I2a-Din came to the Balkans and Dinaric Alps with the Thracians, Dacians & Illyrians

The Daco-Roman Myth The present-day Transylvania was inhabited in Roman times by the people known by Greeks as Gæta, whom Romans called Dacii, that were a Thracian people. The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity assert that the Dacians were colonized by Romans in such a way that they adopted Latin language and became the ancestors of present-day Romanians (or even dare to say that the Dacians' language was close to Latin, which is utterly improbable). The occupation lasted about 160 years only, a period that was characterized not by an idyllic relationship between the two peoples but by violent rebellions of the Dacians against the invaders with consequent retaliation and repression. After the Romans evacuated Dacia because of the imminent Barbaric invasions, which actually happened, the hypothetical Daco-Romans were supposed to have survived for about a millennium hidden in caves and forests in Transylvania, not being noticed by the different peoples that populated the land in successive waves of immigration. Of course, there is not a single document that might prove such a theory, and from a logical viewpoint is quite unlikely that an entire people would be completely ignored by all Germanic and Eurasian settlers for such a long period.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

The Roman withdrawal from Dacia was followed by a reasonably peaceful time. By then, however, wars and epidemics have made significant inroads into the local population. This made it possible for the departing Romans to take a major portion of the remaining inhabitants with them -- primarily those most closely allied with them -- and settle them within the boundaries of the new borders. The former Dacia was left as the spoils, battle ground and living space to the Goths, Carps, Sarmatians, Gepids and Vandals. The complete excavation of some contemporary cemeteries could irrevocable prove -- or disprove -- the continued survival of a "Romanized Dacian population". We know of no such excavation in contemporary Romania. It must be noted that in the Latin Dacian inscriptions we find that the majority of names are Oriental rather than Latin (Italian). Perhaps Christian inroads had already begun under the Roman rule. In Pannonia we have evidence of episcopal sees, shortly after the Roman occupation. Such evidence from Dacia is lacking. Even more damaging is the almost complete absence of place names of Latin origin in the area of present Transylvania. Rome is remembered only by the name of some rivers. (The recently introduced place names -- e.g., Cluj-Napoca -- have been revived artificially after an interval of almost 2000 years
http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?action=nextchapter&bid=14&cid=2


 
I agree and it is a fact that:
-Dacian and latin were very different satem-centum language
-Dacians and Roman rulers had no pacefull relationship

How do you explain:
1. Why are romanian in Moldavia? Moldavia was dacian land never ruled by romans, it should be iranian, turcic, germanic, or slavic teritory, not latin romanian. From Dnister and even from Bug to the west there were romanian speakers, and after them came the layer of slavic migration. If it was revers how did they get there? Did they migrate against the est-west flow of barbaric asians and succeded concuering the land?
2.The romanised latin speaking vlachs/romanians ocupied exactly the territory of old Dacia? Why and how?


Don't you think that at least a part of stabil dacian population was latinised and survived better in the land than the unlatinised dacians. Most likely families of shepherds dealing with transhumance in the same teritory, not matering what barbaric people crossed the plaines.
 
I agree and it is a fact that:
-Dacian and latin were very different satem-centum language
-Dacians and Roman rulers had no pacefull relationship

How do you explain:
1. Why are romanian in Moldavia? Moldavia was dacian land never ruled by romans, it should be iranian, turcic, germanic, or slavic teritory, not latin romanian. From Dnister and even from Bug to the west there were romanian speakers, and after them came the layer of slavic migration. If it was revers how did they get there? Did they migrate against the est-west flow of barbaric asians and succeded concuering the land?
2.The romanised latin speaking vlachs/romanians ocupied exactly the territory of old Dacia? Why and how?


Don't you think that at least a part of stabil dacian population was latinised and survived better in the land than the unlatinised dacians. Most likely families of shepherds dealing with transhumance in the same teritory, not matering what barbaric people crossed the plaines.
I'll try to get some clues,even i never researched the Romanization and emergence of Latin speaking people in Dacia.
If we take a look at Roman limes where many legions were stationed and had contact with local population is exactly Dacia,lower Danube,see limes Moesiae corespond to Moldova;
Limes_and_borders.gif

Limes Moesiae and other Roman Walls in Romania
800px-Roman_Byzantine_Gothic_Walls_Romania_Plain.svg.png

11600fdf7ae1dcbc7a4e851e6be014f5.jpg



Then if we take a look at Via Egnatia,one of the most important roads in Balkans in Roman empire,corespond to distribution of Vlachs.
Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg

Map-balkans-vlachs.png


This people must had language of contact with local population dealing in many issues,some guarding the road,other the borders.
Even thought this legions or border guards were mostly of local origin in my opinion,that's why so many emperors will emerge from Balkans later on.
On the other hand there is agreement that Thracian language survived Roman demise on Balkans were Slavicizied.
 
