Romanian ethnogenesis - North or South of Danube?

[Dromikaites]

Here, I'll translate the whole paragraph, just in case:
"The tribe of the Vlachs... has never kept its loyalty to anyone, not even the Roman emperors of old. Trajan warred against them and they were completely overcome and taken to captivity by him; and their king, named Decebalus, was killed and his head was placed on a pike in the city of Rome.

They are actually the so-called Dacians and Bessi. Earlier they lived near the river Danube and to Saos, which we now call the Sava river, in naturally fortified and inaccessible places, where the Serbs now live.

Trusting on them, they showed only a seeming loyalty and obedience to the Roman emperors of old and whenever they would go out of their fortifications, they plundered the Roman lands. Thus the Romans became indignant with them, as was already said, and destroyed them.

And they left those places and scattered across the whole of Epirus and Macedonia and the bigger part of them settled in Hellas. They are very cowardly, they have hare's hearts... (etc)"

First clue of the mystery:

a) the Vlachs left those places instead of the Roman emperors moving them;

b) the Vlachs decided where to settle (whole of Epirus and Macedonia and Hellas).

In case of the Goths let by Fritigern, first it was the emperor who decided were they should settle. Then the Goths trashed the Roman army, killed the emperor and settled wherever they pleased for the next 150 years.

That means whenever the Vlachs settled the Balkans, that must have been during a time everybody armed and organized could do whatever in the Balkans.

There are a few time frames when that could happen, let's see which one is the most likely candidate for our story.

Second clue:
The Vlachs show up in the Byzantine sources as a political entity in the 11th century.

There are two possibilities:

a) They organized themselves and roamed free all around Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas in all those centuries prior to the 11th, during which the Byzantines had lost control of the Balkans. However, while doing so, they stayed under the radar and none of the Byzantine writers notices them;

b) They settled Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas close to the time Kekaumenos mentions them (say in the 9th-11th century). Nobody mentioned them before simply because they weren't moving around the Balkans before, armed and dangerous.

Variant b is the more plausible of the two. However at this point we still don't know if the organized Vlachs came organized from outside the Balkans or existed somewhere inside the Balkans and from that place started to settle all over the place., taking advantage of a weak empire unable to restrict their movements.

In order to figure which of the possibilities is more likely, we need...

Third clue:

The two genetic studies quoted in the initial thread show that during the 9th - 11th century populations from Pannonia and Dacia moved to the Balkans, in very large numbers.

Out of whatever nations were coming, the Slavs are clearly visible, since they carry a specific marker.

Would it be possible that only the Slavs were pushed over the Danube while the Daco-Romans, who lived in the same villages, side by side, for some mysterious reason weren't?!

So look at what we have: the Vlachs miraculously pop-up as troublemakers in the Balkans at exactly the same time Daco-Romans and Slavs are pushed into the Balkans.

The first genetic study is even more specific, as it details the movement of the Slavs (since they can be distinguished from the Daco-Romans and Thraco-Romans).

First, in the 9th century, the Slavs are pushed from Pannonia into two directions: South into the Balkans and East into Transylvania.

Then, in the 10th century, the Slavs are pushed South, from Transylvania into Wallachia and then from Wallachia over the Danube into the Balkans.

Who was doing the pushing? We have only one suspect: the Hungarians.

Was anybody mentioning any of those movements (beside Kekaumenos)? Yes, Ana Comnena mentions the "Dacians" pushing the "Sarmatians" from Wallachia into the Balkans.

And that was my question. If Greek doesn't use another form - then ok (though we're still open to the question of which was the original Slavic form and whether it was the northern Slavs who may have changed it).

Why would they?! Such changes generally happen when one culture influences the other. And we see in the case of the Czechs and of the Slovenians the format did change under the influence of German.

Of course, I'm not saying some non-steppe Slavic tribes or Vlach clans might have joined the various hordes, which wouldn't be all that surprising anyway. But about them forming a substantial mass or even the bulk of those hordes - there's nothing to indicate that, except for wishful thinking.

How did you come to the conclusion that I assume the Vlachs made the bulk of the hordes?!

So which late decisive invasions are you talking about?

According to the first genetic study (that one the thread is about), the Balkans became dominated by Slavs only as a result of the 9th-11th century migrations. Not before that, even though the Slavs are mentioned starting some 300 years earlier.

Considering it notices migration waves of Black Bulgars into the Danubian Bulgars, it's not impossible. Especially if those Romanized Dacians are also Slavicized. Unless, of course, if you're talking about a migration of the Romanized Dacians into the Romanized Moesians from the times before the arrival of the Slavs (as Kekaumenos does).

As you think Kekaumenos does ;-)

I think the Vlachs Kekaumenos mentions have arrived mostly in the 9th-11th century, together with the Slavs. See above why I think so.

In that case, a systematic study should still be able to notice "the evacuation of Dacia" into the Balkans, though I don't know if such studies have been made.

Nope, we won't be able to notice that. The reason is the Dacians and the Thracians were of the same genetic stock and the Thracians arrived into the Balkans coming from the North. That means there would be always more diversity (remember the "genetic clock") among the Dacians than among the Thracians.

We need a distinct population (like the Slavs), which didn't exist in the South, in order to detect such a move.

The genetic study doesn't really bring that to the table, considering both the written sources and archaeology have already brought that up. What your interpretations of the genetic study are bringing to the table is not the direction, but the composition of that population movement (and the indeed quite peculiar thing that the study brings is the timeframe, which is in sharp contradictions with archaeology and the written sources; although sumskilz mentioned that this might be a problem of the methodology, which can make the results seem more recent than they are).

The only surprising thing, as far as I am concerned, is the fact the Balkans became predominately Slavic only between the 9th and the 11th century.

Everything else is indeed old news.

Ah, you mean the incident with Ernakh's profecy. Good. Though, as I already said, that's hardly a proof of the presence of native Romanized Dacian population among those barbarians, considering Priscus himself had already mentioned where the barbarians who spoke Latin know it from (dealings with Romans). Still, that doesn't rule out the Vlach explanation, but it certainly doesn't support it either...

Look at the Dacian attire on the column and on Constantine's triumphal arch.

That same attire remained in use in rural Romania till the 1950s, so it was for sure in use during Priscus' visit (since that visit took place between 106Ad and 1950 Ad ).

Now imagine Priscus sees somebody dressed like that. Such a person has an obvious "barbarian" look. Priscus sees that person talking in Gothic with some other persons, and in Latin with the Romans. Judging by the "barbarian" clothes and by the fact he heard the person speak Gothic, which would look to him more likely? That the person is a native speaker of Latin or that the person is a native speaker of Gothic?!

Can we tell if that was a Goth speaking Latin or a Daco-Roman speaking Goth?!

Well, we actually can, if we pay close attention to what Priscus says:

I was surprised at a Scythian speaking Greek.

For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin;

but none of them easily speak Greek, except captives from the Thracian or Illyrian sea-coast; and these last are easily known to any stranger by their torn garments and the squalor of their heads, as men who have met with a reverse.

So according to him North of the Danube there are 3 languages spoken often (Hunnic, Gothic and Latin) and one spoken very seldom (Greek).

He takes for granted that Hunnic and Gothic are frequently spoken, but as to why Latin is also widely spoken he offers the explanation "because of the trade with Western-Romans". Not trade with the Romans from Moesia or Illyria (the closest to Attila's court - since they crossed the Danube near Naisus, modern Nis), but trade with those far to the West, beyond Illyria (so either trading with Pannonia West of Danube or with the area of modern Venice).

That means we are to believe that every 3rd or 4th step he made he bumped into a merchant who was normally doing business some 600-1000 km away. Or, much more likely, he actually tried to rationalize why Latin was so frequently spoken since he could not believe that some barbarian-looking men (and probably women) were actually native Latin speakers.

Luckily there is archaeological evidence that Latin was indeed spoken locally, not far from where Attila's court might have been.

