Vlach haplogroups & deep ancestry?

[Dreptul Valah]

https://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&sour...FjADegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw28Ag6ZTpzOPtouZMJ9eAU5


The name for the ultimate ruler,in both ways,landlord and military leader ,is domn,while the institution is called domnie,both terms ,inherited in Romanian(Aromanian only has the first term), plus,these have no resemblance in the neighbouring countries.


These words come from Vulgar Latin,with the usual syncope,dominus-domn,like in oculus-ochi,probably from a form domnus,Old Italian domno,Italian don.


https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dominus


https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/don#Italian


Vlad Tepes,a letter towards the city of Brasov:


"Think about it,when a man or domn is tough and powerful,he can make peace the way he wants;but when he's weak,another one will rise upon and used him the way he wants."

 

[Dreptul Valah]

Domnia elected the rulers,explaining this semantic shift,L conventus,gathering,R cuvant,word,but they had to be of "os domnesc"(nobles).

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuvânt#Romanian

 

[JajarBingan]

This thread is neither about Vlach haplogroups nor deep ancestry. What a shitshow. :lol:

 

[JajarBingan]

I thought most of them were romanized latin speaking illyrians from dalmatia, bosnia, croatia, serbia. I'm sure dacian and thracian blood is in the mix too. I heard they were in yugoslavia before slavs, and slavs inhabited what is now romania. Slavs moved into yugoslavia and bulgaria then a lot of vlachs left to romania. They say themselves they were the roman army from the balkans that moved to dacia/romania. I think they just conquered the region and absorbed it's older inhabitants.
Not all vlachs moved either some stayed and were absorbed into yugoslavs, croats used to call serbs vlachs in some historical writings too because of orthodoxy.
I think they are very closely related to slavs of surrounding countries especially serbs.

I have never heard of the vlach homeland in albania til now.

All of the balkan was once roman territory maybe vlach has less to do with ancient ethnicity and more to do with language.

Yes, genetically Bulgarians and Serbs are closer to Romanians than to the average of East and West Slavic groups. Romanians are in their turn closer to them than to Albanians and Greeks.

So clearly, Romanians are a mix of native Balkan people and Slavs with a Latin language, while the Bulgarians and Serbs are also part of the same mix but with a Slavic language.

Here are the closest people to the average Romanian:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Romanian:Average	Serbian	Average	1.218
2	Romanian:Average	Montenegrin	Average	1.349
3	Romanian:Average	Bulgarian	Average	1.355
4	Romanian:Average	Macedonian	Average	1.438
5	Romanian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia4	1.518
6	Romanian:Average	Romanian	G408	1.773
7	Romanian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia2	2.082
8	Romanian:Average	Romanian	A362	2.095
9	Romanian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianF2	2.109
10	Romanian:Average	Montenegrin	Montenegro6	2.173

Average Bulgarian:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Bulgarian:Average	Romanian	Average	1.355
2	Bulgarian:Average	Macedonian	Average	1.457
3	Bulgarian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianD6	1.776
4	Bulgarian:Average	Serbian	Average	1.917
5	Bulgarian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia4	1.964
6	Bulgarian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianE2	2.088
7	Bulgarian:Average	Bulgarian	Bulgaria1	2.094
8	Bulgarian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia2	2.174
9	Bulgarian:Average	Romanian	A343	2.241
10	Bulgarian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianF2	2.308

Average Serb:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Serbian:Average	Romanian	Average	1.218
2	Serbian:Average	Montenegrin	Average	1.381
3	Serbian:Average	Macedonian	Average	1.541
4	Serbian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia4	1.622
5	Serbian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia2	1.733
6	Serbian:Average	Montenegrin	Montenegro6	1.912
7	Serbian:Average	Bulgarian	Average	1.917
8	Serbian:Average	Bosnian	Average	2.072
9	Serbian:Average	Croatian	Croatia_Cro305	2.166
10	Serbian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianF2	2.203

