Where was Dacia and who were Dacians? Relationship between old Dacia and modern Romania

[Tarabos]

sorry! the translator: make allways problems with danish, i don't know why!

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Racowie

imagine scandal if all paleo-balkanic languages were Slavic or to say Proto Slavic

I don't think that 'scandal' is the appropriate word here. More precise one would be 'surprise'. To me, such scenario is highly improbable because, as one of our members already said, there would surely be an immense number of Slavic-derived toponyms, hydronyms etc, on the territory of former Illyricum, Moesia and Thrace, which is not the case. The only connection between these long-dead paleo-balkanic languages and ancient Slavic language is the proposed proto-Indo-European language.

[zebeleizis]

@Monolith.
"Vlachs"(vlasi,how you call them) in the west(Krajina,Bosnia,Hercegovina,Croatia itself) were not related to the Romanian "Vlachs?.Are they other "Vlachs" than the "romanian" ones? Do you know "Vlachs" that do NOT speak a romanian dialect? You,the south slavs called us "Vlachs"!The greeks,albanians and turks took it over from you!ALL those groupes called themselves with a name that was a variety of the name "romanus"(roman).Romani,rumani,arumani,ramani.
Yes,our language was "infested" with south slav words,most bulgarian ones,also ucrainian,but lesser.The influence of Byzantium and the Orthodox Church was not a good one.Because the priests were most bulgarian,macedonan and serb,we almost lost our identity.This was anyhow corrupted.You must know that the bosnian serbs have partially vlach(romanian) origin.The assimilation passed through the church and school-both in serbian.Croatians have also their share of "vlachs",they become catholic or greek-catholic and croatian.

There are two sources for the "Vlachs" in the "west" :Herzegovina,where they came from..Kossovo,they spoke the aromanian dialect,and...the regions of Belgrade and Smederevo,these spoke ..dacoromanian,the dialect I speak.The 2 dialects are partially intelligible,with some exercise communication is at least acceptable.

Slav languages left as good as no traces in the grammar.The only grammar element that I remember as slav is one of the endings of the feminine gender:ita(read:itza).The others are latin.Example:morarita(wife of the miller).In fact,the romanian grammar is very conservative,more conservative than that of the other latin languages.We have also elements that were specific for the vulgar latin spoken in the Eastern Roman Imperium.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by zebeleizis

@Monolith.
"Vlachs"(vlasi,how you call them) in the west(Krajina,Bosnia,Hercegovina,Croatia itself) were not related to the Romanian "Vlachs?.Are they other "Vlachs" than the "romanian" ones? Do you know "Vlachs" that do NOT speak a romanian dialect? You,the south slavs called us "Vlachs"!The greeks,albanians and turks took it over from you!ALL those groupes called themselves with a name that was a variety of the name "romanus"(roman).Romani,rumani,arumani,ramani.
Yes,our language was "infested" with south slav words,most bulgarian ones,also ucrainian,but lesser.The influence of Byzantium and the Orthodox Church was not a good one.Because the priests were most bulgarian,macedonan and serb,we almost lost our identity.This was anyhow corrupted.You must know that the bosnian serbs have partially vlach(romanian) origin.The assimilation passed through the church and school-both in serbian.Croatians have also their share of "vlachs",they become catholic or greek-catholic and croatian.

There are two sources for the "Vlachs" in the "west" :Herzegovina,where they came from..Kossovo,they spoke the aromanian dialect,and...the regions of Belgrade and Smederevo,these spoke ..dacoromanian,the dialect I speak.The 2 dialects are partially intelligible,with some exercise communication is at least acceptable.

The term 'Vlach' refers to a member of a Romance-speaking people, who doesn't have to be a Romanian (for example, my people used that term when reffering to Italian merchants). Common language does not mean that they were the same people. Are the Jamaicans the same as English because they speak the language? Romanized balkan natives (i.e. Vlachs) are descended from different ethnic substrata, meaning that the language is the only thing they have in common. Paleobalkanic natives of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were different than natives of today's Romania etc.

[Tarabos]

why all the vlachs are identified early with shepperds, highlands? with 'savagies', "worthless", "uncivilised"? why all were despised, called "smelly", "grasy"...? why all?

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

why all the vlachs are identified early with shepperds, highlands? with 'savagies', "worthless", "uncivilised"? why all were despised, called "smelly", "grasy"...? why all?

Because of their way of life maybe? I don't know. What do you think?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

why all the vlachs are identified early with shepperds, highlands? with 'savagies', "worthless", "uncivilised"? why all were despised, called "smelly", "grasy"...? why all?