Note for the readers unfamiliar with the geography of the area: Priscus crossing the Danube near Naisus would have meant Attila's court was somewhere in Southern Romania (either in Wallachia or in Banat). In which case, the closest place to trade with the Romans would be nowadays Northern Bulgaria or Northern Serbia, at the time known as Moesia. To have lots of people knowing Latin in Wallachia "because of the trade with Western Romans" would make the Wallachians of that time a true nation of long distance merchants :-)

"Quite likely" and "most likely" are terms of speculation (and in this case that's a very pure, unsubstantiated speculation - at the very least, you don't need a whole tribe of Latin-speakers, but just one person who knows it). As I already said, your original claim finds no basis in the source you referred to.

Since you kindly took your time to translate from Bulgarian into English (and I can confirm your translation is acurate), let's read your translation carefully and see for ourselves:

"At that time the Antes invaded Thrace, robbed and enslaved many of the local Romans, captured them and took them to their homes.

Fate destined for one of these captives to fall into the hands of a philanthropic and good master. However, he himself [the Roman slave] was very insidious and capable of deceiving anyone nearby.

As he wanted to return to the Roman land and had no chance to do so, he thought of the following. He appeared before his master, praised him for his good nature and assured him that due to this he would receive many blessings from God and that he himself wouldn't show himself not a bit ungrateful towards his most benevolent master, if the latter would wish to listen to his good advices, in which case he would soon be in possession of a lot of money.

Among the Slavs [Sloveni/Sklavinoi] was located Chilbudius, a Roman general of old and currently a slave, without the barbarians knowing who he really is. Thus, if he would like to pay a ransom for Chilbudius and take him to the lands of the Romans, he would probably be honoured by the emperor with a great glory and vast wealth. With these words the Roman immediately convinced his master and together they went to the Slavs [Sloveni/Sklavinoi], as these barbarians had already made peace and were mixing with each other without fear.

Then they paid a lot of money to the master of Chilbudius, bought him off and immediately left off with him. When they arrived to their places, the buyer asked him whether he's the Roman general Chilbudius. And that one [P-C] found it necessary to lay out his true predicament and to tell everything truthfully in turn; namely that he himself is an Antean by kin, that he fought alongside his clan-mates against the Slavs [Sloveni/Sklavinoi], which were then their enemies, that he was captured by one of their adversaries and now, after he had arrived on his father's soil, he himself had become again a free man according to law.

Of course, the one who paid gold for him, lost his wits out of anger, as such a great hope now seemed spoiled. However, the Roman wanted to console him and hide the truth, so as to remove any hindrance for his own return to his native land. So he kept claiming that precisely this man is Chilbudius himself and that due to him being amongst the barbarians, was afraid and didn't want to reveal the whole truth. But if he would find himself in the land of the Romans, he would not only not hide the truth any more, but would, of course, be proud with that name.

By the way, all this was initially being done in secret of the other barbarians. And when the rumour spread out and reached everyone, almost all Anteans gathered on this occasion and decided that this is a common work, and they thought they'd receive great rewards, as they now had in their hands the Roman general Chilbudius.

The above is the full translation.
Then you sum it up (again, I can confirm you stay true to the source):

These people - Slavs [Sloveni/Sklavinoi] and Antes - aren't ruled by one person, but from old times live democratically... (etc)" Then follows a description of the Slavs and their way of life, how they forced that man to admit before them that he's Chilbudius or they'd punish him otherwise, how Justinian's envoys offered them the town of Touris and the assistance of the Romans, including financial one, in exchange for an alliance and stopping the Huns who would try to attack the Roman empire, how the Anteans agreed and demanded the restoration of the rank of their Chilbudius, who had now also became inspired by this prospect and how when he was sent to Byzantion (btw, just for clarification - Byzantion isn't the empire, which we now call Byzantium, but the city of Constantinople], he was captured on the way by Narses and revealed as impostor.

Then, in spite of the case of Chilbudius being first discussed with Justinian's envoys, you say:

The first Roman, who is reported to have seen him, is Narses himself. The rest is, yet again, your speculation (of a story which itself has speculation as its centre-point). It's possible that Justinian's envoys might have seen him, but it's also possible that they didn't (if he still refused to play the role of Chilbudius), so Narses is the first and only Roman we know of, who's talked with him (aside from the Roman captive, of course).

How likely is it that a serious negotiation takes place, in which an alliance against the Huns is discussed, a city is offered and there is an explicit demand from the Antes that the fake Chilibudos is restored to his command, and the envoys/negotiators/ambassadors sent by Justinian himself do not see/talk with "Chilibidos"?!

Those ambassadors cannot decide if "Chilibudos" is for real or not. That can happen in only one case: his Latin and his knowledge about the functioning of Roman army are convincing them, but since none has seen the real person, they play it safe and sent him to Constantinople. I do not know if you have served in the army, but I did. In spite of that, I can't impersonate a general because I don't know a general's daily duties.

The ambassadors were quite likely a mix of highly ranked civil servants and officers (due to what was being negotiated) so they would have been able to ask "Chilbudios" things like "what do you do when you need money to hire mercenaries?" or "how do you provide food for the troops", or "who do you contact when your army camps outside a city", etc.

His answers must have been technically accurate enough for him to pass this first interview.

Then we'd have yet another barbarian general leading troops for the Romans. The P-C had reportedly shown himself brave enough in the service of his Slavic/Slovenic master, but how would he be able to lead troops is a different matter, especially in case the Roman-Antean alliance would be broken. Of course, it's also possible, as the Roman captive claimed, that this was indeed the real Chilbudius and Narses simply wanted to take him out of the picture. Everything's possible, though that is, again, pure speculation, this time on my behalf.

Stick with me, I'm not finished

Let's recap what we know straight from the primary source, in your own translation:

1) A Roman prisoner knew an Antean could play the part of Chilbudios to the point of not only speaking the right type of Latin but also knowing what a general does and even having his mannerisms. How did he know that about the Antean? And how could the Antean do all those things himself?

2) A Roman delegation was negotiating a highly important matter of state: an alliance with the Anteans against the Huns, which involved among other things, ceding a Roman city to the Anteans as part of the deal. That means the Roman negotiators must have been highly placed civil servants and officers (at the time one could be both);

3) The Anteans themselves insist that the fake Chilbudios gets his job as a general back. They are pretty sure their Chilbudios would pass the tests. Why were they so sure as to risk compromising a very important deal for their nation?

4) Justinian's envoys cannot tell he is fake. However what they need is to know if he is real. So they send him to Constantinople. What does it mean when high civil servants and officers can't tell that guy is an impostor, after talking to him?

The simplest scenario which covers all the 4 points is the Antean had spent a long time among Latin speakers on his side of the Danube, had spent a long time with Chilbudios, and was a professional intelligence officer (otherwise he would not have been able to answer correctly what the envoys had asked him, nor would he have bothered himself with learning Chilbudios' mannerisms).


Now let's see my scenario in detail:
How did the Roman prisoner know that the Antean could successfully impersonate Chilibudos of all possible "high value people"?

Chilbudios is captured alive and is kept alive long enough for somebody to learn his manners. Who was interested to learn his manners?

Just like nowadays, intelligence officers existed at the time, and even "barbarians" had them. A high value prisoner like Chilbudios would be handled by such an "intelligence officer", who would know enough things about the Roman army and about the Roman administration so that he could ask intelligent questions (no pun intended).

Every time the Slavs (Antes. Sklaveni etc) would capture Romans one way or another (in battle, in raids), the "intelligence officers" would process the captives in order to be aware of what is going on on the Roman side.

The Roman prisoner who put the things in motion must have been interrogated by an "intelligence officer". It so happens that later on, he discovers that very intelligence officer who had interrogated him is now a prisoner of the Sklaveni.

But our Roman knows more: he knows that Antean "intelligence officer" can successfully impersonate Chilbudios if the need arises. How can he know that?

He can know that only if he knows the same intelligence officer has handled Chilbudios for a long time. Even better, the Anteans themselves are convinced this guy can play the part. How can they be so sure? Well, they can be pretty confident if they remember that guy used to be an "intelligence officer" who has handled Chilbudios.

Who is the most cautious about the whole charade? The Antean who, being a pro, knows the tricks of the trade and understands how difficult his mission is going to be. But then again, the "intelligence officers" since the beginning of time are in the business of doing difficult and dangerous things.

