Main Y-haplogroups on the territory of Dacia 2000-3000 years ago.

[bigsnake49]

So the picture is getting clearer. The next mystery is J2a, as it makes up about 70% of the J2 in Romania. Minoans and Myceneans had J2a in them, and considering that Minoans spoke a non-Indo-European language, perhaps it was carried by a wave of Anatolians during the Copper Age.

To be precise, Linear A and Cretan hieroglyphs have not been deciphered yet so all we can say is that the Minoan language is unclassified.

[JajarBingan]

Well that was expected, Daco-Thracian areas have much higher ratio of E-V13 to J-L283 than Illyrian areas.. And even with less people tested V13 under CTS5856 is more diverse there.

Ossetian CTS9320* strikes the mortal blow to the idea that this hg is anything other than Daco-Mysian in origin, even proto-Dacian. Ossetian CTS9320* will never fit into any Illyrians..
Daco-Thracian language might have been spread by R-Z93 and CTS9320 if it is a later language (post-Mycenean collapse).

J2a is complicated, and I know the most common Romanian haplotype of J2a is not what you might imagine:
12 23 14 10 13-17 11 15 11 14 11 31 17 14 20 9 15 9 21

J-Y18402

This cluster is found in various Roma populations in high percentage. Out of 34 Romanian J2a's from studies this cluster is found in 7. Not some wonder as there are 10 H-M52 from studies in Romanians..

J2a is very diverse in Romania and some haplotypes look definitely local.

Yes, but M67 suggest a non-Indian origin in Romas. So they picked it from somewhere else, either along the migration way out of India or in Southeast Europe. I actually just posted this question on M67 on another forum, so if you excuse me, I'll just copy paste to make things easier for me.

"Do we know which cultures spread J-M67 to Europe? I know that at least some of the M67 in Europe was determined as a founder lineage of non-Indian origin in Roma, so they picked it up somewhere. But which culture spread it before them?

"Three non-Indian lineages (I-P259, J-M92, and J-M67) were defined as founders. The founder lineages J-M92 and J-M67 are present in both Roma and hosts, as well as in the populations found in the Roma migration way out-of-India." Source

And by migration way populations, they refer to those primarily in Caucasus and Turkey, quoting this study from below.

"The J-M67*, J-M92, and J-M102 representatives reflect more distinctive origins and dispersal patterns. Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M102 shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans.

J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who reached southern Italy. J-M67* and J-M92 could represent, at least in part, the Y-chromosome component that found to correlate with the distribution, from Anatolia toward Europe, of archaeological painted pottery and anthropomorphic figurines.
On the other hand, J-M67– and J-M102–related lineages have been observed in Pakistan and India; thus, they probably have marked other migratory events." Source


The supplementary data from Finnochio et al., 2018 suggests that J-M67+ is quite popular around Greece, Italy and Turkey.

"

By the way, 11 H-M52 in 1100 samples is not a lot, at least not by my metric.

[Aspurg]

Yes, but M67 suggest a non-Indian origin in Romas. So they picked it from somewhere else, either along the migration way out of India or in Southeast Europe. I actually just posted this question on M67 on another forum, so if you excuse me, I'll just copy paste to make things easier for me.

By the way, 11 H-M52 in 1100 samples is not a lot, at least not by my metric.

Well this cluster was likely picked up somewhere along the way, possibly Caucasus as closest relatives of this subbranch are Caucasian.

Well it is generally a minor element, not a surprise considering high Roma population there and absent from many areas.

J-M92 on the other hand seems rare in Romania, only a handful of haplotypes from the studies.

[Aspurg]

Btw I was just going through some haplotypes in ethnic Romanians. Of Romanian non-Slavic/non-Germanic hg's I can easily identify at least about 25 subclades/genetic clusters where ethnic Romanians have recent medieval ties with Bulgarians, Greeks, Aromanians, Albanians, and vast majority of those cannot possibly be of Dacian origin due to basal diversity of these hg's. Dacians were not largely romanised, many were killed in war, some were resettled around the Balkans and elsewhere, Free Dacians eventually were assimilated by Slavic, Germanic, Turkic waves..

What is interesting is that Romanian clusters of Balkan origin form the significant portion of their Paleo-Balkanic Y-DNA. Where you find Y-DNA lineages of Dacian or Getic origin usually they are isolates, and usually they cluster with some Hungarians, Ruthenians, Western Ukrainians, while proto-Romanians who brought the Romance language from the Central-Eastern Balkan area cluster with the Balkanites.

It makes sense that these Balkan Romanian clusters are more numerous as the people who were bringing the language with them are of course the nucleus of a nascent ethnicity.

And only about 120 ethnic Romanians/Moldovans have STR's at FTDNA, I had to use 740 haplotypes from about 6 studies to get a better picture.

