Eupedia Map of Slavic Y-DNA

[ovidiu]

Idk how true it is, but supposedly Dacian may have been related to(not the same as) Proto-Balto-Slavic. Cousins if you will. Some perhaps some old I2/R1a were likely present in them. For example your mothers fatherline being dated to 200BC could have been a minor lineage in Dacians(I think R1b/J2/V13 would still have been prominant), and maybe even Bastarnae. I would bank on Bastarnae as they were hired by King Phillip around this time and brought to Macedonia. Possibly moving from Macedonia with middle ages byzantines/vlachs. I am spitballing here though lolol. Maybe even Sarmatians, as I have heard many claim Croatians may have some link with Sarmatians.

My clade for instance could be a Germanized Proto-Balt that was initially a Veneti documented by Tacitus and could explain how it was absorbed in, and formed a founder affect so early on in Albanians. Or a possibility is that it arrived with Antes Mercenaries around 300AD whom were used by the Romans against the Huns. Then you have those who claim Antes were not originally Slavic, so reconciling all these things are a cluster fudge lolol. Things were so turbulent in the middle ages.

That's rather unlikely, but I've heard that theory; no way to make a firm conclusion though. They were more likely connected to Thracians, but may have become a more diverse people, meaning the northern and southern ends of the Dacian culture, which was surprisingly widespread and even incorporated some Celts called the Boii in central Europe, were probably not uniform even in ancient times, and may have been "overlaid" on older regional tribes, so to speak. So there could have been haplogroup diversity. It is known they did interact with Bastarnae (supposedly a Celto-Germanic hybrid tribe) in the north and Scytho-Sarmatians in the east and probably assimilated some of them. Not to mention the migrations of the early Middle Ages also throwing things into disarray.

Also looking closely at this map I see some things that don't make sense and are the opposite of what you'd expect. Like the lightest pockets on the map for Romanian speaking areas are the eastern part of the country and Moldova? I find that extremely hard to believe. I don't know how serious this Maciamo guy is about this stuff.

[Aspar]

That's rather unlikely, but I've heard that theory; no way to make a firm conclusion though. They were more likely connected to Thracians, but may have become a more diverse people, meaning the northern and southern ends of the Dacian culture, which was surprisingly widespread and even incorporated some Celts called the Boii in central Europe, were probably not uniform even in ancient times, and may have been "overlaid" on older regional tribes, so to speak. So there could have been haplogroup diversity. It is known they did interact with Bastarnae (supposedly a Celto-Germanic hybrid tribe) in the north and Scytho-Sarmatians in the east and probably assimilated some of them. Not to mention the migrations of the early Middle Ages also throwing things into disarray.

Also looking closely at this map I see some things that don't make sense and are the opposite of what you'd expect. Like the lightest pockets on the map for Romanian speaking areas are the eastern part of the country and Moldova? I find that extremely hard to believe. I don't know how serious this Maciamo guy is about this stuff.

There was connection and that connection would be the I2a1b haplogroup which is the most dominant in the South Slavs and Romanians.
In other Slavs is not so dominant apart from South Polish and Western Ukrainians.
And exactly these two populations could have been proxies for the medieval Slavs that invaded the Balkans, showing that the medieval Slavs that invaded the Balkans, were already more southern shifted than the other Slavs due contacts with Dacians and elevated I2a1b...

[Fieraru]

it's also the way of life, Romanians and Russians resemble a lot in drunkard contemporary customs / housing / how they interact / violence / cityscapes etc

and there are a lot of native Slavs (Rusyns, Hutsuls, Hohols and Lipovans) with their compact zones in Romania (like me)

I think Romanians are much closer to Russians than to Croats for example from a lot of points of view, then a Russian and a Bulgarian don't understand each other anyway, so Slavicness of the language is only a face of the cubicle

so Romania should be recognized as a Latin-speaking Slavic country, right?

Who the hell you think you are saying shit like that? I can't believe you would say something that ignorant. Do you know how insulting that is to us? It is clear why you say such things... you are some kind of Ruso-Ukrainian minority and want to feel closer to the population you live in so you try to drag them together Very transparent. Also, you are probably mostly used to the area right next to the Ukraine border where people are closer to that and there are actually hundreds of integrated or assimilated Ukrainian families. So you cannot speak for all or real, true Romanians. You have some nerve saying nonsense like that.