[NikeBG]

First clue of the mystery:

a) the Vlachs left those places instead of the Roman emperors moving them;

Not necessarily. At least the Bulgarian wording (that I'm using) doesn't necessarily imply it, especially in that context where it could easily be understood as "made to leave". If we want to be sure whether there's such ambiguity in the original wording, we should ask some of the Greek members here - here's the link to the text again.

b) the Vlachs decided where to settle (whole of Epirus and Macedonia and Hellas).

Same as above. Of course, this again weighs neither against or in favour of this interpretation. And, again, there's the problem of the obvious confusion in this regard by Kekaumenos (concerning their original lands), which makes him a very weak source in this matter.

That means whenever the Vlachs settled the Balkans, that must have been during a time everybody armed and organized could do whatever in the Balkans.

Or it could mean that Kekaumenos isn't knowledgeable enough on the matter and simply filled the gaps in his knowledge with suppositions, as already shown. Of course, if we rule out Kekaumenos' credibility on the matter, this could indeed serve your cause, as his references to Trajan and the Dacian wars could very well be the suppositions he's added to the newcomers (i.e. he knows they're coming from Dacia, so he links them with Decebalus, Trajan and the Balkan Dacian provinces from the old times). Or maybe not.

My point is - this is another source which is definitely not as clear on the matter as you originally made him out to be, as he can be interpreted either ways. So whenever you use him, along with the others already shown to be even less clear, you should always keep that in mind. Otherwise you'd be building a tower on sand and pure speculation (as you already have with a number of claims about these sources), which is obviously not a solid basis and can not lead to anything conclusive - only to "maybe"s, "possibly"s and "likely"s (unless, of course, if you take the dishonest path and try to pass them as clear-cut arguments in your favour). That's my whole point in this discussion so far, otherwise (as I said) I generally agree with your view (although I'm still quite intrigued by the possibility of the Balkan Vlachs being a result not of later migration, but of "local evolution"; and I also still doubt the late timeframe of the Slavic genetic influx here, which I indeed hope is a result of a flaw of the methodology, as sumskilz mentioned as possibility, otherwise I'd probably have to become a Fomenkologist to reconcile it with the historical sources and the archaeology).

a) They organized themselves and roamed free all around Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas in all those centuries prior to the 11th, during which the Byzantines had lost control of the Balkans. However, while doing so, they stayed under the radar and none of the Byzantine writers notices them;

Kind of like the Albanians?

b) They settled Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas close to the time Kekaumenos mentions them (say in the 9th-11th century). Nobody mentioned them before simply because they weren't moving around the Balkans before, armed and dangerous.

Well, since we're speculating, this could be pushed back a few centuries - the Vlachs could have migrated to the Balkans even before that, in the Bulgarian domains of the peninsula (after all, both sides of the Danube were controlled by the same country from the late 7th all the way to the early 11th centuries, which could have made it easier for the ones north of it to travel south), and only appeared in the Byzantine lands by the late 10th c. And considering there's only a minimal amount of Bulgarian historical sources from that time, none of which describes population dynamics within the state (the only similar case I can think of is the Byzantine mentions of a few cases of Roman populations captured by Krum and relocated in Transdanubian Bulgaria, some of which later managed to return to their homes in Thracian Macedonia), they could have easily went unnoticed until they entered the lands under Byzantine control. Of course, this could expand this window of opportunity another century earlier, since Byzantine control over much of the Balkans was nominal ever since the Avaro-Slavic invasions of the late 6th c. etc.

So look at what we have: the Vlachs miraculously pop-up as troublemakers in the Balkans at exactly the same time Daco-Romans and Slavs are pushed into the Balkans.

The Vlachs miraculously pop up in the sources by that time, yes. The problem is, the sources register no great influx of Slavs at that same time. On the contrary, they register a great influx of Slavs several centuries earlier. Likewise, so does archaeology. So we clearly have an irreconcilable conflict between the timeframe proposed by the DNA research on one hand and the primary sources and archaeology on the other. I'm not sure what the position of linguistics would be in this regard, i.e. would it be possible that the great amount of Slavic toponyms on the Balkans appeared only after the 9th century (quite unlikely, as we would rely on the historical sources for any such dating).

Who was doing the pushing? We have only one suspect: the Hungarians.

If we assume the timeframe is correct - yes. If we assume the methodology is flawed and several centuries late, then that would be the Avars.

Was anybody mentioning any of those movements (beside Kekaumenos)? Yes, Ana Comnena mentions the "Dacians" pushing the "Sarmatians" from Wallachia into the Balkans.

Which, according to your previous interpretation was the "Romanians and Slavs from Transylvania" pushing the "Romanians, Slavs and Turkic people from Wallachia" (though I'm not sure why you equate Wallachia, a part of Dacia, with Sarmatia). The problem, again, is that even if we accept this interpretation, she would be the only source implying the migration of these peoples (and if we're really generous, we could say Kekaumenos might have been hinting at it). Most sources speak only about the migrations of the various Turkic peoples (and not necessarily from Wallachia, mind you).

Btw, upon further investigation, I'm finding a discrepancy between Anna's text in the Fordham site and the one in the GIBI (which, in case there's anyone else reading this discussion, stands for Greek Sources for Bulgarian History). In the latter (which I would personally prefer, as it includes the Greek text side by side with the Bulgarian translation), besides the explanation of the events (i.e. that this whole episode is about Isaac Komnenos' 1059 war with the Hungarians (the Dacians in Anna's text) and the Pechenegs (her Sauromatae)), there's a mention of a third tribe, the Getoi (=the Uzes), and it's actually they who were harassing the Pecheneg-Sauromatae and forcing them south of the Danube, not the Dacian-Magyars. So, while here's another request from me for a Greek-speaker to shed more light on the situation (link included above), it seems for now that Anna's out as well (can I post a DS9 vid? )...

How did you come to the conclusion that I assume the Vlachs made the bulk of the hordes?!

Because you claimed (or at least hinted) that under the names of the steppe populations, which were a ruling minority, were actually hiding the majority of their conquered populations (namely, to my question "Are you suggesting the bulk of the Uzes, Pechenegs and Cumans were actually Vlachs and Slavs?" you replied "Depends on the particular customs of those people. For instance of the "Avars" who had invaded the Balkans after the Byzantine defenses on the Danube collapsed were quite likely Avars and Slavs."; and I then explained the sources distinguish between the two groups, even whenever they were together). So, if there aren't any substantial masses of Vlachs and Slavs hiding under the name of their "Sarmatian" overlords (i.e. the Pechenegs), the whole point is moot.

Nope, we won't be able to notice that. The reason is the Dacians and the Thracians were of the same genetic stock and the Thracians arrived into the Balkans coming from the North. That means there would be always more diversity (remember the "genetic clock") among the Dacians than among the Thracians.

We need a distinct population (like the Slavs), which didn't exist in the South, in order to detect such a move.

I was talking about archaeology, not genetics.

The only surprising thing, as far as I am concerned, is the fact the Balkans became predominately Slavic only between the 9th and the 11th century.

"Surprising" is putting it mildly.

Now imagine Priscus sees somebody dressed like that.

Why should I imagine it? Is he mentioned as seeing someone dressed like that?

So according to him North of the Danube there are 3 languages spoken often (Hunnic, Gothic and Latin) and one spoken very seldom (Greek).

No, not really. You're skipping an "as" there - it's not "as many have commercial dealings with the western Romans", as you seem to be reading it, but it's "as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans". Now, English is not my native language, so if I'm wrong on this one, I'm ready to be corrected, but not only that this doesn't suggest these people were many, but it even seems to suggest that those barbarians who speak Latin, do so only because of their commercial dealings with the Romans. But since we're at it, a Greek-speaker could perhaps give us a better translation from the last paragraph here.
Btw, why they didn't have merchants who would speak Greek, due to their commercial dealings with the eastern Romans, I have no idea (though Moesia had a stronger Latin influence than Greek one, so it's interesting if he simply disregards it (i.e. they didn't trade with it and the eastern Romans, although he earlier speaks of such trade) or groups it with "the west").

