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

[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/arti...s_of_the_romanian_people_and_their_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/

 

[Riverman]

This cluster appears several times in scientific papers about Romanians. TMRCA 750 ybp.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-FGC75224/

How widespread is it in Romania and Moldovia?

 

[D.L.M]

In 2019, I2 winning the poll.

 

[Hawk]

So the real answer to the question was E-V13.

 

[Hawk]

It may have been a few E's, but I think that if you find remains with this haplogroup on the territory of Dacia, it means that they are not from the Dacians, because the Dacians were cremated and the ashes were buried in clay pots. As far as I know, DNA cannot be extracted from the ashes...

I am not talking about E or a few E's just like i don't talk about hypothetical/theoretical Y-DNA bases like R or P when talking about R1b-Z2103 or R1b-L51, i am talking about potentially more than ~70% of specifically E-V13, and this Y-DNA on latest Moesian-Danubian lime paper appears at 45% in Viminacium and is labelled as the native population of Moesia by the authors and they did mention that earlier the population cremated their groups and hence why it was difficult to find E-V13 samples, if we include them as well the real percentage hikes up to ~70-80% likely.

This goes hand in hand by all means, archeological and genetical, the spread of Gava-Belegis with the introduction of iron age technology during LBA and EIA transition hiked up E-V13 in the Balkans. Previously during Neolithic times this Y-DNA roamed either in or nearby Balkans but was never so widespread as lineage.

 

[Hawk]

The human remains from Viminacium are probably Romans and mercenaries brought from elsewhere but not Dacians. The Dacians burned the bodies of the dead as required by religion. And ... You realize that the percentages don't add up like that ... 45% now with 25-35% from a century ago and you get 70-80% !?

I don't want to go further into a loop of discussions but there was a leak of Southern Thracians, Psenichevo-Babadag Culture with clear ties to Proto-Dacians, and which were exclusively E-V13. The remains were found in a ritual/religious pit. Ritual/religious pits were usually secondary burials from these groups after cremation. So, it just sums up the puzzle.

 

[Riverman]

The human remains from Viminacium are probably Romans and mercenaries brought from elsewhere but not Dacians. The Dacians burned the bodies of the dead as required by religion. And ... You realize that the percentages don't add up like that ... 45% now with 25-35% from a century ago and you get 70-80% !?

Its noted in the paper that a large fraction of the local population did cremate, but a good portion changed to inhumation over time, in the region, under Roman influence. Just like some earlier Channelled Ware/Daco-Thracian people shifted to inhumation under Cimmerian influence. Basically, we see among them the persistence of a religious belief which favours cremation, but under the influence of other people and cultures, they sometimes switched to inhumation and its from these burials we can get glimpses into their evolution. Viminacium and Timacum minus is one, but there are others. Like there was also a Kyjatice and G?va sample taken from "special burials", like those in pits mentioned by Hawk. Whether they were always local Channelled Ware people is unknown, but their autosomal make up fits, so most likely they were. For the Psenichevo remains from Bulgaria and Viminacium its for sure that we deal with locals for the most part. If taking into account, that most of the foreigners did bury their dead, this means for these areas a total domination of E-V13, even after the Cimmerians, Celts and other people going through. This speaks for itself and is a very strong argument for a near total dominance of E-V13 at least for some of the Daco-Thracian groups.
I would compare it with R1b in Bell Beakers, Channelled Ware/G?va will prove to have the same role for E-V13 most likely.