Modern Greeks are descended mostly/entirely from Slavs

[unmerged(8399)]

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



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.

Yes, it was already clear the first time, but since your first assumption, that "The first Slavs had a certain phenotype" is, to say the least, indemonstrable , the rest can´t follow.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

Yes, it was already clear the first time, but since your first assumption, that "The first Slavs had a certain phenotype" is, to say the least, indemonstrable , the rest can´t follow.

My first assumption, if you remember, was that the "first Slavs"' phenotype included significantly more cases of blondism than we can currently see in the modern Greek population. If you want to dispute that, go ahead, but I think it's pretty unlikely, considering their probable place of origin.

 

[unmerged(8399)]

My first assumption, if you remember, was that the "first Slavs"' phenotype included significantly more cases of blondism than we can currently see in the modern Greek population. If you want to dispute that, go ahead, but I think it's pretty unlikely, considering their probable place of origin.

Again, you are confusing race and language, "first Slavs" could be like "First Indoeuropeans" any race or mixture, or a ruling minority or whatever, some theories place first Indoeuropeans in modern Turkey...
Your idea of identity between language and race goes back to Kossina and Nazi archaeology and it is totally discredited nowdays.
The way you could put this controversy is:
1) There is a migration of Slav tribes (linguistic definition) that overrun much of Greece in the VI century.
2) Byzantines recaptured most of that territory in the IX century
So, is there any significant genetic admixture to modern Greek genetic pool we can identify from this Slav tribes?
We can work the other way around, instead of wondering what would be the genetic make up of those Slavs, looking at the Genetic make up of modern Greeks. Here we have an important fact. The 2 more significant Haplogroups are E and J, so unlike most of Europe in Greece the original paleolitic population (Haplogroups R1 , R1b and I) doesn´t make up the majority of the population. The study of Haplogroups E and J subclades show that they arrived to Greece in Neolithic times from the Middle East, so that by itself rules out the possibility of any massive replacement of the Greek population by any population from North of the Danube in Historical times.

 

[unmerged(61066)]

The study of Haplogroups E and J subclades show that they arrived to Greece in Neolithic times from the Middle East, so that by itself rules out the possibility of any massive replacement of the Greek population by any population from North of the Danube in Historical times.

maybe it is not the best way to approach this topic from just genetics. culture and genetics does not necessarily migrate together.
Anyway, byzantine sources mentions many times the cultural changes of the south balkans (not talking about the northern parts) and also mentions the recapturing and repopulating this area. so perharps it is better to search for slavic "genes" in anatolia, altough the local population suffered from the plagues in the late middle ages, so that won't be an easy task, too.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

@ Aryaman

You're effin' incredible, man! :wacko: Those "first Slavs" are the tribes which first started the Slavic expansion which lead to half of Europe being occupied by Slavic speaking nations. I'm not confusing race and language, but I do recognize an association when I see it. Please tell me how can I confuse race and language by making the observation that the first Slavic tribes must have had higher instances of blondism than the modern Greek population. It doesn't matter whether the first Slavs were a mixture of populations or not. In any case, they were a mixture with, I have to repeat for the n's time, "higher instances of blondism than the modern Greek population". This didn't make them superhumans, subhumans or anything special. But they had this trait.

So again, how on Earth am I confusing race and language by making a simple observation? Would I also be confusing race and language if I were to remark that the Icelanders have a higher instance of blondism than the Sicilians? If so, why? Or why not?

 

[unmerged(8399)]

@ Aryaman

You're effin' incredible, man! :wacko: Those "first Slavs" are the tribes which first started the Slavic expansion which lead to half of Europe being occupied by Slavic speaking nations. I'm not confusing race and language, but I do recognize an association when I see it. Please tell me how can I confuse race and language by making the observation that the first Slavic tribes must have had higher instances of blondism than the modern Greek population. It doesn't matter whether the first Slavs were a mixture of populations or not. In any case, they were a mixture with, I have to repeat for the n's time, "higher instances of blondism than the modern Greek population". This didn't make them superhumans, subhumans or anything special. But they had this trait.

So again, how on Earth am I confusing race and language by making a simple observation? Would I also be confusing race and language if I were to remark that the Icelanders have a higher instance of blondism than the Sicilians? If so, why? Or why not?

This is getting tyresome, if you don´t see the difference between speaking a language, that could be learned, and physical traits, that are hereditary...
According to your logic, you could rule out the Anatolyan origen of Indoeuopeans because modern Turkish have darker features than most European speakers of Indoeuropean languages...
I am not saying your remarks are racist per se, but the link between race and language (and culture) are at the source of Nazi archaeology.

 

[unmerged(45482)]

This is getting tyresome, if you don´t see the difference between speaking a language, that could be learned, and physical traits, that are hereditary...
According to your logic, you could rule out the Anatolyan origen of Indoeuopeans because modern Turkish have darker features than most European speakers of Indoeuropean languages...

Nope. According to my logic, I will rule out the direct genetic descendence of Europeans from an Anatolian population a few thousand years old (not to be confused with the much earlier migration which brought the first Homo Sapiens to Europe), refuting the existance of a Indo-European race (since Indo-European is a linguistic, not a racial term). Speaking from memory, I recall that there is only a 20% Neolithic (probably Middle Eastern) genetic component in the general European population, the proportion decreasing from south-east to north-west and faster as you go inland than along the shores.

P.S. And please don't avoid my question. I think I was very clear this time.

So again, how on Earth am I confusing race and language by making a simple observation? Would I also be confusing race and language if I were to remark that the Icelanders have a higher instance of blondism than the Sicilians? If so, why? Or why not?

 

[unmerged(19438)]

I heard by word of mouth that a percentage of the classical greeks had blonde hair. It sounds hard to believe but, is there any historical truth in this or is it just a myth perpetuated by stupid Scandinavians?

Same with the Romans. See the names Flavius (blonde hair) and Rufus (red hair)

Greece was great because of the ideas of democracy, philosophy, etc. Just look up all the english words of greek etymology.

There is only one race, the human race. Groups of homo sapiens sapiens left the rift valley about 70k years ago.

 

[Price21]

Same with the Romans. See the names Flavius (blonde hair) and Rufus (red hair)

Greece was great because of the ideas of democracy, philosophy, etc. Just look up all the english words of greek etymology.

There is only one race, the human race. Groups of homo sapiens sapiens left the rift valley about 70k years ago.

Oh yea you mean to say, the Out of Africa 'Theory'..

 

[Plushie]

Oh yea you mean to say, the 'Out of Africa' Theory..

Dude....eight freaking years.

 

[Price21]

Dude....eight freaking years.

I guess i'm just eight freaking years late to reply.

 

[AndrewT]

Don't necro please.