Anyway, I'll point out again that this doesn't disprove the possible inclusion of Romanized Dacian tribes in Attila's domains, but it certainly doesn't prove it either. Also, if you want arguments from Priscus about the local language, this could perhaps be more useful to you - the notes claim that "medos" (mead) is suggested to be of either Slavic, Celtic or Thracian origin (I would personally also add Germanic, as even the modern English "mead" is still close enough to this probable Indo-European root), with Priscus mentioning it's the name of the drink on the local language; there's also a mention of a drink made of barley, which the barbarians call "kamos", though he doesn't mention if that's the local barbarians or the barbarians in general. (Btw, I'm surprised you haven't used the "torna, torna, fratre" incident as an argument so far.)

Luckily there is archaeological evidence that Latin was indeed spoken locally, not far from where Attila's court might have been.

Oh? That's interesting! Can you share it with us here? Is it from the same time period?

How likely is it that a serious negotiation takes place, in which an alliance against the Huns is discussed, a city is offered and there is an explicit demand from the Antes that the fake Chilibudos is restored to his command, and the envoys/negotiators/ambassadors sent by Justinian himself do not see/talk with "Chilibidos"?!

I can't say how likely it is or how serious the participating sides were (as we see, the Antes' actions were quite naive at best), or whether Fake-Chilbudius was sent to Byzantion together with Justinian's envoys or after that. Though it is indeed quite dubious, as you suggest, along with a whole number of other elements of the story.

1) A Roman prisoner knew an Antean could play the part of Chilbudios to the point of not only speaking the right type of Latin but also knowing what a general does and even having his mannerisms. How did he know that about the Antean? And how could the Antean do all those things himself?

That is the big question, indeed, and the source gives us no answers. It also makes the whole story quite filled with question marks. Perfect material for a historical novel, as you develop it further.

2) A Roman delegation was negotiating a highly important matter of state: an alliance with the Anteans against the Huns, which involved among other things, ceding a Roman city to the Anteans as part of the deal. That means the Roman negotiators must have been highly placed civil servants and officers (at the time one could be both);

Just a note, in order to be correct - ceding an abandoned town. "It was built once by the Roman emperor Trajan, but had long since been abandoned, as the local barbarians [had] sacked it." Anyway...

3) The Anteans themselves insist that the fake Chilbudios gets his job as a general back. They are pretty sure their Chilbudios would pass the tests. Why were they so sure as to risk compromising a very important deal for their nation?

They weren't really risking much, as their demands were simply an addition to what Justinian had already offered them. Also, I don't see anywhere a mention of them being sure their Chilbudius would pass any tests. Though I admit there's one part I myself can't understand (so I'd again welcome the help of a Greek speaker - here's the link) - there's a part in regards to the "negotiations" which goes like this: "When they heard this, the barbarians agreed and promised to do anything, if he would give them Chilbudius as "cohabitant" and appoint him as Roman general again." The way I understand it from the Bulgarian text, they wanted the P-C to stay living among them (which would suggest they weren't very keen on risking to leave him exposed as a fraud in Roman territory), but still get his Roman general's rank, which I have no idea how they envisioned that possibility (as I said, naivety).

4) Justinian's envoys cannot tell he is fake. However what they need is to know if he is real. So they send him to Constantinople. What does it mean when high civil servants and officers can't tell that guy is an impostor, after talking to him?

As usual, we're speculating wildly again, but maybe they indeed suspected he's a fake and that's the very reason he was sent to Constantinople and interrogated by Narses on the way?

The simplest scenario which covers all the 4 points is the Antean had spent a long time among Latin speakers on his side of the Danube, had spent a long time with Chilbudios, and was a professional intelligence officer (otherwise he would not have been able to answer correctly what the envoys had asked him, nor would he have bothered himself with learning Chilbudios' mannerisms).

You call that the simplest scenario?
Btw, you do know the Antes were a group of Eastern Slavs, right? Who lived in modern Moldova and Ukraine, which would have hardly had any native Latin-speakers there at that time, as far as I know.

Just like nowadays, intelligence officers existed at the time, and even "barbarians" had them.

I rather doubt that.

The Roman prisoner who put the things in motion must have been interrogated by an "intelligence officer". It so happens that later on, he discovers that very intelligence officer who had interrogated him is now a prisoner of the Sklaveni.

Except the Antean was captured by the Sklavenoi before the Roman prisoner himself was captured, as the Antean raids into Roman lands happened after the Anto-Slovene war, in which the Antean was originally captured.

[Dromikaites]

Not necessarily. At least the Bulgarian wording (that I'm using) doesn't necessarily imply it, especially in that context where it could easily be understood as "made to leave". If we want to be sure whether there's such ambiguity in the original wording, we should ask some of the Greek members here - here's the link to the text again.

The Roman emperors have relocated vanquished people on many occasions.

If that would have been the case with the Vlachs the author would have said it instead of saying the Vlachs settled on their own initiative.

Same as above. Of course, this again weighs neither against or in favour of this interpretation. And, again, there's the problem of the obvious confusion in this regard by Kekaumenos (concerning their original lands), which makes him a very weak source in this matter.

"Obvious confusion" means somebody else wrote at about the same time where the Vlachs' original lands were.

There is no such person.

Or it could mean that Kekaumenos isn't knowledgeable enough on the matter and simply filled the gaps in his knowledge with suppositions, as already shown.

He was a high byzantine official. They kept detailed records, based on what has survived. In addition to that the Vlachs were a problem during his term in office, which means he was forced to know as much as possible about them. Add to that he had Vlachs among his relatives.

The risk of him being less knowledgeable back then about the Vlachs than us today is pretty slim, don't you think?!

Oh, and let's remember his works survived because people paid the equivalent of an iPhone to have them copied. If the byzantine elites would have believed he was writing crap chances are they would not have repeatedly copied his chronicle for like 400 years.

Of course, if we rule out Kekaumenos' credibility on the matter, this could indeed serve your cause, as his references to Trajan and the Dacian wars could very well be the suppositions he's added to the newcomers (i.e. he knows they're coming from Dacia, so he links them with Decebalus, Trajan and the Balkan Dacian provinces from the old times). Or maybe not.

I fail to see why he is not credible. He is right the ancestors of the Vlachs are the Dacian and he is right they came into the Balkans from the general direction of Banat.

It is no mystery what had happened in Banat around that time. And there are two genetic studies which confirm a major population move at that time arms from that direction.

My point is - this is another source which is definitely not as clear on the matter as you originally made him out to be, as he can be interpreted either ways. So whenever you use him, along with the others already shown to be even less clear, you should always keep that in mind. Otherwise you'd be building a tower on sand and pure speculation (as you already have with a number of claims about these sources), which is obviously not a solid basis and can not lead to anything conclusive - only to "maybe"s, "possibly"s and "likely"s (unless, of course, if you take the dishonest path and try to pass them as clear-cut arguments in your favour).

The sources are corroborating each other and they are also corroborated by archaeology and genetics. At the time they were written the authors considered many things too obvious to warrant writing more than what they wrote.

If you can find sources which contradict them or my interpretation then you can say I am building a tower of sand. Until sources to the contrary are found, I am using written sources and genetic evidence which supports each other.

That's my whole point in this discussion so far, otherwise (as I said) I generally agree with your view (although I'm still quite intrigued by the possibility of the Balkan Vlachs being a result not of later migration, but of "local evolution"; and I also still doubt the late timeframe of the Slavic genetic influx here, which I indeed hope is a result of a flaw of the methodology, as sumskilz mentioned as possibility, otherwise I'd probably have to become a Fomenkologist to reconcile it with the historical sources and the archaeology.

You may be surprised to find out the archaeology itself evolved a great deal since the '50s in terms of methods.

Many older findings are nowadays considered true in terms of the material evidence but in need to be revised in terms of interpretation of that material evidence.

Therefore I would expect a lot of archaeological findings to be reinterpreted based on more recent discoveries.

Let me give you an example: say something happens and 2000 years from now on nobody knows how exactly things were in 2016. The archaeologists find relics of iPhones all over the world where they find the remains of large urban centers. However they also find the Foxconn factories in China. Based on that evidence they conclude that the iPhone originated in China and spread to the rest of the world via the Silk Road.

Kind of like the Albanians?

Not quite. There is no document saying where the Albanians originated. In case of the Vlachs Kekaumenos says they came into the Balkans from beyond the Sava river.