Average Croat:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Croatian:Average	Slovenian	Average	1.068
2	Croatian:Average	Hungarian	Average	1.17
3	Croatian:Average	Moldovan	Average	1.651
4	Croatian:Average	Bosnian	Average	1.673
5	Croatian:Average	Croatian	Croatia_Cro142	1.762
6	Croatian:Average	Croatian	Croatia_Cro43	1.764
7	Croatian:Average	Bosnian	Bosnian_12	1.842
8	Croatian:Average	Slovenian	Slovenian172	1.902
9	Croatian:Average	Moldovan	748_R02C02	1.903
10	Croatian:Average	Hungarian	NA15203	1.92

Average Macedonian:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Macedonian:Average	Romanian	Average	1.438
2	Macedonian:Average	Bulgarian	Average	1.457
3	Macedonian:Average	Serbian	Average	1.541
4	Macedonian:Average	Montenegrin	Average	1.89
5	Macedonian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia4	1.982
6	Macedonian:Average	Serbian	Serbian_Serbia2	2.072
7	Macedonian:Average	Bulgarian	BulgarianD6	2.248
8	Macedonian:Average	Montenegrin	Montenegro6	2.255
9	Macedonian:Average	Romanian	G408	2.281
10	Macedonian:Average	Macedonian	Macedonian6	2.316

Average Moldovan:

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Moldovan:Average	Bosnian	Average	1.475
2	Moldovan:Average	Croatian	Average	1.651
3	Moldovan:Average	Bosnian	Bosnian_12	1.913
4	Moldovan:Average	Moldovan	747_R01C01	1.922
5	Moldovan:Average	Moldovan	747_R02C01	2.018
6	Moldovan:Average	Bosnian	Bosnian_10	2.092
7	Moldovan:Average	Croatian	Croatia_Cro305	2.157
8	Moldovan:Average	Hungarian	Average	2.17
9	Moldovan:Average	Bosnian	Bosnian_13	2.172
10	Moldovan:Average	Montenegrin	Montenegro4	2.205

As you can see, we're all quite close.

Albanians are shifted towards the Greeks, but since both have also received some Slavic admixture, the average of the native Balkan stock of Dacians/Thracians/Illyrians was probably shifted even further South, somewhere in the range on modern insular Greeks.

	Input	Group	Name	Fit
1	Albanian:Average	Greek	Average	1.392
2	Albanian:Average	Greek	GREEKGRALPOP11	1.507
3	Albanian:Average	Albanian	ALB202	1.922
4	Albanian:Average	Albanian	ALB230	1.935
5	Albanian:Average	Greek	S_Greek-1	2.042
6	Albanian:Average	Albanian	ALB213	2.077
7	Albanian:Average	Greek	NA17377	2.083
8	Albanian:Average	Macedonian	Macedonian8	2.11
9	Albanian:Average	Albanian	ALB212	2.122
10	Albanian:Average	Greek	GREEKGRALPOP5	2.181

Source: http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html

 

[Dreptul Valah]

Some Vlachs in Balkans were asimilatted by south Slavs, Albanians and Greeks.
Vlachs which migrated from Bulgaria, southeastern Serbia and southern Balkans to modern southern Romania from 12th to 14th century asimilatted a lot of Slavs in modern Romania. Because of that Romanian language is genetic are heavy Slavic influenced, in Romania there is a hundreds Slavic toponyms.
Some Vlachs are slavized, albanized and helenized, but some Slavs are vlachized.
Romanians are not only one Vlachs which absorbed Slavic population, Aromanians also absorbed some Slavs but less than Romanians.
Aromanians have 17% I2a1b and 10% R1a, which means that Aromanians have 27% Slavic Y DNA.
Romanians have 28% I2a1b and 18% R1a, which means that Romanians have 46% Slavic Y DNA.
Many Vlacho-Romanian rulers from middle age had Slavic names such as:
Vlad the Impaler (Vlad is from a short form of Slavic names Vladimir and Vladislav) [video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad[/video]
Bogdan III the One-Eyed (Bogdan is name of Slavic origin, very popular among south Slavs, Russians and Ukrainians) [video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_III_the_One-Eyed[/video]
Radu I of Wallachia (Rad means work on many Slavic language, name Rade is very popular among Serbs and name Radek is very popular among Czechs) [video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radu_I_of_Wallachia[/video]
Mircea I of Wallachia (name Mircea derivated from Slavic word Mir which means peace, Slavic names Miroslav and Mirko also derivated from Mir) [video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_I_of_Wallachia[/video]

I'd choose the Musat story,that's for sure,the Moldavian ruling family.
The name came from Margareta Musata,she was not the heir of the leading parties ,but entered one through marriage,it means handsome,cute,from frumos,(fru)musat.