Look, i don't have an agenda, I don't want to nationalise a Haplogroup, all humans are good and bad, no matter ethnicity or nationality. My main interest is linguistics and etymology. I join here to find some answers.

The problem with the vlachs is that the linguistics shows that they are descendants from the same group of people as romanians and not separated, parallel romanised populations. Their common origin is also supported by the traditions, clothes, songs and legends.
Place of origin is very disputed, so lets see:
The I2a is a european Hg with the highest diversity in North and West of the continent. The I2a-din is young, and the clues indicates that it came to Balkans from the area of Belarus-Poland. It could of have camed only in one of this 2 scenarios: 1. with the thracians/dacians or 2. With the slavic migration.
Thracian language seem to be a satem language related to iranian and baltic. The Baltic - Thracian connection sustain the presence of the Poland-baltic area I2a in thracian population. The Cimerians are considered to be in the same group with thracians/dacians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian). The Cimerians must of have taken the I2a in the Kurdish population. The few words that remained from dacian language are almost exactly like todays kurdish. Also todays romanian has words in common only with kurdish (different from any other language). There are lots of strong archaeological links between north Black Sea people and dacians.
The fact that I2a-din population is more consistent with the thracian/dacian/cimerian origin, and in balkans with the vlachs it makes me believe the origin of I2a-din is stongly linked with this map:
Vlahi-1.jpg

The map is based on linguistics. The initial poin of origin is belived to be Banat region in SV Romania.
Based on linguistics and other factors, for the Istro-Romanians in Croatia it has been determined they came from Banat in X-XIII centuries, later than other vlachs, maybe this is the reason why their I2a-din-S is younger than the I2a-din-N from Romania and balkans.
The Via Egnatia is below the Jiracek line it was in stong greek language influence, it could not be responsable for the latinisation of the romanian people and vlachs population.
Jirecek.jpg

Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg

The I2a-din in balkan resembles best the distribution of latinised daco-thracians that expanded from Banat and Transilvania. A part of those people were slavicised. See the map of those populations before 1940:
harta_aromani.jpg


I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario
 
Look, i don't have an agenda, I don't want to nationalise a Haplogroup, all humans are good and bad, no matter ethnicity or nationality. My main interest is linguistics and etymology. I join here to find some answers.

The problem with the vlachs is that the linguistics shows that they are descendants from the same group of people as romanians and not separated, parallel romanised populations. Their common origin is also supported by the traditions, clothes, songs and legends.
Place of origin is very disputed, so lets see:
The I2a is a european Hg with the highest diversity in North and West of the continent. The I2a-din is young, and the clues indicates that it came to Balkans from the area of Belarus-Poland. It could of have camed only in one of this 2 scenarios: 1. with the thracians/dacians or 2. With the slavic migration.
Thracian language seem to be a satem language related to iranian and baltic. The Baltic - Thracian connection sustain the presence of the Poland-baltic area I2a in thracian population. The Cimerians are considered to be in the same group with thracians/dacians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thraco-Cimmerian). The Cimerians must of have taken the I2a in the Kurdish population. The few words that remained from dacian language are almost exactly like todays kurdish. Also todays romanian has words in common only with kurdish (different from any other language). There are lots of strong archaeological links between north Black Sea people and dacians.
The fact that I2a-din population is more consistent with the thracian/dacian/cimerian origin, and in balkans with the vlachs it makes me believe the origin of I2a-din is stongly linked with this map:
Vlahi-1.jpg

The map is based on linguistics. The initial poin of origin is belived to be Banat region in SV Romania.
Based on linguistics and other factors, for the Istro-Romanians in Croatia it has been determined they came from Banat in X-XIII centuries, later than other vlachs, maybe this is the reason why their I2a-din-S is younger than the I2a-din-N from Romania and balkans.
The Via Egnatia is below the Jiracek line it was in stong greek language influence, it could not be responsable for the latinisation of the romanian people and vlachs population.
Jirecek.jpg

Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg

The I2a-din in balkan resembles best the distribution of latinised daco-thracians that expanded from Banat and Transilvania. A part of those people were slavicised. See the map of those populations before 1940:
harta_aromani.jpg


I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario

Vlahs in the Balkans are not numerous. They consists of less than 5% of population of the countries where they live. They also score high in R1b. Its believed that they came from southern Romania population of Vlahia. But they can not be responsible for all I2a in The Balkans. Whenever you have Slavs in the Balkans you also have high occurrence of Haplogroup I2a, which means they are responsible for its presence. But i2a has its own subgroups which leads to possibility that some I2a could be paleolithic.
 