Well, since we're speculating, this could be pushed back a few centuries - the Vlachs could have migrated to the Balkans even before that, in the Bulgarian domains of the peninsula (after all, both sides of the Danube were controlled by the same country from the late 7th all the way to the early 11th centuries, which could have made it easier for the ones north of it to travel south), and only appeared in the Byzantine lands by the late 10th c. And considering there's only a minimal amount of Bulgarian historical sources from that time, none of which describes population dynamics within the state (the only similar case I can think of is the Byzantine mentions of a few cases of Roman populations captured by Krum and relocated in Transdanubian Bulgaria, some of which later managed to return to their homes in Thracian Macedonia), they could have easily went unnoticed until they entered the lands under Byzantine control. Of course, this could expand this window of opportunity another century earlier, since Byzantine control over much of the Balkans was nominal ever since the Avaro-Slavic invasions of the late 6th c. etc.

This is why I said there are several intervals which fit Kekaumenos story that the Vlachs came into the Balkans at a time when the emperors had no saying on who settles where.

But then we have two generic studies showing when the major population displacement happened and we have the story of Anna Commena.

The Vlachs miraculously pop up in the sources by that time, yes. The problem is, the sources register no great influx of Slavs at that same time. On the contrary, they register a great influx of Slavs several centuries earlier. Likewise, so does archaeology. So we clearly have an irreconcilable conflict between the timeframe proposed by the DNA research on one hand and the primary sources and archaeology on the other. I'm not sure what the position of linguistics would be in this regard, i.e. would it be possible that the great amount of Slavic toponyms on the Balkans appeared only after the 9th century (quite unlikely, as we would rely on the historical sources for any such dating).

We have the sources mentioning the "Sarmatians", "Scythians", etc. The traditional view is those are just the various Turkic people. However if they were actually Turkic people plus Slavs then we have no contradiction.

If we assume the timeframe is correct - yes. If we assume the methodology is flawed and several centuries late, then that would be the Avars.

Look up if other studies refute those ones. I couldn't find any. Which means more likely we simply have yet another wave (or waves) of Turkic+friends.

Which, according to your previous interpretation was the "Romanians and Slavs from Transylvania" pushing the "Romanians, Slavs and Turkic people from Wallachia" (though I'm not sure why you equate Wallachia, a part of Dacia, with Sarmatia).

She refers to Sarmatians living North of the Danube. That would be "Sarmatians" living in Southern Romania, not in Ukraine (where Sarmatia used to be).

The problem, again, is that even if we accept this interpretation, she would be the only source implying the migration of these peoples (and if we're really generous, we could say Kekaumenos might have been hinting at it). Most sources speak only about the migrations of the various Turkic peoples (and not necessarily from Wallachia, mind you).

And she is supported by two genetic studies.

Btw, upon further investigation, I'm finding a discrepancy between Anna's text in the Fordham site and the one in the GIBI (which, in case there's anyone else reading this discussion, stands for Greek Sources for Bulgarian History). In the latter (which I would personally prefer, as it includes the Greek text side by side with the Bulgarian translation), besides the explanation of the events (i.e. that this whole episode is about Isaac Komnenos' 1059 war with the Hungarians (the Dacians in Anna's text) and the Pechenegs (her Sauromatae)), there's a mention of a third tribe, the Getoi (=the Uzes), and it's actually they who were harassing the Pecheneg-Sauromatae and forcing them south of the Danube, not the Dacian-Magyars. So, while here's another request from me for a Greek-speaker to shed more light on the situation (link included above), it seems for now that Anna's out as well (can I post a DS9 vid? )...

In 1056 Isaac Comnenos was in Anatolia and not an emperor yet. You probably mean 1059.

At that time Hungary was experiencing a small civil war between the king Andrew I and his brother Bela. Bela had received one third of the kingdom, which included Slovakia and Northern Transylvania. The Hungarian sources are sketchy about the details, to the point the final battle between the king and his brother is hard to locate - we know only it was somewhere East of Tisa river, which would be in Western Transylvania.

Little wonder people get displaced during civil wars. If the "Sarmatians" from Wallachia were hit both by the "Dacians" as Anna Commena says and by the Uzes, they had strong incentives to cross the Danube.

Because you claimed (or at least hinted) that under the names of the steppe populations, which were a ruling minority, were actually hiding the majority of their conquered populations (namely, to my question "Are you suggesting the bulk of the Uzes, Pechenegs and Cumans were actually Vlachs and Slavs?" you replied "Depends on the particular customs of those people. For instance of the "Avars" who had invaded the Balkans after the Byzantine defenses on the Danube collapsed were quite likely Avars and Slavs."; and I then explained the sources distinguish between the two groups, even whenever they were together). So, if there aren't any substantial masses of Vlachs and Slavs hiding under the name of their "Sarmatian" overlords (i.e. the Pechenegs), the whole point is moot.

Two genetic studies seem to indicate the Turkic groups brought a lot of non-Turkic friends with them.

Mind you by that time the Slavs quite likely had learned to use the potter's wheel. And if they were part of the Turkic hordes they probably used similar type of weaponry and shared other artifacts. We know for instance the Franks of Charlemagne looked a lot like Roman legionares.

Why should I imagine it? Is he mentioned as seeing someone dressed like that?

Because for instance that Greek was dressed like a "Scythian". So he obviously was looking at the clothes in order to assess if one was "barbarian".

No, not really. You're skipping an "as" there - it's not "as many have commercial dealings with the western Romans", as you seem to be reading it, but it's "as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans". Now, English is not my native language, so if I'm wrong on this one, I'm ready to be corrected, but not only that this doesn't suggest these people were many, but it even seems to suggest that those barbarians who speak Latin, do so only because of their commercial dealings with the Romans.

But since we're at it, a Greek-speaker could perhaps give us a better translation from the last paragraph here.
Btw, why they didn't have merchants who would speak Greek, due to their commercial dealings with the eastern Romans, I have no idea (though Moesia had a stronger Latin influence than Greek one, so it's interesting if he simply disregards it (i.e. they didn't trade with it and the eastern Romans, although he earlier speaks of such trade) or groups it with "the west").

First of all, let's be clear that according to Priscus those "As many as have commercial dealings with Western Romans" are still more than those who speak Greek.

Then there is the place: Attila's court was in Wallachia or Oltenia or less likely Eastern Banat (less likely because Eastern Banat is all mountains).

The closest place to trade with the Romans would be with those in Moesia. If Latin won't be of much use when trading with Moesia, that means one of two things: that Moesia was so deserted that not much trade could happen or that all the Moesian merchants spoke Greek. The later is quite unlikely since he says Greek was mainly spoken on the coastlines of Ilyria and Thracia. Which leaves the explanation that Moesia was largely depleted.

But then it means there would be a lot of traders speaking Latin in Wallachia, for no good reason. While it would make sense to have lots of traders speaking Latin in Eastern Pannonia due to the trade with the Western Romans, there would be not much need to have such people in Wallachia, especially when there was not much trade to be done with Moesia. The local traders would speak the local languages.

So we're back to the fact if the top 3 languages would be Gothic, Hunnic and Latin, the explanation "trade with Western Romans" is most likely a rationalization because Priscus cannot believe there could be native "barbarian" Latin speakers.

(Btw, I'm surprised you haven't used the "torna, torna, fratre" incident as an argument so far.)

It didn't come up in the context.

Oh? That's interesting! Can you share it with us here? Is it from the same time period?

The Biertan Donarium from the 4th century is the most spectacular object (it has been mentioned on other threads on the same topic - one feels bored to have to go through the same things again and again just because some garbage peddler feels like peddling garbage periodically).

I can't say how likely it is or how serious the participating sides were (as we see, the Antes' actions were quite naive at best), or whether Fake-Chilbudius was sent to Byzantion together with Justinian's envoys or after that. Though it is indeed quite dubious, as you suggest, along with a whole number of other elements of the story.

Why do you say they were naive?

That is the big question, indeed, and the source gives us no answers. It also makes the whole story quite filled with question marks. Perfect material for a historical novel, as you develop it further.

Actually the explanation is straightforward. You want to treat it as a historical novel, probably because you would expect Procopius should have anticipated we would need more clarity for his writings.