Sometimes yes, but not always.

[Tarabos]

i think because they were the same people. this is an add to a commom romance language, a commom romance designation from themself.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

i think because they were the same people. this is an add to a commom romance language, a commom romance designation from themself.

I think not. Most of the natives from Croatian and BiH territory were descendants of the people who weathered the last ice age here, thus the observed massive frequency of I1b-P37 haplogroup in present day Slavic-speaking population, as a remnant of the pre-Slavic past.

Another example:

We have analysed 11 human-specific Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans to elucidate the origins of the Aromuns, a linguistic isolate inhabiting scattered areas in the Balkan Peninsula. Four Aromun samples (two from the Republic of Macedonia, one from Albania, and one from Romania) and five neighbouring populations (Macedonians, Albanians, Romanians, Greeks, and Turks) were analysed by means of genetic distances, principal components and analyses of the molecular variance (AMOVA). Three hypotheses were tested: Aromuns are Romanophonic Greeks; the result of a Romanian southward migration; or local descendants of the Thracians. The analyses show that the Aromuns do not constitute a homogeneous group separated from the rest of the Balkan populations. Grouping by language or geography does not explain the genetic differences observed in the region, suggesting a lack of genetic structure in the area. Aromuns do not seem to be particularly related to Greeks, Romanians, or to other Romance speakers. The Aromuns might have their origin to the south of the Danube river, with extensive gene flow with the neighbouring populations. The present results suggest a common ancestry of all Balkan populations, including Aromuns, with a lack of correlation between genetic differentiation and language or ethnicity, stressing that no major migration barriers have existed in the making of the complex Balkan human puzzle.

Source: Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans and the origins of the Aromuns

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

i think because they were the same people. this is an add to a commom romance language, a commom romance designation from themself.

Hm...then one might say that Romanians lived throughout the entire area of the so-called Balkan Peninsula and beyond (Hungary, Southern Poland etc) in the middle ages, but that would be anachronistic and in certain sense unhistorical.

We have analysed 11 human-specific Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans to elucidate the origins of the Aromuns, a linguistic isolate inhabiting scattered areas in the Balkan Peninsula. Four Aromun samples (two from the Republic of Macedonia, one from Albania, and one from Romania) and five neighbouring populations (Macedonians, Albanians, Romanians, Greeks, and Turks) were analysed by means of genetic distances, principal components and analyses of the molecular variance (AMOVA). Three hypotheses were tested: Aromuns are Romanophonic Greeks; the result of a Romanian southward migration; or local descendants of the Thracians. The analyses show that the Aromuns do not constitute a homogeneous group separated from the rest of the Balkan populations. Grouping by language or geography does not explain the genetic differences observed in the region, suggesting a lack of genetic structure in the area. Aromuns do not seem to be particularly related to Greeks, Romanians, or to other Romance speakers. The Aromuns might have their origin to the south of the Danube river, with extensive gene flow with the neighbouring populations. The present results suggest a common ancestry of all Balkan populations, including Aromuns, with a lack of correlation between genetic differentiation and language or ethnicity, stressing that no major migration barriers have existed in the making of the complex Balkan human puzzle.

Such divergences in genetic make-up of Vlachs/Aromuns are very logical if we take into account the extent to which they mixed with the neighbouring populations.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I think not. Most of the natives from Croatian and BiH territory were descendants of the people who weathered the last ice age here.....

nice hymera, like the romanian nationalistic theory that dacians spoke latin.....

Originally Posted by Monolith

I1b-P37 haplogroup in present day Slavic-speaking population, as a remnant of the pre-Slavic past.

Another example:

Source: Alu insertion polymorphisms in the Balkans and the origins of the Aromuns

....
well, history is history, genetics is genetics. the historical theories issued by genetics are still confused, antitethic,...in brief, in the phase of bullshit.
as i said, i'm not the adept of the blood&genetic, or even lingvistic inheritance of a nation, but a cultural one, without excluding entirely the blood, genes, language. a child borned from serbian father and valachian mother, who will live between serbians, will become serbian. if he'd live between valachians, will become valachian. in blood he can be more serbian than a child borned from a hungarian&croatian parents, living in serbia, but he will claim he is valachian. at least, that happent throurough the centuries, in less democratic&emancipated times.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

....
well, history is history, genetics is genetics. the historical theories issued by genetics are still confused, antitethic,...in brief, in the phase of bullshit.

