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

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

  • C

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • E

    Votes: 22 42.3%
  • G2

    Votes: 17 32.7%
  • H2

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • I1

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • I2

    Votes: 28 53.8%
  • J2

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • Q

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • R1a

    Votes: 14 26.9%
  • R1b

    Votes: 29 55.8%
  • T

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • Other. Specify what you think.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Similar to the current proportion in the area.

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • Total voters
    52

gidai

Banned
Messages
375
Reaction score
48
Points
0
What could have been the main Y-haplogroups on the territory of Dacia, 2000-3000 years ago?
(you can choose more than one)

Dacia_82_BC.png

Dacia included areas between the Tisa and the Middle Danube. The Carpathian Mountains are located in the middle of Dacia. It thus corresponds to the present-day countries of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller parts of Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine.
 

Attachments

  • Dacia_82_BC.png
    Dacia_82_BC.png
    50.9 KB · Views: 424
Last edited:
First, Germanic and Slavic haplogroups/clades must be eliminated from the equation. I-Y3120 is Slavic and is not Dacian, it arrived with Bastarnae from Western Europe and all bar A2512 who likely descend from Bastarnae expedition in 2nd century BC, seem Slavic.

I-Y3120 is the single most common hg among Romanians, and I see they have been vocal about ludicrous notion of this hg being Dacian. However heavy Slavic influence is in agreement with onomastical and other evidence which indicates that there is no such thing as Vulgar-Latin/Romanian speaking population north of Danube prior to Vlach migrations of 12th-13th centuries, I do leave option for some groups being present prior to that but Daco-Romanian continuity is impossible to defend, it is ludicrous to think latinophone Romanian nation formed during the short Roman occupation of (part of) Dacia. Already it is clear nearly half of Basarabi surname carriers are recent Medieval migrants from the South. And such tendencies are easily observed in some other haplotypes as well.

I guess that is the real reason why Romanians don't get tested, at ftdna i know little over 100 Romanians, and most of the info has to be taken from studies, whose sample is for ethnic Romanians over 500 with different regions.

So Slavs, Germanics, recent Vlach migrants from the South and others have to go out of equation.
However there are those haplogroups or more precisely subclades that seem clearly present in Dacia in antiquity.

I see you aren't tested like most of these partisan internet warriors gidai. :) Get tested before fantasizing about Dacians or anybody else. However Vlachs who arrived from the South seem pred. of Thracian ancestry so they have some distant relation to Dacians themselves.
 
So for example in Brasov you've got 4 tested J2a-L84 who match with a Macedonian/Bulgarian from Struga, so likely Medieval arrivals with Vlachs. In Cluj and Bihar there are 2 J2a haplotypes RU272 and H46, they don't seem to have any close matches, but they are very likely J-L264, so I guess they should be of Dacian ancestry considering their location, and probably they are some local element since the Neolithic times considering the age and spread of L264.
 
First, Germanic and Slavic haplogroups/clades must be eliminated from the equation. I-Y3120 is Slavic and is not Dacian, it arrived with Bastarnae from Western Europe and all bar A2512 who likely descend from Bastarnae expedition in 2nd century BC, seem Slavic.

I-Y3120 is the single most common hg among Romanians, and I see they have been vocal about ludicrous notion of this hg being Dacian. However heavy Slavic influence is in agreement with onomastical and other evidence which indicates that there is no such thing as Vulgar-Latin/Romanian speaking population north of Danube prior to Vlach migrations of 12th-13th centuries, I do leave option for some groups being present prior to that but Daco-Romanian continuity is impossible to defend, it is ludicrous to think latinophone Romanian nation formed during the short Roman occupation of (part of) Dacia. Already it is clear nearly half of Basarabi surname carriers are recent Medieval migrants from the South. And such tendencies are easily observed in some other haplotypes as well.

I guess that is the real reason why Romanians don't get tested, at ftdna i know little over 100 Romanians, and most of the info has to be taken from studies, whose sample is for ethnic Romanians over 500 with different regions.

So Slavs, Germanics, recent Vlach migrants from the South and others have to go out of equation.
However there are those haplogroups or more precisely subclades that seem clearly present in Dacia in antiquity.

I see you aren't tested like most of these partisan internet warriors gidai. :) Get tested before fantasizing about Dacians or anybody else. However Vlachs who arrived from the South seem pred. of Thracian ancestry so they have some distant relation to Dacians themselves.
Aspurg, :rolleyes:
Are you upset? I think not... It's a poll as you see. About what you speak? If you think it could be another haplogrup, say about which. Thank you!
 