Just a note, in order to be correct - ceding an abandoned town. "It was built once by the Roman emperor Trajan, but had long since been abandoned, as the local barbarians [had] sacked it." Anyway...

Claims were taken very seriously. Remember Alexander answer to Darius-"You are offering me the land I already have"?

So even if the Antes had the city, they still needed the Romans to relinquish their claim on it.

They weren't really risking much, as their demands were simply an addition to what Justinian had already offered them.

Trying to infiltrate the Roman army at a high level was no joke.

Also, I don't see anywhere a mention of them being sure their Chilbudius would pass any tests.

Are you serious?

Though I admit there's one part I myself can't understand (so I'd again welcome the help of a Greek speaker - here's the link) - there's a part in regards to the "negotiations" which goes like this: "When they heard this, the barbarians agreed and promised to do anything, if he would give them Chilbudius as "cohabitant" and appoint him as Roman general again." The way I understand it from the Bulgarian text, they wanted the P-C to stay living among them (which would suggest they weren't very keen on risking to leave him exposed as a fraud in Roman territory), but still get his Roman general's rank, which I have no idea how they envisioned that possibility (as I said, naivety).

Think again!

They were negotiating an alliance against the Huns. While they were not as strong as during Attila's time, they were still a serious foe. So the Antes were interested in having the Romans put some skin in the game. Like in contributing with troops led by their man, thus increasing the likelihood they would actually help when the Huns show up.

As usual, we're speculating wildly again, but maybe they indeed suspected he's a fake and that's the very reason he was sent to Constantinople and interrogated by Narses on the way?

If they suspected him, it would have been a show of poor judgment to send him to Constantinople. Envoys were selected based on their ability to handle difficult situations without supervision.

You call that the simplest scenario?

The simplest which answer all the questions.

Btw, you do know the Antes were a group of Eastern Slavs, right? Who lived in modern Moldova and Ukraine, which would have hardly had any native Latin-speakers there at that time, as far as I know.

They lived in Wallachia, Southern Moldova and Southern Ukraine. Remember the negotiation was about a city in Wallachia? Actually in Western Wallachia (Oltenia),

I rather doubt that.

Everybody had spies and people handling spies. Likewise everybody was interrogating prisoners. It is documented for Mongols and for Arpad's Hungarians.

Except the Antean was captured by the Sklavenoi before the Roman prisoner himself was captured, as the Antean raids into Roman lands happened after the Anto-Slovene war, in which the Antean was originally captured.

Does that rule out he was interrogating prisoners? Speaking Latin made him qualified for the job. Knowing who is who among the Sclavenians might have also help him get a job with the Sclavenes. Or, more precisely, to get the same job with the Sclavenes. The practice of working for the next boss was common. It went as far as hiring the defeated soldiers "on the spot".

If people who had fought recently against us were hired to fight for us, how difficult would be for people with really special skills (less frequent than say the ability to wield a sword), to get their special jobs back?

Later edit:

It seems there is a mistake in the Bulgarian source you use: they say Turris (Tower) was Dinogetia, located near modern Galati, which would be a city placed in South-Eastern Wallachia/Southern Moldova.

However there were several Roman cities which were called just like that (Turris) and which would actually fit the narrative. Better yet, they are called Tower (Turnu in Romanian) even nowadays.

Dinogetia could not be that Turris for the simple reason it was not abandoned at the time, emperor Anastasius I having consolidating its fortifications recently (early 500s). It would be overrun by "barbarians" some 50 years after the events, when Phokas withdrew the troops from the Danubian forts. Plus Dinogentia was called Dinogentia at the time Anastasius I reinforced its defenses, which would make it highly unlikely to be called Turris some 20-30 years later and then Dinogentia again during the 7th century.

Therefore the most likely candidates would be modern Turnu Măgurele or Turnu Severin. However Turnu Severin would place the Antes too far West (where Banat begins) and during Justinian's time it was called Theodora, after the emperor's wife. Procopius could not have missed that. Turnu Măgurele is a much better choice, especially for defending against the Huns, as it is where the Danube and Olt rivers meet and was indeed part of the limes built by Trajan along the Olt river, to block the invasions from the East. It was also restored by Justinian towards the end of his reign, so what Procopius tells seem to fit the Imperial long-term plans for the area.

[sumskilz]

About the date estimate and methodology in the Hellenthal et al 2014 study, I'll explain what I was talking about so you guys can judge it for yourselves. The basic premise of the methodology was outlined in this study: Dating the age of admixture via wavelet transform analysis of genome-wide data

This is what is being measured (average segment length due to the effects of recombination each generation):



First limitation:

Additionally, we ran simulations to test how continuous admixture over time affects the method. Again we start with a population A, which at T 0 comprises 1,000 individuals, and it receives either 5% or 20% migrants from population B over the period of either 10 or 30 generations. The growth rate of the new admixed population was chosen so that in 2,000 generations the population grows to 10,000, and 100 simulations were performed for each scenario. Results are shown in Figure S2 in Additional file 1. Because new ancestry blocks are being continuously introduced over the period of either 10 or 30 generations, potentially removing older block structure by replacing narrower ancestry blocks with new wider blocks, we expect ongoing admixture to reduce the wavelet transform coefficients and therefore lead to an underestimation of time since admixture. This is indeed what we observe: irrespective of the admixture rate throughout the duration of admixture (10 or 30 generations), the wavelet transform coefficients are lower than those observed in a population with the same admixture rate, but which has experienced not a continuous but a one-time admixture event. Once the influx of new genetic material into the simulated population A stops, the trajectory of growth of the wavelet transform coefficients is slowly recovered.

Continuous admixture or multiple waves that aren't far enough apart will look very much like a single admixture event, except that the estimated date won't be the actual date of the first wave or the beginning continuous admixture, it will instead be the date of the last wave or the end of the continuous admixture.

Second limitation:

Furthermore, because human populations are closely related and not very well differentiated, direct estimation of the number of breakpoints and block width as a measure of time since admixture for human genetic data is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, to have enough power to reliably assign chromosomal segments to an ancestral population, it is necessary to use relatively large genomic windows, which correspondingly reduces detection of closely-spaced breakpoints. And secondly, for every location in the genome that potentially carries a breakpoint, a formal decision has to be made as to whether to consider it a true breakpoint or not. This transformation of the 'raw' signal into a discrete signal potentially leads to either some not well-defined breakpoints being overlooked, or conversely random effects becoming inflated and falsely considered as a true signal. These errors, however small, will accumulate over the many measurements taken...

The performance of the method is influenced by two factors: the density of SNPs analyzed and the degree of differentiation between the two parental populations.

This means you can get really accurate results from say an East Asian population into a European population, but with the Slavs and the Romanized Balkans population we're dealing with two populations who are made up of different mixes of the same European ancestries and have only been completely differentiated since their respective Indo-European languages split some time in the Bronze Age. For this reason, Hellenthal et al completely failed to identify the Anglo-Saxon into Romanized Britain admixture event which was significant according to ancient DNA analysis.

Third limitation:

Incorrect identification of the ancestral groups contributing to an admixed group will obviously lead to erroneous conclusions, hence careful attention must be paid when identifying parental groups.

The problem is that without using ancient DNA, modern groups can at best be imperfect proxies. This is why Hellenthal et al really got Sardinia wrong. We know from ancient DNA that the last major admixture event in Sardinia happened in the Neolithic between Early Farmers from the Middle East and the Mesolithic hunter gatherers. There aren't any great proxies for either, although Sardinians would be closest for the farmers (but that wouldn't work). What they came up with was an admixture event c. 634CE between an Egyptian-like population and a French-like population. That's quite an underestimate.

