2b2-M241 though, this is why I ask.

8 being Sibiu Basarab, 1 Gorj Basarab. Can't be coincidence since Ghegs and Aromanians carry alot of it, other than EV13 and R1b.

Interestingly none of these Basarab samples are R1b.

[Morlak]

The Vlachs from Croatia,the Morlachs,still live in the Dalmatian Hinterland,the Zagora

Morlachs or Vlachs from Dalmatian hinterland have very little to do with true Vlachs who spoke Romance language. Morlach was basically just a name Venetians used to call people of Dalmatian hinterlands and Lika who were mostly Serbian or Croatian.

True Vlachs of Croatia got assimilated earlier. There is small community of Vlachs in Istria but they are not native to the region.

[Wrong]

Real direct Roman settler descendants in the Balkans are mainly of the R1b Italo-Celtic & J2a Italic-Roman specific clades.

The rest found in the Balkan is mainly native Balkanite & Slavic + lastly minor Germanic & Celtic tribe descent.