Some historians have speculated that she either was a Catholic or became one,possibly of Polish origin,they say...

Radu was a very common name for the early Vlach leaders,especially among those from the Dinarics,Adriatic and Kosovo(they were present in other areas too,but here were mostly recorded),who exhibit a very high degree of Romanian(Latin and Paleo -Balkanic) onomastics,see for instance the Dismounting of Radu Negru.


The name,like most of them,were adapted to Romanian, every Slavic suffix turns to -u,inherited from Latin.

Mircea is related to Macedonian Mirce,Mircevski,so,an Ochrid name.
Adapted-the diphthong ea

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mircea

 

[Dreptul Valah]

About the note no. 9,I predicted this:

http://www.academia.edu/36939351/The_heritage_of_Western_Balkan_Vlachs


The Vlachs* from central and western Balkans were of Istro and/or Daco-Romanian types,not Aromanians,direct linguistic evidence plus a stronger connection between Istro-R and Daco-R support this.


The Serbs have admixed with Vlachs to some degree,but they have mainly maintained their Slavic character,even though have sometimes exhibit end traces of Vlach contacts.


Hasanaginica is surely not a Serbian,Croatian ,Bulgarian or Turkish story,not even an Albanian or Greek one,but Romanian-Vlach.


It is about the Vlachs that built the stecci ,who had military roles in the Ottoman Empire,the western frontier was defended by them(see:Being an Ottoman Vlach).


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


EDIT

*Aromanian migrations took place especially along the coast later,but at a much smaller scale.

 

[Wonomyro]

Yes, genetically Bulgarians and Serbs are closer to Romanians than to the average of East and West Slavic groups. Romanians are in their turn closer to them than to Albanians and Greeks.

So clearly, Romanians are a mix of native Balkan people and Slavs with a Latin language, while the Bulgarians and Serbs are also part of the same mix but with a Slavic language.

Source: http://185.144.156.77:3000/checkfit.html

I agree. The most of the admixture must have happened during the early middle ages, probably during the Second Bulgarian Empire.

 

[Wonomyro]

Hasanaginica is surely not a Serbian,Croatian ,Bulgarian or Turkish story,not even an Albanian or Greek one,but Romanian-Vlach.

It is about the Vlachs that built the stecci ,who had military roles in the Ottoman Empire,the western frontier was defended by them(see:Being an Ottoman Vlach).

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

Hasanaginica, also Asanaginica, (first published as The Mourning Song of the Noble Wife of the Hasan Aga[1]) is a South Slavic folk ballad, created during the period of 1646–49, in the region of Imotski (in modern Croatia), which at the time was a part of the Bosnia Eyalet of the Ottoman Empire.

The language of the ballad is Croatian, which is a Slavic language, not Latin.

All texts on “stećci”, medieval tombstones, are also written in a Slavic language. There are very little or no Vlach language presence in the territories of Bosnia and Croatia.

The term Vlach had different meanings in different times and places. Genetics show that the "real" Vlachs lived more eastern (Serbia, Bulgaria, etc).

 

[Dumidre]

Vlach haplogroups & deep ancestry?

So, let me see if I understand what I just read: “Romanians are a mix of native Balkan people and Slavs with a Latin language, while the Bulgarians and Serbs are also part of the same mix but with a Slavic language”.
Few questions:
1. The way you describe it, the main difference is the languages they speak; on one hand a Latin language and on the other a Slavic one. Geographical speaking don’t you think that would’ve made sense that Romanians speak a Slavic language and Bulgarians and Serbians a Latin one; after all, the Romans maintained the control of the Balkans way after they retreated from Dacia.
2. Some still think that, the Romanians (Vlachs) got pushed to the north from the Balkans by the Slavs, but, if the Slavs came from the North, why would they leave the today’s Romanian territory empty so the Vlachs could populate it?
In my my opinion, the reason that the Romanians, Serbians and Bulgarians are close genetically related is mainly because their Dacian-Thracian substrate, and with a lower effect Slavic, and Romanians maintaining their Latin predominant language is a compelling argument...