Hellenthal et al mention all these same limitations in their own paper:

Nevertheless, there are multiple settings that we believe are challenging for our approach. First, although the admixing sources need not be sampled—often impossible because of genetic drift, extinction, or later admixture into the sources themselves—source inference is improved when more similar extant groups are sampled, and GLOBETROTTER may miss events where we lack any extant group that can separate sources. Second, sampling of several genetically very similar groups can mask admixture events they share. Similarly, a caveat is that where genuine, recent bidirectional gene flow has occurred, admixture fractions are difficult to define and interpret. However, date estimation is predicted to still be useful, and in real data the majority of our inferred events do not appear to be bidirectional in this manner. Third, even in theory our approach finds it challenging to distinguish distinct continuous “pulses” of admixture and continuous migration over some time frame (9), because of the difficulty of separating exponential mixtures (20). If the time frame were narrow, we expect to infer a single admixture time within the range of migration dates. Where we infer two admixture dates, in particular with the same source groups, the exponential decay signal could also be consistent with more continuous migration, and so we conservatively refer to this as admixture at multiple dates. Last, we only attempt to analyze populations with signals consistent with at most three groups admixing and infer at most two admixture times, and we can provide only less precise inference of sources for the weaker or older admixture signal in these complex cases (9).

So these limitations appear to be impossible to completely overcome, but keeping them in mind, the results are still informative to some extent in most cases. Using the same methodology and an improved version of the statistical software developed by Hellenthal et al, Busby et al 2015 came up with a similar result (at least regarding the date... sort of).

In their results for the Balkans, there is what may be a huge Northeastern European influx from 500-830 CE, but it is likely masked considerably by later admixture. Then there is a what appears to be a major Armenian-like influx 830-1125 CE (Roman resurgence?) and then another Northeastern European influx from 1125-1380 CE. In the text they average it out and give a similar date to Hellenthal et al (Hellenthal was a co-author by the way), but they uncovered some more interesting details you can see here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The India stuff was only found in two Romanian individuals. It seems pretty clear to me these two individuals had Gypsy ancestry as the authors also assume. Remember that a portion of that Iran+Armenia stuff could be Iranic as well as local.

[Dromikaites]

Thanks for the new study sumskilz (and rep as soon as I can rep you again).

From the detailed explanation of the methodology I can see why this new study confirms the previous ones when it comes to when the Balkans became Slavic: according to their simulation it takes 2000 generations (40,000 years) of "continuous" migration to completely mask the older arrivals. Since we know the Slavic migration covers only some 400 years max (1% of the time needed to distort the picture), the authors are pretty confident their readings are correct.

The implications are in line with some historians have claimed for quite a while: that the migrating populations were more diverse than what we would assume just by reading in the ancient sources the name of the leading tribes: Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgaria, etc. Or from what the artifacts in the cemeteries indicate (think of what archaeology might infere from digging up iPhones or jeans).

The story is relevant also for the technique of debating using ancient sources. For instance the first time the Goths attack the Roman Empire they are the junior partners of the Free Dacians. Later the Free Dacians vanish from the sources and when Jordannes says the Goths and the Getae (Dacians) were the same people modern historians hasten to assume he was simply fooled by the similarity of the two names.

The more natural hypothesis would be that the 3rd century Goths have actually mixed with the Free Dacians to the point the 5th and 6th century Goths would consider themselves to be as much the heirs of the Germanic Goths and of the Dacians, hence Jordannes' statement that the "Goths" took part in the Trojan wars (some Thracians did) or fought Trajan would actually be not far from the material truth.

In the absence of such genetic studies one could be accused of having too rich of an imagination for saying "Bulgars", "Avars", "Cutigurs" etc were actually Bulgars+Everybody else, Avars+Everybody else, Cutigurs+Everybody else etc.

However since the third genetic study insists the Balkans actually became Slavic during a time the written sources do not mention the Slavs but several of their Turkic "senior partners", we can now be sure that the Turkic element was rather small in size. That would be also consistent with those other findings, like that study which showed that the mothers of those "Turkic" warriors were European.

A truly Turkic population has both Turkic men and women. If the Turkic women vanish from the gene pool that means (just like the case of the "primordial Eve") the initial Turkic population was very small and the bulk of the "Turkic" horde was made of whatever Europeans were in the Black Sea steppes (Slavs, Iranians, Germanic) and in Dacia.

[NikeBG]

I give up! There's no point arguing with you! I already showed you not a single one of your four sources actually supports your thesis, not to mention that your original claims about them are completely made up. But instead of admitting that, you keep making new things up, even things which contradict what was already shown. I'm honestly tired of all these speculations or translating the sources for you and having to repeatedly show you that "No, the source does not say that" to no avail...

[sumskilz]

From the detailed explanation of the methodology I can see why this new study confirms the previous ones when it comes to when the Balkans became Slavic: according to their simulation it takes 2000 generations (40,000 years) of "continuous" migration to completely mask the older arrivals. Since we know the Slavic migration covers only some 400 years max (1% of the time needed to distort the picture), the authors are pretty confident their readings are correct.

I think you misread that, 2000 generations was in regard to growth rate and the length of the entire simulation. The continuous admixture simulations tested were 10 and 30 generations, both had the same effect:

Because new ancestry blocks are being continuously introduced over the period of either 10 or 30 generations, potentially removing older block structure by replacing narrower ancestry blocks with new wider blocks, we expect ongoing admixture to reduce the wavelet transform coefficients and therefore lead to an underestimation of time since admixture. This is indeed what we observe: irrespective of the admixture rate throughout the duration of admixture (10 or 30 generations)

However, it does appear that the later Northeastern European gene flow into the region observed in the other study is real - that light blue swell from 1125-1380 CE in SEastern Europe (recipient region) in the image I posted. SEastern Europe for the sake of the study is Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece. Using a refined version of the method, Busby et al adds a lot more detail. There is an earlier Northeastern European gene flow - the light blue swell from 500-830 CE. It had to be bigger than it appears though, since it would be partially obscured by the later influx.

After reading all of Busby et al's supplementary materials, I had to edit a couple points in my previous post, but anyway these are the relevant European parent populations as they define them:

bulga46 peaks in 29 Bulgarians, 13 Romanians, and 4 Turks. (I assume this is the ancestral Romanized Thracian/Dacian element)

lithu11 peaks in 9 Lithuanians, 1 Belorussian, and 1 Pole. There is an influx of this population into the Balkans 469-1150 CE which is most significant 500-830 CE.

ukrai48 peaks in 20 Ukrainians, 16 Poles, 8 Belorussians, 1 Chukchi, 1 Chuvash, 1 Koryak, and 1 Lithuanian. There is an influx of this population into the Balkans 708-1463 CE which is most significant 1125-1380 CE

armen27 peaks in 24 Armenians, 1 Syrian, and 2 Turks. There is an influx of this population into the Balkans 295-1564 which is most significant CE 830-1125 CE.

It seems to me that lithu11 could be both Slavic and Germanic (when it appears in the Balkans), whereas ukrai48 could be Slavic with some eastern influences. The Mongolian-like influence in the Balkans appears acute compared to being more sustained (as far back as 500 BCE) in Northeastern European populations.

The implications are in line with some historians have claimed for quite a while: that the migrating populations were more diverse than what we would assume just by reading in the ancient sources the name of the leading tribes: Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgaria, etc.

I agree. At minimum, the biological characteristics of the people associated with the ethnonyms were altered by incorporation of foreign women, but probably also coalitions, etc.

[Dromikaites]

I give up! There's no point arguing with you! I already showed you not a single one of your four sources actually supports your thesis,

Up until now we have discussed (in chronological order):

1) Priscus' report of his embassy to Attila. I have pointed out the fact that his explanation as to why many "Hunnic" merchants in Wallachia spoke Latin is bizarre: not because of doing business with Moesia (right across the Danube) but because of doing business 700 - 1000 km away. A more logical explanation (also in line with the archaeological findings) is that Latin was one of the languages spoken by the natives.

So where exactly am I making things up in this case?

2) Procopius' story about Pesudo-Chilbudios. I showed that:
- in order for somebody to be able to speak Latin like a Roman one needs to learn it from native speakers (true then as it is true today);
- that in order for somebody to be able to imitate the manners of Chilbudios he needs to spend considerable time with the person;
- in order to pass for a Roman general he needs to be well informed about what the job of a general is;
- in order to be known by a Roman prisoner to be somebody who speaks Latin like a Roman and as somebody who can pass for Chilbudios he needs to have interacted with that Roman prisoner before. Moreover, he needs to have interacted in ways which would allow the Roman prisoner to know about his ability to impersonate Chibudios. The most natural way for this to happen is if the guy was somebody who had as his main job to interrogate prisoners and collect intelligence from them;

I have also shown that the Bulgarian assessment about the location of Turris is wrong. That is relevant to the discussion because Turris as Turnu Magurele place it in an area where the process of Romanization did happen without a doubt. As such it would be natural for native speakers of Latin to live in the area (incidentally Attila's court happened to be in the same general area - between Turnu Severin and Turnu Magurele).