Likely Basarab dynasty belonged to J-L283>Z1043* , because it was the most common Basarab haplotype (9) and the only Basarab genetics found in more than one region, Gorj and Sibiu. They have relation to Albanian Thaci-Korbi cluster, some Greeks etc. So this cluster (among few others) signifies some of those shared Romanian-Albanian words.

[Aspurg]

But the proto-romanians were in fact the old north Danube (original Dacia area before conquest) latinized dacians who retreated alongside the romans south Danube (Dacia Aureliana, Moesia Superior, Serdica, Bulgaria), which in medieval times formed the so-called vlachs. So, even south of Danube they have north Danube ancestry. Dacia Aurelie was afterward divided into two: Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis.

And what's your opinion on the romanian Transylvania ancestors related to dacians (that area was also inhabited by dacian tribes) ?

I'l respond to you here. There should have been romanized Dacians who retreated from Dacia. Ofc some romanized Dacians staying in Dacia and keeping their Roman language in spite of Huns, Gepids, Slavs etc is very unlikely. And ofc Roman occupation lasted only 170 years.. There were Daco-Getae who still spoke their language up until 5th century, and really there is no evidence romanized Dacians outnumbered Carpi and the likes. Plus many Dacians were killed by the Romans. Carpi and the likes had bigger chances of keeping Dacian than romanized Dacians keeping their Roman language. And ofc regarding Albanian. Albanian has heavy Latin influence, not something Carpi or Costoboci should have had.


I think there might be some earlier Romance speaking presence in Transylvania, they argue often about Menumorut, his identity etc. Also Sermesianoi might have played some role if its about some early Romance speakers. Genetically it seems Transylvania has more of "indigenous" people. Romanians have high R-L51 percentage, around 9.5 % (sample 865 FTDNA + studies with STRs including Moldovans here), while their R-Z2103 is 3.7 %. Romanians have much higher L51 than neighboring populations (there are few PF7563 but minor). There are some U106 there, not the majority it seems. Some are Urnfield people who migrated 3000 years ago (So these should be Dacian). Many should be Celtic, and also Romans proper.


Bulgarians have only 4.3 % R-L51 ,1.2 % U106 (Karachanak et al), which is higher than in Serbs, and especially Albanians. Hungarians have pretty high R-L51 as well.


Many Romanian E-V13s seem migrants from the South but also many seem like locals and most cannot be classified (likely more locals as they have no matches). And it seems CTS1273 started spreading from Romanian territory so there might be some old clades there.

[torzio]

I'l respond to you here. There should have been romanized Dacians who retreated from Dacia. Ofc some romanized Dacians staying in Dacia and keeping their Roman language in spite of Huns, Gepids, Slavs etc is very unlikely. And ofc Roman occupation lasted only 170 years.. There were Daco-Getae who still spoke their language up until 5th century, and really there is no evidence romanized Dacians outnumbered Carpi and the likes. Plus many Dacians were killed by the Romans. Carpi and the likes had bigger chances of keeping Dacian than romanized Dacians keeping their Roman language. And ofc regarding Albanian. Albanian has heavy Latin influence, not something Carpi or Costoboci should have had.


I think there might be some earlier Romance speaking presence in Transylvania, they argue often about Menumorut, his identity etc. Also Sermesianoi might have played some role if its about some early Romance speakers. Genetically it seems Transylvania has more of "indigenous" people. Romanians have high R-L51 percentage, around 9.5 % (sample 865 FTDNA + studies with STRs including Moldovans here), while their R-Z2103 is 3.7 %. Romanians have much higher L51 than neighboring populations (there are few PF7563 but minor). There are some U106 there, not the majority it seems. Some are Urnfield people who migrated 3000 years ago (So these should be Dacian). Many should be Celtic, and also Romans proper.


Bulgarians have only 4.3 % R-L51 ,1.2 % U106 (Karachanak et al), which is higher than in Serbs, and especially Albanians. Hungarians have pretty high R-L51 as well.


Many Romanian E-V13s seem migrants from the South but also many seem like locals and most cannot be classified (likely more locals as they have no matches). And it seems CTS1273 started spreading from Romanian territory so there might be some old clades there.

What was the Dacian language before they took on latin ............did it have a celtic type like their northern neighbors the Bastanae ?

The Getae had their mix with the gothic neighbours to their east since 150BC

[Aspurg]

What was the Dacian language before they took on latin ............did it have a celtic type like their northern neighbors the Bastanae ?

The Getae had their mix with the gothic neighbours to their east since 150BC

Dacian language seems to have been related with Thracian, from some things I read possibly more archaic than Thracian. It might have had Celtic influence because Celts had strong influence especially in Transylvania. Carpi who descended of Getae left little onomastic traces I believe.