The fact remains that the study of populations genetics is confirming many history and proto-history trends and events that were not clear from the ancient chronicles. And it is even shedding much light on pre-history ones. And guess what? Genetics is making sense even where history only speculated.

One such confirmation is the denial of large population replacements.

In short, genetics is helping us much to understand the past. Why you call it 'bullshit' I guess that it pertains to the realm of the 'esoteric'.

[Tarabos]

Originally Posted by Arthur Gordon Pym

Hm...then one might say that Romanians lived throughout the entire area of the so-called Balkan Peninsula and beyond (Hungary, Southern Poland etc) in the middle ages, but that would be anachronistic and in certain sense unhistorical.

well, maybe using the term valachians, instead romanians, will be not such anachronic, and even not such unhistorical. the term valachians was given by germanics and slavics. the valachians used it, along with their own terms, rumâni and daci. in 19 century, with the first union between valachians from Muntenia and Moldavia the citisens of the new country decided to choose the designation rumâni or români(NOT ROMANS=ROMANI; we still call ourself, sometime, rumâni). the valachians from Slovacia, Czechia... lived there long before 19 century, and, sorounded by slavs they used only the term valachians. Of course, till they live there, they mixed with the slavic population. Besides their language are not latin, anymore(item intense used by pro-slavic non-valachians "experts"), but slavic. like the valachians from muntenia, moldavia, transilvania, mixed with serbs, hungarians, bulgarians, ukraineans,...). like the aromanians from balkans(only some of them), mixed with serbians, bulgarians, greeks, albanians,...some of valachians from balkan villages(example from Pindus, Serbia), are more pure valachians than many romanians themselfs, because they kept their life-style, isolated in mountains, never mixing with neighbours till recently. unfortunately, this not always helped themselfs for keping their identity(Pindus); the greeks motivated them to declare themselfs like greeks, issuing an fantastic theory about a macedonian origin, others are simply afraid to claim their identity(amasingly, for an UE state).

Originally Posted by Menydh

The fact remains that the study of populations genetics is confirming many history and proto-history trends and events that were not clear from the ancient chronicles. And it is even shedding much light on pre-history ones. And guess what? Genetics is making sense even where history only speculated.One such confirmation is the denial of large population replacements....

in fact, there are two kind of peoples: the ones contented about the new theories issued by genetics, and the ones uncontented. the genethic, maybe, explain well(i'd be not such shure, anyway, and i think is still a debated item), the proto-history movements of the populations, but the identity of the european nations didn't layed in proto-history movements, but in late antic, early middle-age events.

the spaniards are contented, becouse the genetic confirm they are proto-europeans, even i don't understand why they ignore the gothic, vandalic, semitic,...migrance. the russians are contented also, becouse it allow themself to identify like "the most pure indo-europeans", even i don't understand where vanished the countless populations of turkiks, mongoloids,...the germanics are not such contented, becouse it prove they traced from slavs and spaniards.
etc!

i realy don't understand, why the folowers of the genetic theory splited the europeans in indo-europeans(aryans, ventualy gipsies), and 1b!!! 1b are not indo-europeans?! i realy don't understant the tenacity with which the fans sustain the indo-europeans are originated in India, and from there they migrated forward, and not, like we were used to know, in caucasus-north of black sea, and from there they migrated forward, including india............

Originally Posted by Menydh

In short, genetics is helping us much to understand the past. Why you call it 'bullshit' I guess that it pertains to the realm of the 'esoteric'.

yes, is true, but we have to interpret it carefully, not in hate.....
yes, you're right, my bad! is "esoteric".

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

i realy don't understant the tenacity with which the fans sustain the indo-europeans are originated in India, and from there they migrated forward, and not, like we were used to know, in caucasus-north of black sea, and from there they migrated forward, including india............

Only idiots believe that nonsense, Comrade, don't worry! It's just that idiots are more vociferous these days, and too many of them have computers!

I'm not a Pontic Theory supporter, though. I can't see the environmentally adaptive sense in it. A central European, Danubian/Pannonian/Carpathian view seems more sensible to me.

[Komisar]

Originally Posted by Tarabos

well, maybe using the term valachians, instead romanians, will be not such anachronic, and even not such unhistorical. the term valachians was given by germanics and slavics. the valachians used it, along with their own terms........

your history is wrong only those in the imediate area north-east of the Danube considered themselfs as valachians, even in the Valachian Kingdom those that lived in its western part viewed themselfs as olteni, not valachians.
R