Modern Greeks are descended mostly/entirely from Slavs

[unmerged(59077)]

Makes sense considering 'Belarussians' didn't exist until after the Migration Period.

Correct!

And in any case that's only a problem if you assume that Slavs are in fact normally all blond (Serbs aren't) and that they did in fact come down into present-day Yugoslavia/Bulgaria recently from the North (again the "crawled out of the Pripet" theory).

If you assume that Slavic-speaking areas naturally bordered the Greek-speaking areas for a long while and the Migrations of the 6th century were a lot less epic in scope, everything makes a lot more sense.

-----

As to whoever mantioned Khazars being "wiped out" - the Khazars, like most other turcic Empires on the steppes were probably a composite people with Khazars proper making up a small ruling class. It makes little sense talking about them as having been wiped out; their Empire fell apart and the subject peoples (Alans, Bulgars, Berendeys, Slavs, Goths) that they once subjugated went on to make up their own states, while whoever remained in the Volga estuary would have assimilated into the Kipchaks fairly easily, given how similar the languages must have been.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

text

Still, the general viewpoint you put forward, I feel to be a bit static. Invasion "by the sword" and aggressive occupation of land is extremely rare, but in the pre-nationalistic era, change of identity and ethnicity is very common. I havent studied the actual subject, but I wouldnt be surprised if a great amount of the Greek population was made up of ethnically different characteristics, that had "converted" in previous centuries. Peaceful infusion of new genes was more common than aggressive.

Ethincity, cultures and such things existed and still exist in people's minds more than they do in reality.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Still, the general viewpoint you put forward, I feel to be a bit static. Invasion "by the sword" and aggressive occupation of land is extremely rare, but in the pre-nationalistic era, change of identity and ethnicity is very common. I havent studied the actual subject, but I wouldnt be surprised if a great amount of the Greek population was made up of ethnically different characteristics, that had "converted" in previous centuries. Peaceful infusion of new genes was more common than aggressive.

Ethincity, cultures and such things existed and still exist in people's minds more than they do in reality.

Ethnicity works in both directions, also making genetically similar populations look different

 

[unmerged(25822)]

Feel safe to skip the "entirely" i am Arvanitan Greek and i am of Albanian ancestry ...there are 1.3m more like me today in Greece and we are as Greek as all the others .
Also there are ~2m other Greeks who came from places like Caucasus, Asia Minor, Egypt , Middle East, Italy ...areas with no Slavs at all .
If you add Cretans , Cypriots and unique Greek tribes like the Sarakatsani feel safe to remove "most" as well.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

Makes sense considering 'Belarussians' didn't exist until after the Migration Period.

You're nitpicking. I thought "Belarussians" would be easier to say than "the ancestors of modern Belarusians and of the people currently inhabiting north-western Ukraine and south eastern Poland".

Correct.

And in any case that's only a problem if you assume that Slavs are in fact normally all blond (Serbs aren't) and that they did in fact come down into present-day Yugoslavia/Bulgaria recently from the North (again the "crawled out of the Pripet" theory).

My statement would be problematic ony if I had talked about all Slavs. But my post mentioned "the original Slavic population", which as far as I know was located around the region I mentioned in my reply to motiv-8 and I'm to lazy to describe again.

If you assume that Slavic-speaking areas naturally bordered the Greek-speaking areas for a long while and the Migrations of the 6th century were a lot less epic in scope, everything makes a lot more sense.

The question is... would such an assumption be correct? According to the current common knowledge, I'm afraid not.

 

[motiv-8]

You're nitpicking. I thought "Belarussians" would be easier to say than "the ancestors of modern Belarusians and of the people currently inhabiting north-western Ukraine and south eastern Poland".

It's not nitpicking, because it was only ca. 1340 that the East Slavic populations began diverging and something resembling Belarussian (or Ukrainian, etc.) emerged.

My statement would be problematic ony if I had talked about all Slavs. But my post mentioned "the original Slavic population", which as far as I know was located around the region I mentioned in my reply to motiv-8 and I'm to lazy to describe again.

The original (East) Slavic population in what is now Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. was made up of IIRC seven tribes which were amalgamated into the Rus' by conquests by the Vikings/Varangians and migrations of other peoples.

The question is... would such an assumption be correct? According to the current common knowledge, I'm afraid not.

I agree, unless the Dacians happened to be Slavic.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

If the Greeks are descened from Slavs, then the original Slavic population must have mutated or something, 'cause lots of them have blond hair, whereas the Greeks are overwhelmingly brunettes.

Irony aside, it should be obvious the Greeks are not descendents of Belarussians.

What about Bulgarians then, are they Slavic according to you?
I think you are as confused as the first poster, there is no "Slavic gene", it is a linguistic clasification.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

It's not nitpicking, because it was only ca. 1340 that the East Slavic populations began diverging and something resembling Belarussian (or Ukrainian, etc.) emerged.