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Wonomyro]

This admixture interactive map might be helpful:

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

 

[JajarBingan]

In my my opinion, the reason that the Romanians, Serbians and Bulgarians are close genetically related is mainly because their Dacian-Thracian substrate, and with a lower effect Slavic, and Romanians maintaining their Latin predominant language is a compiling argument...

I'm not buying that South Slavs are mainly from a Dacian-Thracian stock, because in that case we'd all cluster with Albanians and Greeks, and especially insular Greeks since those were isolated from Slavic migrations.

The logical explanation for me is that the Slavic admixture pulls the Romanians North, while the Dacian/Thracian admixture pulls the South Slavs toward the South genetically and that's how the two intersect.

Now determining the actual distribution of the two components in these individuals is quite hard at the moment, because we don't have any Dacian/Thracian samples yet.

The only proxy for Slavs we've got come from the Middle Ages in Czechia. For Dacians/Thracians the possible proxy derives from the Iron Age Balkan references found in Mathieson's paper on Southeast Europe.

So, by no means is this pseudo-model ideal, but that's what we've got at the moment if you want to raise the question about the actual distribution of Dacian/Thracian (native Balkan) vs Slavic in the current people from the Balkans.

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Romanian_-_G428		2.9315	48.33	51.67

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Bulgarian_-_BulgarianD6		2.3798	52.5	47.5

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Serbian_-_Serbian_Serbia2		2.5178	40.83	59.17

Check with Albanians and insular Greeks since I assume that they are a purer Balkan stock:

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Albanian_-_ALB212		2.7741	75	25

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Greek_Crete_-_NA17376		5.8175	99.17	0.83

Check with Ukrainians and Poles since I assume that they are a purer Slavic stock:

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Ukrainian_-_592_R01C01		3.3803	0	100

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Polish_-_Poland11		3.561	0	100

 

[JajarBingan]

This admixture interactive map might be helpful:

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

That study was outdated even in 2014.

 

[Nik]

So, by no means is this pseudo-model ideal, but that's what we've got at the moment if you want to bring raise the question about the actual distribution of Dacian/Thracian (native Balkan) vs Slavic in the current people from the Balkans.

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Romanian_-_G428		2.9315	48.33	51.67

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Bulgarian_-_BulgarianD6		2.3798	52.5	47.5

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Serbian_-_Serbian_Serbia2		2.5178	40.83	59.17

Check with Albanians and insular Greeks since I assume that they are a purer Balkan stock:

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Albanian_-_ALB212		2.7741	75	25

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia--RISE569
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia--RISE569	Greek_Crete_-_NA17376		5.8175	99.17	0.83

Check with Ukrainians and Poles since I assume that they are a purer Slavic stock:

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Ukrainian_-_592_R01C01		3.3803	0	100

	Model	Sample	Sample Age BCE	Fit	Balkans IA	Slavic Bohemia
1	Balkans_IA +Slavic_Bohemia	Polish_-_Poland11		3.561	0	100

What if the results of an Illyrian or Thracian show 25% "Slavic" what will your opinion be?

 

[JajarBingan]

What if the results of an Illyrian or Thracian show 25% "Slavic" what will your opinion be?

Unless I'm missing something, Slavs didn't exist as an entity at that point in time. If you are referring to the model then in that case Balkan Iron Age will be redundant, as it will get replaced by the new Dacian/Thracian reference.

If one of the guys were to be atypical compared to the average, be it by having 25% more steppe or something else, then I'd guess that it is normal to assume that the individual has foreign admixture.

 

[Wonomyro]

That study was outdated even in 2014.

What is especially "outdated" in that study? The results presented in the interactive map do no differ from other studies, including data you are currently presenting (in percentages) especially for Romania and Bulgaria. I do not see the problem. (Btw. Was it you who clicked the minus button?)