How the hell is Romania closer to Russia than other Slavic countries? Croats and most Yugoslavs always come up genetically closer to the main Slavic plot you fool. Bulgarians do not because they were probably pulled south by Turks I think. Northern Croatia and Slovenia has a lot of Baltid and Gorid people. Man this forum make no sense sometimes. Sure the culture in Dalmatia may be more Mediterranean influenced because of climate but that is a different argument. I do not know what you mean by drinking culture. We do not drink much vodka and prefer wine or beer , or at least local spirits like tuica/rachiu (we are one of the oldest wine growing regions in the world, for thousnds of years!). And we do not react the same way you Russians do getting retarded and fucked up and red like Indians from drinking, and doing it all the time cause we have nothing better to do. Except for some lower class idiots we are more civilized with that. We have not that degenerate gopnik culture or whatever it is. Our food is very different too, and we have central Euro influences added to Balkan. Bucharest and Transylvanian cities like Sibiu and Brasov is not really like Russian ones... we have nice Europen architecture compared to depressing ones there, except St. Petersburg and some parts of Moscow. It is a pity the communists, who you people are responsible for, demolished a lot of the old French type buildings and put ugly blocks.

[Wrong]

In pre-Slavic times, Albanians and Romanians were very close-related populations.

Albanians and Aromanians were very similar pre-1400s.

[Aspar]

In pre-Slavic times, Albanians and Romanians were very close-related populations.

Albanians and Aromanians were very similar pre-1400s.

Don't confuse the Aromanians with the Romanians mate.
They may have similar language but their ethno genesis is different.
Aromanians are from the south Balkans while the majority of Romanians are native of Romania.

[Wrong]

Don't confuse the Aromanians with the Romanians mate.
They may have similar language but their ethno genesis is different.
Aromanians are from the south Balkans while the majority of Romanians are native of Romania.

I did not confuse, but the Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians were of similar IE-Balkan roots.

Romanians aren't much more northern than Albanians for example, the only thing that pulls them more north is a north-eastern pull and even then I have seen few Ghegs plot just west of them.

Imagine how close to us both they would plot if it was not for their larger Balto-Slavic influence.

[Nurzat]

Don't confuse the Aromanians with the Romanians mate.
They may have similar language but their ethno genesis is different.
Aromanians are from the south Balkans while the majority of Romanians are native of Romania.

in the times he talks about Romanians were actually there in Aromanian territory, where they came from to the future territory of Romania. Balkanic Vlachs came to Romania about 12th-14th century AD and then gradually assimilated the local Slavs, Magyars, Cumans, Germanics etc to this day

[Aspar]

in the times he talks about Romanians were actually there in Aromanian territory, where they came from to the future territory of Romania. Balkanic Vlachs came to Romania about 12th-14th century AD and then gradually assimilated the local Slavs, Magyars, Cumans, Germanics etc to this day

That's what I am talking about...
The majority is native to Romania.
A part of them did come to present day Valachia from the South Balkans, where they established a Vlachian principality, conquered the rest of the land, and imposed the language to the rest of the population

[Wrong]

in the times he talks about Romanians were actually there in Aromanian territory, where they came from to the future territory of Romania. Balkanic Vlachs came to Romania about 12th-14th century AD and then gradually assimilated the local Slavs, Magyars, Cumans, Germanics etc to this day

Albanian & Aromanian movements exploded in the late 1200s, both into Greece, Romania & some to Bulgaria aswell.

Both of the groups often moved together, to Greece it was majority Albanian movement with Aromanian support & to Romania it was the reverse.

[Dibran]

That's rather unlikely, but I've heard that theory; no way to make a firm conclusion though. They were more likely connected to Thracians, but may have become a more diverse people, meaning the northern and southern ends of the Dacian culture, which was surprisingly widespread and even incorporated some Celts called the Boii in central Europe, were probably not uniform even in ancient times, and may have been "overlaid" on older regional tribes, so to speak. So there could have been haplogroup diversity. It is known they did interact with Bastarnae (supposedly a Celto-Germanic hybrid tribe) in the north and Scytho-Sarmatians in the east and probably assimilated some of them. Not to mention the migrations of the early Middle Ages also throwing things into disarray.

Also looking closely at this map I see some things that don't make sense and are the opposite of what you'd expect. Like the lightest pockets on the map for Romanian speaking areas are the eastern part of the country and Moldova? I find that extremely hard to believe. I don't know how serious this Maciamo guy is about this stuff.

Well on the indo-european language tree I believe Thracian and Dacian(as paleo-balkan) were related to(distantly) Proto-Balto-Slavic. Much the same as Latin and Greek are related in antiquity but completely separate languages. So a loose connection if you will. Romania has some of the highest R1a/I2a diversity outside of Poland. So What you mention regarding Central European tribes could be true.

Maciamo map is definitely not completely accurate. He makes a general assumption off the basis of I2a/R1a combined. Also i think he has different and or incomplete sources. For instance he didn't even include Albanian branches in his E-V13 tree until Albanians had to correct him. Which is odd considering we have the highest E-V13 in Europe. Some would think he may have some sort of agenda.

I like Vayda's blog. Some Polish user that has the most up to date maps regarding various R1a/I2a clusters and where they're more predominant. Doesn't seem to focus on other Haplos though. Would be nice if he did.