Suntem noi genetic in acelasi grup cu bulgarii si cu turcii? Andrada Daciana pare sa creada ca National Geographic sustine asta, si mai mult decat atat, ca gresesc si ca noi ar trebui sa le trimitem scrisori de ura si amenintare!

Am mai discutat pe acest blog, oarecum fugar, originea indoeuropeana a poporului roman (si a multor altor popoare de pe acest continent). Eu tind sa favorizez un model lingvistic de cercetare a originii poporului roman, din mai multe motive:

• este mult mai simplu prin aceea ca se bazeaza intr-o masura mai mare pe logica si abstractiuni decat pe empiricism
• patria mea-i limba romgleza, nu spatiul carpato-etc sau geologic (sapaturi arheologice)
• cercetarile genetice imi miros a Mengele si au tendinta sa fie interpretate si “imbogatite” de rasisti
• am un volum de cunostinte mai redus atat in arheologie cat si genetica

Originea poporului roman este inca acerb dezbatuta. Pe de o parte, avem teoria continuitatii poporului roman in spatiul carpato-danubiano-pontic (suna comunist, dar incearca s-o zici altfel! ), de cealalta, teoria lui Roessler sau “immigrationist theory” care sustine ca poporul roman s-ar fi format in Bulgaria si ar fi migrat apoi catre nord, dupa ce au ajuns maghiarii (ungurii) in Transilvania.

Pe langa aceste teorii, mai exista inca doua, teoria admigratiei (vezi cartea lui Lucian Boia) si teoria regiunilor centrale, care zice ca nu putem sti nimic (vezi cartile lui Andre du Nay si Gottfried Schramm) – din wiki-origin in surse. Teoria admigratiei este probabil cea mai favorabila noua, intrucat ne plaseaza in “spatiul c-d-p”, ne formeaza in Bulgaria si ne face si cuceritori, dar cea a regiunilor centrale pare a fi mai realista.

Evident, existenta limbii romane, o limba latina sau “romance”, este principalul argument impotriva teoriei imigrationiste / Roessleriene. Existenta limbii romane pune “burden of proof” pe seama imigrationistilor – care insa se descurca de minune.

Dezbaterea genetica

Despre atlasul genetic al Europei, facut de National Geographic (nat-geo-atlas in surse), Andrada Daciana ne spune ca noi facem parte din aceeasi grupa cu bulgarii si turcii, mai precis, haploidul M170, si ca pozele de mai jos cu turci si bulgari nu ne reprezinta.

The full text from National Geographic:

These ancestors were part of the M89 Middle Eastern Clan that continued to migrate northwest into the Balkans and eventually spread into central Europe. These people may have been responsible for the expansion of the prosperous Gravettian culture, which spread through northern Europe from about 21,000 to 28,000 years ago.

The man who gave rise to marker M170 was born about 20,000 years ago and was heir to this heritage. He was probably born in one of the isolated refuge area people were forced to occupy during the last blast of the Ice Age, possibly in the Balkans. As the ice sheets covering much of Europe began to retreat around 15,000 years ago, his descendants likely played a central role in recolonizing northern Europe.

It’s possible that the Vikings descended from this line. The Viking raids on the British Isles might explain why the lineage can be found in populations in southern France and among some Celtic populations.

Eu zic ca nicaieri nu apar in Atlas romanii si ca pozele nu au cum sa fie reprezentative pentru noi intrucat ele sunt reprezentative pentru turci si bulgari. Mai departe, pozele pe care ar vrea ea sa le trimitem la Nat Geo sunt poze cu vedete si oameni tineri, care iarasi nu prea se potrivesc cu un proiect de harta genetica si etnografie. National Geographic nu-i Peoples Magazine.

Acestea fiind zise, se pare totusi ca romanii nu prea se regasesc in aceasta harta, iar asta este o scapare ciudata. Imi place sa cred insa ca raspunsul corect ar fi scrisori calme si fara isterie, care, inainte de a acuza, sa intrebe politicos care sunt motivele acestei scapari si sa semnaleze (iar politicos) discrepantele sau incongruentele observate.

Idei similare se gasesc totusi si in wikipedia. Romanizarea nu ar fi influentat decisiv fondul genetic al populatiilor cucerite:

Historic sources sometimes cite instances of genocide incited by the Romans upon rebellious provincial tribes. If this did in fact occur, it would have been limited given that modern populations show considerable genetic continuity in their respective regions. The process of 'romanization' appears to have been accomplished by the colonization of provinces by a few Latin speaking administrators, military personnel and private citizens (merchants, traders) who emanated from the Empire's various regions (and not merely the Italian peninsula). They served as a nucleus for the acculturation of local notables. Given their small numbers and varied origins, Romanization does not appear to have left distinct genetic signatures in Europe. Indeed, Romance-speaking populations in the Balkans have been found to genetically resemble neighbouring Greek and Slavic-speaking peoples rather than modern Italians. Steven Bird has speculated that E1b1b1a was spread during the Roman era from Italy and the Balkans into the rest of Europe.

Mai departe, distributia haplogrupului R1a a dat nastere unor teorii interesante.

Haplogroup R1a distribution

Scheme of Indo-European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis. The magenta area corresponds to the assumed Urheimat (Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture). The red area corresponds to the area which may have been settled by Indo-European-speaking peoples up to ca. 2500 BC; the orange area to 1000 BC.

