>>9447636>slavs moved in that region from the VIth-VIIth century onwardsIn large numbers ,which is why they had a large genetic impact; However,we have assimilated them culturally and linguistically. It took about 500 years for us to do so but they still left a significant genetic mark
>The fact that you settled in the topographies of the Thracians and the Dacians means very littlethat is not a fact and is not supported by any evidence at all; Not even the Roeslerian retards claim something so delusional.
>The tribes had lost their identity a millennium before you ever set foot in the area.No,the dacian tribes got romanised but they kept their genetic identity as well as their occupations (which is why we have that haplogroup).
>It's literally demonstrable by your DNA We are literally I2a+R1a+R1b+some central asian dna but that's below 7% as previous posters said. All of these haplogroups are european and they can be found in our country.
>Unless of course you posit that Thracians(we have nuclear DNA from chalcolithic datapoints by the way) were slavic, illyrian, ugric, and germanic mongrelsThey were Illyrian ,you mongoloid,not even slavic as they have not arrived by that point (you stated it yourself,remember?),not germanic as the only germanic presence in Moldova,Transylvania and Muntenia had been the short lived Ostrogothic kingdom. There is little to no proof of ancient mixing between thracians (or illyrians as you call them) and other populations,not in significant quantities anyways.
>you're insolventmeanwhile you're contradicting yourself over and over again