Aspurg, :rolleyes:
Are you upset? I think not... It's a poll as you see. About what you speak? If you think it could be another haplogrup, say about which. Thank you!

Well I remember your "dreptul" vlach insulted me once for no reason, so you never know when I might be in mood to return a favor with some brutal facts.:)

So, I see you've got H2 in the poll, not sure if there is any H2 in Romania but I've seen a dozen of H1 in scientific studies in ethnic Romanians.(y)
 
Aspug.... Again!? ................

Again what? These studies are available. You can check them out. About your theme, that is very hard to say, as most of the info are low-res studies but you can go from a clade to a clade, if some of these have non-modal values they can be estimated more easily. As I said these J-L84 weren't likely there and J-L264 were. These 9 tested Basarab J-L283>Z631 were most definitely not there 2000 years ago because they match with Albanians, Greeks (of certain Vlach origin) but 5 tested Z631 looking haplotypes from Brasov and Dolj might have been there, hard to say without hi-res tests done.
 
I ask a moderator if can delete all these disturbing discussions so far. I do not see their point, other than to distract attention from the poll in other direction. .
 
I see you didn't get my message, to be treated like a man,you have to grow up.


We all know that there are certain risks for greediness,and you have to deal with it;as for brutal,it must be a lot of fun,since you don't know what you're doing.
 
Last edited:
Friends, are you here to vote in ?!
If you want t-rolling somewhere, please make your thread and download it there.
 
The Getae-Dacians were made from the Basarabi culture.



"Thus,the 6 tumuli discovered are dated on the Iron Age period.
Tumulus V had contained a single grave,of a decapitated woman, the others,successive ones...
All had a rich funeral inventory,iron weapons,iron and bronze adornments(including Glasinac fibulas),indicating the presence of an Illyrian enclave in this area,at the second half of the 7th. BC.



The ceramics from the graves is typical to this culture, representing the contacts between the Illyrian population with autochtonous Thracian tribes." (Romanian History Encyclopedia).



The pottery is clearly Thracian-based,Insula Banului and Psenicevo-Babadag types.
.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Basarabi_culture.png
 
Another interesting opinion, the migration didn't take place at that time, and the author probably suggests a common Glasinac -Basarabi source:



https://books.google.ro/books?id=KR...v=onepage&q=basarabi culture glasinac&f=false



In this case,both the Getae-Dacians and Illyrians wound be nothing more than Thracian tribes,at the boarder with the Hallstatt culture.


It explains the hardest linguistic-cultural link of all the Paleo-Balkanics-the Satem character of the Illyrian language.
 
I have not found data from the Iron Age. That's why, I have introduced in the poll some haplogroups without subclades that I read were found around the area some 10,000-3,000 years ago. That is all.

A calm and to the object discussion, without unrelated assumptions, is good.
 
Basarabi culture is the local denomination of the Hallstadt culture of the early Dacians? Are there any human remains of the iron age, genetically analyzed from the Basarabi culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarabi_culture ?
p.s.
There are still geographical names that remind us of ancient peoples, such as Hallstatt-Dachstein (Austria) or Galati (Romania). Is like... these are related to the Dacians or Celts - Gauls?
 
Most likely R1b-Z2103 among the royals and warriors initially, but dominated by E-V13, J2a, J2b and traces of G2a among the pre-Dacian locals. Eventually, as time went by the locals became Dacians, so all of these haplogroups began to be typical for Dacia. Then when the formation of the Romanians and our modern language happened through the mixing of Daco-Romans and Slavs, R1a-M458, Z280 and I2-CTS10228 were also introduced. These latter influences expanded from the East, first in Moldova and then to the rest of the territory.

For those who know Romanian, refer to this starting from page 72.

Also these passages from the most up-to-date interpretation of the history of Romanians according to the Romanian school: They support the same thing (i.e. Romanians and the Romanian language formed due to a symbiosis of Daco-Romans and Slavs). Now, looking at the non-Balkan Slavs, it becomes quite clear which haplogroups were native to our lands and which ones were introduced.


dBkXMwi.jpg

G9rNPjB.jpg

5EDSdlg.jpg

7BEb1BH.jpg

cKKFAb2.jpg

tZad6EX.jpg
 
First, Germanic and Slavic haplogroups/clades must be eliminated from the equation. I-Y3120 is Slavic and is not Dacian, it arrived with Bastarnae from Western Europe and all bar A2512 who likely descend from Bastarnae expedition in 2nd century BC, seem Slavic.