Vlahs in the Balkans are not numerous. They consists of less than 5% of population of the countries where they live. They also score high in R1b. Its believed that they came from southern Romania population of Vlahia. But they can not be responsible for all I2a in The Balkans. Whenever you have Slavs in the Balkans you also have high occurrence of Haplogroup I2a, which means they are responsible for its presence. But i2a has its own subgroups which leads to possibility that some I2a could be paleolithic.

I don't know nothing from haplogroups, but i want to say you something that can help you to have an clear view. Until 200 years ago in a territory that include the territory of the today modern states of South Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosova, Albania, FYROM, Greece including many islands until Crete, lived two great ethnic groups, Vlachs and Albanians. Vlach were something more numerous than Albanians. But there was not an border between this two ethnic groups. The distribution of this people in Balcan was complicated, but roughly, in North Balcan, South Croatia, Serbia, vlachs were majority, meanwhile in Greece majority were Albanians. What's happened later, how this ethnic groups were assimilated, it's another story. Everywhere you go in Balcan, still today you find Vlachs and Albanians, everywhere. This was the big picture of Balcan 200-250 years ago. The majority of the population of the modern states mentioned by me in this post are originary from this two ethnic groups.
 
Jirecek.jpg

Map-Via-Egnatia-modern-names-660x351.jpg



I don't know, but for me seems the best scenario
Jiricek line mean nothing in this scenario.Also the Vlach language is influenced by Greek,on the same token Albanian language words of Latin origin many are shared with Romanian,which led some scholars to say that Albanians came from Dacia too,maybe?
Jiricek line is from 1911;
More recent scholars have revised it somewhat: Kaimio (1979) places Dalmatia and Moesia Superior in the Latin area and Moesia Inferior in the Greek sphere. MacLeod (1982) suggests that there may not have been "an official language policy for each and every aspect of life" but that "individual Roman officials [made] common sense ad hoc decisions". He also points out that during that time, when the area was under the Roman rule, "even in Greek areas... Latin was the dominant language in inscriptions recording public works, on milestones, and in the army".

I am guessing about language distribution and "Romanization",but you about haplogroups even more,i gave proposal about the Cimmerians and Kurds but i don't rush with conclusions.
 
Jiricek line mean nothing in this scenario.Also the Vlach language is influenced by Greek,on the same token Albanian language words of Latin origin many are shared with Romanian,which led some scholars to say that Albanians came from Dacia too,maybe?
Jiricek line is from 1911;
More recent scholars have revised it somewhat: Kaimio (1979) places Dalmatia and Moesia Superior in the Latin area and Moesia Inferior in the Greek sphere. MacLeod (1982) suggests that there may not have been "an official language policy for each and every aspect of life" but that "individual Roman officials [made] common sense ad hoc decisions". He also points out that during that time, when the area was under the Roman rule, "even in Greek areas... Latin was the dominant language in inscriptions recording public works, on milestones, and in the army".

I am guessing about language distribution and "Romanization",but you about haplogroups even more,i gave proposal about the Cimmerians and Kurds but i don't rush with conclusions.

Pls, save our time and don't start with koçi-boçi theories of Garrick about the ethnogenesis of Albanians from Dacia.
 
I don't know nothing from haplogroups, but i want to say you something that can help you to have an clear view. Until 200 years ago in a territory that include the territory of the today modern states of South Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosova, Albania, FYROM, Greece including many islands until Crete, lived two great ethnic groups, Vlachs and Albanians. Vlach were something more numerous than Albanians. But there was not an border between this two ethnic groups. The distribution of this people in Balcan was complicated, but roughly, in North Balcan, South Croatia, Serbia, vlachs were majority, meanwhile in Greece majority were Albanians. What's happened later, how this ethnic groups were assimilated, it's another story. Everywhere you go in Balcan, still today you find Vlachs and Albanians, everywhere. This was the big picture of Balcan 200-250 years ago. The majority of the population of the modern states mentioned by me in this post are originary from this two ethnic groups.
Phantasmagoria again?
Take a break.
I know that Albanians once inhabited entire Illyricum with less numerous Romanized (Vlachs) kin but the damned Slavs came what you can do.
 