This is true, but I had already admitted I said Belarussian only because I was too lazy to use a longer phrase. Of course, you made sure I regretted my lazyness. I've already written ten times more on this subject than if I had just been more clear from the beginning.

The original (East) Slavic population in what is now Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. was made up of IIRC seven tribes which were amalgamated into the Rus' by conquests by the Vikings/Varangians and migrations of other peoples.

The original Slavic population was all that... and blonder than the Greeks. Plus you're referring to a period ulterior to that of the migrations which spread the Slavic languages across the eastern half of Europe, and so has no relevance on our discussion.

I agree, unless the Dacians happened to be Slavic.

Almost certainly not, although they were probably from the same Indo-European linguistic branch (satem).

What about Bulgarians then, are they Slavic according to you?
I think you are as confused as the first poster, there is no "Slavic gene", it is a linguistic clasification.

Ummm, did I not mention several times already I was referring to the "original Slavic population"? That's the only context in which the term "Slavic" can be contrived to have a genetic component (the original population which spread the Slavic language(s) across Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans), a context I accepted for the sake of argument and only to argue against it. Of course "Slavic" is a linguistic term, since the various populations currently speaking Slavic languages are as varied as possible and still be considered "White".

 

[unmerged(59077)]

Ummm, did I not mention several times already I was referring to the "original Slavic population"? That's the only context in which the term "Slavic" can be contrived to have a genetic component (the original population which spread the Slavic language(s) across Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans), a context I accepted for the sake of argument and only to argue against it. Of course "Slavic" is a linguistic term, since the various populations currently speaking Slavic languages are as varied as possible and still be considered "White".

Which is sort of what I meant; the Slavs certainly migrated very widely by the end of the 6th century and possibly started a good deal earlier than that.

Considering how widespread the lignuistic groups in nowadays, if this was a purely migratory displacement with a wide change to genetic makeup, the migrating populations would have to have been enormous, which neither of the putative "Original Slavic Homelands", whether it really is Belarus (haha!) or Ukraine or Northern Carpathians, could have supported.

So point being is that the Slavs that invaded Greece were probably themselves genetically somewhat saparated from the Slavs in Belarus, say, and a lot more similar to the Greeks in that respect.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Ummm, did I not mention several times already I was referring to the "original Slavic population"? That's the only context in which the term "Slavic" can be contrived to have a genetic component (the original population which spread the Slavic language(s) across Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans), a context I accepted for the sake of argument and only to argue against it. Of course "Slavic" is a linguistic term, since the various populations currently speaking Slavic languages are as varied as possible and still be considered "White".

A highly improbable assumption, since it is a linguistic feature, it is highly unlikely there was any particular "slavic genetic component" even in that hypothetical original population

 

[unmerged(45482)]

Which is sort of what I meant; the Slavs certainly migrated very widely by the end of the 6th century and possibly started a good deal earlier than that.

Considering how widespread the lignuistic groups in nowadays, if this was a purely migratory displacement with a wide change to genetic makeup, the migrating populations would have to have been enormous, which neither of the putative "Original Slavic Homelands", whether it really is Belarus (haha!) or Ukraine or Northern Carpathians, could have supported.

So point being is that the Slavs that invaded Greece were probably themselves genetically somewhat saparated from the Slavs in Belarus, say, and a lot more similar to the Greeks in that respect.

I can certainly agree with this this.

Also, I apologise for misunderstanding one of your paragraphs.

If you assume that Slavic-speaking areas naturally bordered the Greek-speaking areas for a long while and the Migrations of the 6th century were a lot less epic in scope, everything makes a lot more sense.

I thought this was meant to say that the ancient Thracians were actually Slavs - there are such theories, you know? :wacko: . In light of your new post, I see I was wrong. Again, sorry. o

 

[unmerged(45482)]

A highly improbable assumption, since it is a linguistic feature, it is highly unlikely there was any particular "slavic genetic component" even in that hypothetical original population

Umm, the "original Slavic" genetic component would have simply been the genetic make-up of that population. Which is probably still dominant in (I'm afraid to say the word) Belarus, or wherever that nucleus might have been located, but not very much so in modern Greece.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Umm, the "original Slavic" genetic component would have simply been the genetic make-up of that population. Which is probably still dominant in (I'm afraid to say the word) Belarus, or wherever that nucleus might have been located, but not very much so in modern Greece.

The Genetic make up of Northern Belarus today is considerably different from Southern Belarus, where Haplogroup N3 is increasingly rare, which one would you pick up? Of course N3 is virtually absent in Greece.
Haplogroup R1a has been sometimes identified as "slavic", but the best you can say is that it is present at a growing proportion in Eastern Europe, however it is also present in Northern India in a significant proportion and from a very early date, probably about 30.000 years ago, so it can´t be related to an Indoeuropean invasion.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

which one would you pick up?