So what exactly am I making up in this case?

3) Kekaumenos' account about the origins of the Vlachs
I showed that Kekaumenos can only be accused of "confusing things" if there would be another source contradicting him. There is none.

On the contrary there are at least two sources corroborating his:

- the oldest Hungarian chronicle ("Gesta Hungarorum"), which shows how duke Salanus was forced to flee South (towards the place Kekaumenos indicates as the origin of the Vlachs);

- Anna Komnena which documents another instance when trouble in Transylvania (in this case a Hungarian civil war) tirggered the migration over the Danube of people living in Wallachia;

And finally we have now 3 studies, not two, which do indicate several massive migrations from North of the Danube into the Balkans within the 9th - 12th century timeframe.

So where exactly did I make things up?

4) Anna Komnena's account about an 11th century invasion of people living in Wallachia, as a result of troubles in Transylvania. That is consistent with the 3 genetic studies which show that is timeframe is when the Balkans became definitely Slavic, and also it is consistent to the sources showing the Vlachs as an armed and organised political entity in the Balkans.

So again, what exactly am I making up?

not to mention that your original claims about them are completely made up.

Feel free to show how are they made up.

But instead of admitting that, you keep making new things up, even things which contradict what was already shown.

If they contradict things already shown, then please be kind and point them up.

As for making things up, I think you confuse explaining with making things up.

If things look bizarre (like somebody being able to successfully impersonate a Roman general down to his mannerisms) then the normal thing is to figure out how that was possible.

If the original source is silent about how that was possible we need to propose an explanation. The shortest explanation which ticks all the checkboxes is the most likely to be close to the truth.

If you want to disagree, feel free to provide your own version which simultaneously answers all the points. You know, consistency is crucial - if my hypothesis reconciles say 5 points, a rebuttal should offer a single alternative explanation to the same 5 points.

I'm honestly tired of all these speculations or translating the sources for you and having to repeatedly show you that "No, the source does not say that" to no avail...

I thank you for translating those sources because that way I at least avoid the accusation of translating them to suit my goals.

Now, "the source doesn't say that" is not enough in the debate. You need to say what you think the source actually says. So we're back to the fact that if you do not like my interpretation you should come with an interpretation of your own.

The important thing is that interpretation of any source needs to be internally consistent. More than that, while consistently fitting that source. it should also fit the corroborating evidence (other sources + genetic studies). Because that is good about my interpretation - a single explanation fits 5 chronicles (counting "Gesta Hungarorum" in addition to Priscus, Procopius, Kekaumenos, Anna Comnena) and 3 genetic studies.

Do come up with your own scenario which contradicts mine but is nevertheless consistent with the 5 chronicles and 3 genetic studies.

[tudorvolcano]

Romanian history books actually use the term "Romanian-Bulgarian Tsarsdom" for the first bulgarian empire. And they teach kids at school that the kingdom was also part romanian, this is to support not only a cultural continuity, but a political one as well. That is, to try and prove the argument that romanians disappeared from history until their states formed. The romanian communist cultural "revolution" in the 70s, aside this interpretation, also somehow suggested Romania was the absolute oldest state in Europe during the cold war. This is why i'd take whatever romanian historiography teaches, whether it's the ethnogenesis theory or the political mish mash with the bulgarians with a big pinch of salt

The 1000 years of disappereance from history show only the fact there aren't many documents present during that time.
There were many great personalities of that time that were of Daco-Roman origin : more than 40 emperors of the Late Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, such as Constantine the Great, Justinian, and many others, there were writers such as Niceta de Remesiana, Ieronim, Ioan Casian, Dionisie cel Smerit etc.
Dacia was occupied by Germanic tribes after the Aurelian retreat, and they destroyed most of the urban areas, though there are still some inscriptions writtten in Latin after the retreat of the Roman administration.
Later, the Germanic tribes fled Eastern Europe because of the Hunnic invasion. It may be seen by the Northern Danubian population as some sort of liberation from the Germanic tribes, though there violent raids. It was the time of Slavic migration to the South.
After that, it is suspected that the Romanian lands were divided into small counties ruled by leaders called "juzi". In this period, the North of Danube was dominated by the Byzantine Empire, and Byzantines had many campaigns in the North against Asian nomads such as the Avars, the Cumans and the Bulgars.
Byzantine supremacy over the Balkans and the North of Danube remained undisputed until the citizens of Greek origin became too arogant and excluded completely the others, and by consequence the Eastern Romans, the Slavs and the Turkic tribes started to rebel against the Byzantine Empire. Greek leadership was weak, and this was also the reason of Islamic Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa.
Returning to the main topic, the Rebels started to form their own states, such as the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire.

[tudorvolcano]

For the Second Bulgarian Empire, not the First. And I personally could agree with it, at least in regards to the period of the early Asenids. Though, of course, Niketas Choniates' "the Moesians, who are now called Vlachs" could serve as material for an intriguing interpretation in regards to the First Empire as well. It wouldn't make much sense, but it could be quite intriguing nonetheless...
Otherwise, it's also interesting that the first mention of the Vlachs was exactly in relation to the FBE (the assassination of David, Samuil's oldest brother, by "wandering Vlachs" near Kastoria). I wonder where and when did the Vlach ethnonym (for that particular group of people, not the Roman people in general) first appear and when did the Balkan Slavs start using it. Did they get it from the Germans? Or maybe they got it from the medieval Romans themselves, who earlier got it from the Germans? Did they (the Slavs) distinguish between these people calling themselves Romane and those other people calling themselves Romaioi (thank goodness the Gypsies hadn't started calling themselves Roma as well back then - that would have been a mess)? As I said, the Vlach question is quite fascinating, how they've preserved their language and name throughout obscurity, how they've spread all over the place (is it possible, btw, that the Balkan Vlachs and the Dacian ones would not be directly related, but both evolved in their areas independently, out of a similar Romanized Daco-Thracian basis?).

Btw, in regards to a question of yours from before, namely about why the Middle Eastern populations didn't get Romanized, I think the answer is quite simple, so I'll post it with one word before the others get to it: Hellenism.

Also, in regards, to Balkan national historiographies, especially the ones from the communist period (but certainly not restricted to it), you'd do right to take them with a grain of salt. The Bulgarian one is definitely horrible enough and from what I've seen, those of (all) our neighbours aren't far behind (and some are even ahead *looking south-west*). Add to that the general lack of serious foreign/Western research into this area (very few Western historians do extensive and, most of all, unbiased independent research of their own; they mostly just reuse what the national historiographies have managed to spread out, not to mention they are forced to rely on local archaeology as well). Hence why the Balkan threads in the VV are such an interesting place - it's not only panem et circenses, but for a good observer it can also be a quite informative lesson.

It came from the Germanic tribes, who were neighbours with the Volcae in the south, and later they named all their neighbours that way. That's why you have many ethnonyms such as Welsh, Walloon, Vlach etc.
Hellenism was not a big factor of stopping Romanization, it was important only in the Attic region. It is important to remember that Northern Greeks were romanized. The existence of Aromanians is a proof of it.
Anatolia and Georgia were romanized, the proof being the Vulgar Latin inscriptions.
Later, begining with the reign of Heraclius I, Anatolia and Greece were Hellenized, due to the fact that Heraclius made Greek the only official language and replaced Latin with Greek. Most Greeks of today living in Northern Greece are Helllenized Albanians and Aromanians, and there is genetic proof of it.
The Jews and Copts had a culture much more developped than the Romans, that's why they weren't romanized.

[vasiooo]

So, you are a Russian?
I hate Russians using our symbols.
Anyway. I think Romanians formed north and south, and most of the north ones migrated south in III-IV century. When they got back north is up to debate. I don't buy the Hungarian speculation with XII-XIII century as a date.
That is the date of their modernisation and administrative expansion east of Tisa river, even if they probably controlled the area trough raids and tribute.