Piazza & Cavalli-Sforza (2006) state that: if the expansions began at 9,500 years ago from Anatolia and at 6,000 years ago from the Yamnaya culture region, then a 3,500-year period elapsed during their migration to the Volga-Don region from Anatolia, probably through the Balkans. There a completely new, mostly pastoral culture developed under the stimulus of an environment unfavourable to standard agriculture, but offering new attractive possibilities. Our hypothesis is, therefore, that Indo-European languages derived from a secondary expansion from the Yamnaya culture region after the Neolithic farmers, possibly coming from Anatolia and settled there, developing pastoral nomadism.

Wells (2002) instead argues for Gimbutas' model: While we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe.

Discovery are un documentar pe tema Columnei lui Traian si a genocidului roman din Dacia. Sincer sa fiu, ma doare ca atat de putini romani isi cunosc istoria – ce sa mai cerem strainilor?! Oare cati romani stiu ca limba romana exista ca limba oficiala si in afara teritoriului romanesc (Provincia Vojvodina in Serbia si Muntele Athos in Grecia)?

Dezbaterea lingvistica

Iata unde se gaseste limba noastra in “arborele lingvistic indo-european”:

Limba romana este alaturata limbii bulgare in “Balkan sprachbund”, dar alaturarea pare nitel cam fortata (wikipedia):

The Balkan sprachbund or linguistic area is the ensemble of areal features—similarity in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among languages of the Balkans, which belong to various branches of Indo-European, such as Slavic, Greek, Romance and Albanian. While they share little vocabulary, their grammars also have similarities; for example they have similar case systems and have all become more analytic, although to differing degrees.

Cat de fortata? Jouko Lindstetd, un lingvist finlandez a calculat un “factor de balkanizare” pentru fiecare limba, dar limba romana fie nu apare acolo, fie e considerata altceva:

Sa fie asta din cauza ca limba romana, fiind o limba latina, are foarte putin a face cu celelalte limbi balcanice, sau noi intram la “Balkan Romance” alaturi de greaca (hmm, suna ca un titlu de film )?! Habar n-am, dar momentan, cea mai acceptata teorie este cea a surselor multiple:

The most commonly accepted theory, advanced by Polish scholar Zbigniew Golab, is that the innovations came from different sources and the languages influenced each other: some features can be traced from Latin, Slavic or Greek languages, while others, particularly features that are shared only by Romanian, Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian, could be explained by the substratum kept after Romanization (in the case of Romanian) or Slavicization (in the case of Bulgarian). Albanian was influenced by both Latin and Slavic, but it kept many of its original characteristics. Several arguments favour this theory:

1. throughout the turbulent history of the Balkans, many groups of people moved to another place, inhabited by people of another ethnicity. These small groups were usually assimilated quickly and sometimes left marks in the new language they acquired.
2. the use of more than one language was common in the Balkans before the modern age, and a drift in one language would quickly spread to other languages.
3. the dialects that have the most "balkanisms" are those in regions where people had contact with people of many other languages.

Studiul originii limbii romane (si implicit a poporului roman) este dificil intrucat exista putine informatii despre daci si despre acele vremuri. In general, modelul arborelui este utilizat cand comunitatile nu raman in contact efectiv pe masura ce limbile diverg. In modelul undei, particularitatile unei limbi se raspandesc precum unda creata de o piatra aruncata in apa, in mod concentric si atenuat progresiv.

In orice caz, aceste discutii in esenta istorice si teoretice par a fi viciate intr-o masura mult prea mare de antipatii, acuzatii si insulte. Eu am cunostinte si prieteni maghiari si nu m-as certa cu ei pentru eveniment care s-au petrecut cu multe generatii in urma, sau pentru interpretarile acestora. De altfel, avem sanse mai mari sa “castigam” o astfel de disputa daca reusim sa venim cu argumente congruente (logice si necontradictorii), exprimate calm si fara a-i ataca pe altii. Andrada Daciana pe de alta parte ne spune ca are de luptat cu tot felul de ticalosi care fac plangeri de copyright si ii inchid contul youtube. Astfel de plangeri pot fi usor disputate folosind “fair use”, cata vreme te exprimi civilizat.

Poate voi scrie mai pe larg cum sa te aperi de acuzatii de “infringement” pe BlogIdol. Pana atunci, familiarizaeza-te cu notiunile de proprietate intelectuala si cum sunt aplicate in legislatie. Mie mi-a fost cenzurat mai demult un clip si-am preferat sa-l scot decat sa ma lupt, din lipsa de timp. Daca insa asta-i o chestie importanta pentru tine, nu te lasa cenzurat, resurse exista o gramada. Voi adauga un link imediat ce scriu articolul, dar pana atunci, incearca sa eviti limbajul incendiar, indiferent ce zici cum a facut Andrada in clipurile de mai jos.

Intrebarea mea pentru tine, cititorule, este daca ai reusit sa parcurgi intregul text si daca da, care este raportul vocale:consoane?

Sources / More info: andradadaciana, gandirea, friesian, andrada-flickr, yt-ad, nat-geo-atlas, wiki-haploid, wiki-chromosomes, wiki-introduction-genetics, wiki-genetic-history, wiki-indo-euro, wiki-italic, wiki-romance, wiki-romanian, wiki-comparative, wiki-change, wiki-neacsu, wiki-gravettian, steven-bird, alu-insertion, wiki-paleo-balkan, wiki-dacian, wiki-origin

Bosch E, Calafell F, González-Neira A, et al. (July 2006), "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns", Annals of Human Genetics 70 (Pt 4): 459–87 PMID, doi

yt-originea-maghiara