I-Y3120 is the single most common hg among Romanians, and I see they have been vocal about ludicrous notion of this hg being Dacian. However heavy Slavic influence is in agreement with onomastical and other evidence which indicates that there is no such thing as Vulgar-Latin/Romanian speaking population north of Danube prior to Vlach migrations of 12th-13th centuries, I do leave option for some groups being present prior to that but Daco-Romanian continuity is impossible to defend, it is ludicrous to think latinophone Romanian nation formed during the short Roman occupation of (part of) Dacia. Already it is clear nearly half of Basarabi surname carriers are recent Medieval migrants from the South. And such tendencies are easily observed in some other haplotypes as well.

I guess that is the real reason why Romanians don't get tested, at ftdna i know little over 100 Romanians, and most of the info has to be taken from studies, whose sample is for ethnic Romanians over 500 with different regions.

So Slavs, Germanics, recent Vlach migrants from the South and others have to go out of equation.
However there are those haplogroups or more precisely subclades that seem clearly present in Dacia in antiquity.

I see you aren't tested like most of these partisan internet warriors gidai. :) Get tested before fantasizing about Dacians or anybody else. However Vlachs who arrived from the South seem pred. of Thracian ancestry so they have some distant relation to Dacians themselves.

Just in case you are trying to bait, I will refrain from being triggered and leaving a wall of text and will instead just say the following. Study the archaeological heritage, because the influences from the Daco-Roman period carried well into the early medieval period through the Santana de Mures-Chernyakhov culture (still Daco-Roman), followed by Ipotesti-Candesti (proto-Romanian, i.e. the coexistence of Vlach and Slavic elements) and finally Dridu (pre-statehood via Wallachia).
Modern research[edit]

Today, scholars recognize the Chernyakov zone as representing a cultural interaction of a diversity of peoples, but predominantly those who already existed in the region,[12] whether it be the Sarmatians,[13] or the Getae-Dacians (some authors believe that the Getae-Dacians played the leading role in the creation of the culture).[14] Late Antiquity authors often confused the Getae with the Goths, most notably Jordanes, in his Getica.

The Ipotesti–Candesti culture (Russian: Ипотешти-кындештская культура) was an archaeological culture in Eastern Europe. It developed in the mid-6th century by the merger of elements of the Prague-Penkovka and Prague-Korchak cultures and local cultures (including Germanic) in the area between Prut and Lower Danube.[1] It stretched in the Lower Danube over territory in Romania and Moldavia.[2] The population of the area was made up of Romanized descendants of Daco-Getic, Germanic and Slavic tribes.[3] There are views that it derived from the Chernyakhov culture and represented a group of the Antes.[2] The houses were identical to the Slavic huts of the Prague-Korchak and Penkovka areas.[4] The sites in Romania are known as Ipotești-Candești-Ciurel[5] (Russian: Ипотешти-Кындешти-Чурел)[6] or Ipotești-Ciurel-Cândești.[7]

The Balkan–Danubian culture[1][2] was an early medieval archaeological culture which emerged in the region of the Lower Danube in the 8th century and flourished until the 11th century. In Romania it is called Dridu culture,[1][2] while in Bulgaria it is usually referred to as Pliska-Preslav culture.[3] It is better represented on the territory of modern-day Northern Bulgaria although its spread north of the Danube is also well attested due to the continuous extension of the First Bulgarian Empire over the territory of present-day Romania.[4] The Balkan–Danubian culture is described as an early Slavic-Bulgarian culture,[5] but besides Slavic and Bulgar elements it possesses also some Romance components, all of them under a Byzantine influence.[6]

If you don't care about archaeology, which is a bad start if you are interested in such topics, then, we won't find a lot of data. The first mentions of actual variations of the ethnonym Vlach start only with the 9th century.
The "silence" about the Vlachs/Romanians prior to that period is due to the fact that Byzantine sources recorded the flow of events, the action so to speak, rather than the static aspect. Do you hear about the Vlachs in the Balkans when they were sedentary? Certainly not, just as with those in the North-Danubian space, chronicles report on them when they start to move, stir trouble and so on.
 

This thread has been viewed 56629 times.

Back
Top