Pls, save our time and don't start with koçi-boçi theories of Garrick about the ethnogenesis of Albanians from Dacia.
I gave example of his own words,but you don't get the clue,i will never bring your origin in question :)
You are Illyrians,from the southern ones ;)
 
I gave example of his own words,but you don't get the clue,i will never bring your origin in question :)
You are Illyrians,from the southern ones ;)

Discussing the ethnogenesis of Albanians is not an taboo. I have no problems to discuss even your alternative theories. The problem is that both of you, serbs and Fyromskis are always so alternative when you discuss this topic. Also, it's boring when i ask someone ten times about A and he ten times answer always about B. There is no more discussion then.
 
Phantasmagoria again?
Take a break.
I know that Albanians once inhabited entire Illyricum with less numerous Romanized (Vlachs) kin but the damned Slavs came what you can do.

I think i explained very well Phantasmagoria, using to illustrate it some photos from the capital of your country in the thread Macedonians.
Irony can be funny. But it can not be an argument and also can be really boring. Accompained this with the distortion of the words, then you are one step from charlatanism.
 
Guys, we do not have enough historical and archaeological research for Romanians and Albanians so it is room for interpretation, I am open to any opinion, pls not offensive.

The fact is that from linguistics we can determine prety good that the latinisation of albanian language was a separate and parallel process from the latinisation of the romanian/vlach. It was carried out according to different phonetic processes. So those popuations were in diffrent parts in same time.
There were only a few words found that are borrowed from abanian to romanian and from romanian to abanian. But the big fact is that almost all the non-latin words in albanian and romanian are the same, and are not found in any other language in the word. Those words are common to albanian and romanian before the process of latinisation, from the old substratum.
That sugest that when latinisation begin in Balkans, albanian and romanian ancestors were linguisticly related people that lived in different areas. The most likely scenario albanians-ilirians and romanian-dacians.
 
I2a-M423 (Dinaric type) came to the Balkans....with Slavic language and migrations. Sorry folks, the node all these men are on is only 2200 years old as per Yfull and underwent rapid expansion. The ancestor to this branch apparently existed in Poland (sample on Yfull) and separated quite a bit earlier. However, it could have been anywhere in the north east AFAIK.
 
Discussing the ethnogenesis of Albanians is not an taboo. I have no problems to discuss even your alternative theories. The problem is that both of you, serbs and Fyromskis are always so alternative when you discuss this topic. Also, it's boring when i ask someone ten times about A and he ten times answer always about B. There is no more discussion then.
How can be a taboo,you are a Shqiptar from northern Epyrus don't pretend being something else.
 
How can be a taboo,you are a Shqiptar from northern Epyrus don't pretend being something else.

You are free to open a new thread and to elaborate your theories. This is not an invitation, it's an challenge.
 
You are free to open a new thread and to elaborate your theories. This is not an invitation, it's an challenge.

Thanks for your challenge but I don't waste my time on such irrelevant for me things,might be around to point when phantasmagoria strikes you again.
 
Thanks for your challenge but I don't waste my time on such irrelevant for me things,theories of historical Epirus.I might be around to point when phantasmagoria strikes you again.
If you don't accept the challenge, why do you continue to talk? Why you quoted me this time? It's not an pleasure for me to discuss with you, honestly last time when we discussed about South Albania in the thread about Illyrians, was really boring. Do you want to quote part of this discussion here?
BTW, seems that you have learned a new word, Phantasmagoria. Congratulations.
 
If you don't accept the challenge, why do you continue to talk? Why you quoted me this time? It's not an pleasure for me to discuss with you, honestly last time when we discussed about South Albania in the thread about Illyrians, was really boring. Do you want to quote part of this discussion here?
BTW, seems that you have learned a new word, Phantasmagoria. Congratulations.

I talk when I want and reply where i want,the word describe perfectly your cause it's not coincidence,phantasmagoria in medical use.I can use it discusing with you,my Illyrian friend from Epirus.Was not boring talking about Ottoman,Turko Albanian hero Ali Pasha,Bashibozuk bandit chieftain hero of Epirus,much like the previous Pyrrhus of Epirus.
 
I talk when I want and reply where i want,must be boring,the word describe perfectly your cause it's not coincidence,phantasmagoria in medical use.I can use it discusing with you,my Illyrian friend from Epirus :D

OK, now show some respect for the other members. Exist other ways to elaborate your opinions and theories without derailing this thread with your ad hominem attacks.
 

This thread has been viewed 567665 times.

Back
Top