 

[JajarBingan]

What is especially "outdated" in that study?

Everything, you don't share any significant drift with Lithuanians or modern people from Middle East and neither do I.
Thus neither of those nor most of the other models on the map are suggestive of the admixture sources in modern people.
Now if they were to replace those moderns with Anatolian Farmers (keyword Anatolian, those in the Levant are a different stock altogether and those in Arabia in their turn are different from both) vs Steppe then that would have been a useful representation for the impact of the Indo-European migration on the settled Farmers in Europe.
Now show me a study that found a direct genetic transfer from modern Arabs or Baltics to the Balkans for example, because that's what that map is claiming. Apparently they are common according to you and I have somehow missed them

 

[Dreptul Valah]

This admixture interactive map might be helpful:

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

It is ;extremely helpful.

They got scared by the distance between Wallachia (with Bucharest rural area,Ilfov,included)and Belarus/Poland;since Maramures and the very most of Moldavia is very Dinaric too ,it has to be Scheii Brasovului.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702745/

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


Many Romanians of Bulgarian ancestry or living in a strong Bulgarian environment identify themselves with the Roman-Italian and British cultures, they enjoy serenity a lot.


EDIT

In this study,the Turkish sample came from the Aegean Sea shore, the middle section.

 

[Wonomyro]

Everything, you don't share any significant drift with Lithuanians or modern people from Middle East and neither do I. Thus neither of those nor most of the other models on the map are suggestive of the admixture sources in modern people.
Now if they were to replace those moderns with Anatolian Farmers (keyword Anatolian, those in the Levant are a different stock altogether and those in Arabia in their turn are different from both) vs Steppe then that would have been a useful representation for the impact of the Indo-European migration on the settled Farmers in Europe.
Now show me a study that found a direct genetic transfer from modern Arabs or Baltics to the Balkans for example, because that's what that map is claiming. Apparently they are common according to you and I have somehow missed them

I hoped that it is quite obvious that the groups used in the analysis are just proxies for some other groups. The point is that two sides of the admixture event are clearly identifiable, as presented with different colors. The admixture date indicates that the arrival group was most likely Slavs, while the opposite group was an indigenous population of the southeastern Europe.

No one, who has at least basic understanding of the methodology, would read the map in a way that Romanians are combined descendants of Lithuanians and Arabs, so why should I ever try to prove such a nonsense?

(You got a positive vote from me for one of your previous posts, but you keep giving me negative votes. Do you want me to do the same to you?).

 

[JajarBingan]

I hoped that it is quite obvious that the groups used in the analysis are just proxies for some other groups. The point is that two sides of the admixture event are clearly identifiable, as presented with different colors. The admixture date indicates that the arrival group was most likely Slavs, while the opposite group was an indigenous population of the southeastern Europe.
No one, who has at least basic understanding of the methodology, would read the map in a way that Romanians are combined descendants of Lithuanians and Arabs, so why should I ever try to prove such a nonsense?
(You got a positive vote from me for one of your previous posts, but you keep giving me negative votes. Do you want me to do the same to you?).

I told you already that there are a dozen better methodologies out there, including the latest one I shared.

Yours is simply deceiving. Lithuanians are not a proxy for early medieval Slavs, just as Arabs are not a proxy for Anatolian Farmers (moreover pre-Slavic people from the Balkans since the latter were a mix of Farmers and Hunter Gatherers).

No offence, but you need to research more and that's why you were downvoted. If I'd only disagreed with your opinion then that would have been fine by me, but I don't appreciate the spread of lies.

 

[Wonomyro]

I told you already that there are a dozen of better methodologies out there, including the one I shared. Yours is simply deceiving. Lithuanians are not a proxy for East Slavs, just as Arabs are not a proxy for Anatolian Farmers (moreover pre-Slavic people from the Balkans since the latter were a mix of Farmers and Hunter Gatherers). No offence, but you need to research mire and that's why you were downvoted. If I'd only disagreed with your opinion then that would have been fine by me, but I don't appreciate the spread of lies.

I am obviously not "spreading lies" but links to scientific papers. I sugget you to read the manual. There is no reason to be uncivil.