[gyms]

http://www.hungarianreview.com/artic...eir_settlement

Romanian ideologists thus presented their people as heirs of the Roman conquerors. It is true that around 100 AD, Emperor Trajan conquered most of Dacia, roughly modern Transylvania. Although Romans gave up this province around 150 AD due to Barbarian pressure, the people fled to the mountains and survived the difficult centuries there. Transylvanians considered themselves pure Romans who had nothing in common with the conquered Dacians (also called Getae) and kept their blood pure; many of them stuck to this blood-dogma until the end of the nineteenth century. But in the meantime the world changed immensely. In 1860 in Moldavia a twenty-two-year-old youth, B. P. Hasdeu published his programmatic article entitled Are Dacians Extinct?, in which the Romanian people were already portrayed as descendants of Dacians and not of Romans

[Riverman]

Thracians in the wider sense could be seen as including Dacian and Getae or alternatively you can construct a group of which Thracian and Dacian are branches of. In any case, they were close relatives, most likely descending form the same steppe group.

The Daco-Romans might have survived late in the Carpathians, but the real challenge came with Slavs. A large portion of Romania was Slavicised, which is the main challenge to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory.
The most likely scenario is that Romanian Vlachs first moved to the hills, but later re-established their regional dominance from one central stronghold they were first able to establish and later re-expand from. This is actually the main difference to e.g. parts of Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece, where this change of events, a re-establishment of Vlach/Romance speaking strongholds and recovery on a broader scale, which gained control over the whole territory again, did not take place.
Why it happened in Romania and not elsewhere is the most interesting question to me, because the Slavic presence was significant. But most likely the Romanian region with its mountainous, hilly and densely wooded terrain was better suited for the Vlachs to regain control over the lowlanders. This kind of living and fighting had a long tradition in the region, just reminding on the Thracian Peltasts.

I guess Dacians were for the most part R1b, E, I2 and R1a, so in larger samples I expect quite some variation, including other more Southern lineages like G and J in particular, probably with differences between social classes.

[gyms]

https://books.openedition.org/ceup/934
Romanian founding myths are simply one individual case of a quasi-universal mythological category, which, regardless of space or time, seeks to justify the present with reference to origins and to link the two ends of history by means of intermediary markers.

[stardust]

There should have been romanized Dacians who retreated from Dacia. Ofc some romanized Dacians staying in Dacia and keeping their Roman language in spite of Huns, Gepids, Slavs etc is very unlikely. And ofc Roman occupation lasted only 170 years..

Hi all

Dacians were in contact with the roman world and language long before the wars( 101 - 105 AD), and long after Aurelian's retreat. Dacians - and others- adopted the new language motivated by it being necessary( mainly for trade), and by the fact that there was no single local language.
I think the Getae spoke thracian and Dacians and Carpi spoke a "germanic" language. The many tribes living in the larger area spoke different languages, more or less related, so that it was easier for them to learn a common language.

Latin was present and used in the region for centuries before the formation of the romanian language, not just for the time of the occupation.

[stardust]

Romanian founding myths are simply one individual case of a quasi-universal mythological category, which, regardless of space or time, seeks to justify the present with reference to origins and to link the two ends of history by means of intermediary markers.

Funny you should say that. It seems swedes are increasingly worried about their own past and history. It's no secret why this is happening.
Brace yourselves for some hard truths coming your way. Science will rewrite history, yours included. Conversely, romanian history appears to hold true.
Time will tell.

[Aspurg]

Hi all

Dacians were in contact with the roman world and language long before the wars( 101 - 105 AD), and long after Aurelian's retreat. Dacians - and others- adopted the new language motivated by it being necessary( mainly for trade), and by the fact that there was no single local language.
I think the Getae spoke thracian and Dacians and Carpi spoke a "germanic" language. The many tribes living in the larger area spoke different languages, more or less related, so that it was easier for them to learn a common language.

Latin was present and used in the region for centuries before the formation of the romanian language, not just for the time of the occupation.

Carpi were influenced by neighbors but archaeologically mostly they were Getae.

Also I think there is an over-usage of the terms "Dacian", "Dacia", "Dacians". This is caused by both ancient Romans and post-WW2 Romanian authors.

Why? Nobody, Greek historians, even the early Romans have ever mentioned or heard of any "Dacians". All Greek sources from 7th century BC onward mention exclusively Getae. Even the early Roman sources mention Getae. Roman poet Ovid (43 BC-17 AD) mentioned Getae 79 times, and not once Dacians.

Dacians were the population of Carpathian basin (Transylvania), Getae the population of the modern day Wallachia and Moldavia. Dacians were more isolated and in the 4th century BC they weren't at the level of Getae in terms of influence and development. Unlike Getae, Dacians had some Celtic influence, and also Agathyrsi assimilated into them (most likely Cimmerian-like population).

There are plenty of locals in modern day Romanians (like in most populations) but it's clear the language does not come from there.. Rather Vlachs utilized the II. Bulgarian State pretty well to spread it to these areas. They were the main ingredient of the 2nd Bulgarian State.

We have now the first genetic link at YFull between Romanians and Aromanians (from Albania). This cluster appears several times in scientific papers about Romanians. TMRCA 750 ybp.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC75224/