Since the exact location of the original Slavic nucleus is unknown, it doesn't matter. If the Greek population had been found to have a simmilar genetic make-up to either one, that would have implied descent from that specific population. Or if the Greek population had been found to have a position in between those two, that would have implied a founding population of both northern and southern "Belarussians" (motiv-8, please, please, please, dont say anything!). As it is, the modern Greek population doesn't show striking simmilarities to any populations around the historical Slavic nucleus, ruling out a recent (1500 years) descent from a migrating group originating somewhere in that region.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

Since the exact location of the original Slavic nucleus is unknown, it doesn't matter. If the Greek population had been found to have a simmilar genetic make-up to either one, that would have implied descent from that specific population. Or if the Greek population had been found to have a position in between those two, that would have implied a founding population of both northern and southern "Belarussians" (motiv-8, please, please, please, dont say anything!). As it is, the modern Greek population doesn't show striking simmilarities to any populations around the historical Slavic nucleus, ruling out a recent (1500 years) descent from a migrating group originating somewhere in that region.

But the fault in that proposition is that you assume that the Slavic invaders to Greece in the VI century had a similar genetic make up to modern Belarus, which is nonsense.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

What about Bulgarians then, are they Slavic according to you?
I think you are as confused as the first poster, there is no "Slavic gene", it is a linguistic clasification.

What am I confused about, exactly?

 

[unmerged(8399)]

b) genetic research indicates evidence of some Slavic descent, but nothing like the complete annihilation of "the race of Hellenes" that Fallmerayer suggests.

About this, genetic research can´t indicate any evidence for Slavic descent, as this is a linguistic, not a genetic concept.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

But the fault in that proposition is that you assume that the Slavic invaders to Greece in the VI century had a similar genetic make up to modern Belarus, which is nonsense.

But it's not my fault, it's the fault of those XIXth century historians(?) who kept on raving about the Slavic race (and German race, French race etc, the list can go on). As far as I can tell, the guy mentioned by the OP assumed that the Slavic migrations replaced the original populations in the various teritories they reached* (not an uncommon oppinion in his time about the effects of migrations). Of course, this can be easily disproven, not only through genetic means, but also simply by looking at a group of Bulgarians versus a group of Russians, for example.

* I guess he wouldn't be talking about a Slavic race if he considered the Bulgarians different from the Russians.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

But it's not my fault, it's the fault of those XIXth century historians(?) who kept on raving about the Slavic race (and German race, French race etc, the list can go on). As far as I can tell, the guy mentioned by the OP assumed that the Slavic migrations replaced the original populations in the various teritories they reached* (not an uncommon oppinion in his time about the effects of migrations). Of course, this can be easily disproven, not only through genetic means, but also simply by looking at a group of Bulgarians versus a group of Russians, for example.

* I guess he wouldn't be talking about a Slavic race if he considered the Bulgarians different from the Russians.

Let´s see if I understand you.
a) You agree there is or was an "Slavic race"
b) That race according to you (not Fallmerayer, mind you, he had a moral and aesthetic concept of race, nothing to do with blonde hair or blue eyes) have a phenotype that could be found in modern Russians or Belarussians...
c) That phenotype is not found among modern Greeks, ergo they don´t descend from Slavs
That is at least what I have understood until now. Of course modern genetics have nothing to do with those concepts and they can´t be used to prove or disprove them, in fact they are such a nonsense that I wonder who would care to do it.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

1) Haven't I said already I only see "Slavic" as a linguistic category?

Of course "Slavic" is a linguistic term, since the various populations currently speaking Slavic languages are as varied as possible and still be considered "White".

2. Fallmerayer's concept about race is irrelevant. He believed the Slavs replaced the original populations as they expanded across Europe. Now let's take this logically, step by step. The first Slavs had a certain phenotype. If they had replaced the surrounding populations in their migrations, then the people inhabiting those teritories should have a simmilar phenotype to those "first Slavs" (since they would be, according to Fallmerayer, descended from them and not from the native inhabitants of those teritories). And as this larger Slavic area expands, the inhabitants of the newly occupied lands should also be replaced by a population with a phenotype identical to that of the "first Slavs". And so on, and so on, until we get to the Slavs invading Greece, where the same phenomenon should take place. It doesn't matter that Fallmerayer doesn't beleive this. We know it should be so, if his assumption about a Slavic race able to replace the original inhabitants of the various lands they arrive to were true. Therefore, his theory can be proven wrong just by looking at the different phenotypes exhibited by the various Slavic populations. I hope I've been clear enough this time.