skord
Full Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by skord on Nov 27, 2003 0:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 27, 2003 1:28:16 GMT -5
In my opinion the southern Slavs are Illyrian-Thracian in origin, with some Greek influence and of course a great deal of Slavic influence which is minimized in Bulgaria and especially Montenegro.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Nov 27, 2003 7:28:35 GMT -5
Damn!
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Nov 27, 2003 12:51:11 GMT -5
In my opinion the southern Slavs are Illyrian-Thracian in origin, with some Greek influence and of course a great deal of Slavic influence which is minimized in Bulgaria and especially Montenegro. It all depends on how many Slavs migrated to the Balkan region. The region of Bulgaria was colonized by Greeks, Slavs, Visigoths, Avars, Turks, etc. so I'm afraid that there is not much Thracian blood in Bulgaria left. The Illyrians are a different story. One wonders what happened to them after the arrival of the Slavs. My guess is that they were probably assimilated, while other moved southward and westward toward Italy.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 27, 2003 15:01:31 GMT -5
A Test of a Migration Hypothesis: Slavic Movements into the Karst Region of Yugoslavia
Gloria Jean y'Edynak
Current Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 3. (Sep., 1976), pp. 413-428.
CONCLUSIONS
"Mathematical analyses of Pre-Slavic and Early Medieval populations of the karst and Dinaric zones of Yugoslavia show virtually no difference between them. This implies that the indigenous population of this region was not exterminated or replaced by a new population; rather, the new group seems to have contributed less in terms of genes and more in terms of language and other aspects of culture. The other possibility is that the Slavs exterminated and replaced the indigenous population in the karst and Dinaric zones but possessed almost exactly the same material culture. The former model seems the more appropriate."
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 27, 2003 15:10:04 GMT -5
It all depends on how many Slavs migrated to the Balkan region. The region of Bulgaria was colonized by Greeks, Slavs, Visigoths, Avars, Turks, etc. so I'm afraid that there is not much Thracian blood in Bulgaria left. Bulgaria does have a Greek and Slavic influence as I mentioned. The other groups you mentioned would not have a great demographic impact on the country due to their small numbers. The Thracians were the "most populous" nation according to Herodotus, so they can't have just disappeared.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Nov 27, 2003 15:17:19 GMT -5
In the Peloponnese there are Slavic place names, especially Greek/Slavic hybrid place names like Hrisovitsi and Kerasitsa. One of my in-law relative's surname is Borovas, which I believe translates to Borovic, a Slavic name. One of the Borovas looks as Mediterranean as possible, reflecting the indigenous type found in the Balkans, specifically Greece and Bulgaria. This is almost insignificant but still says much about Slavs' genetic impact in the southern Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 27, 2003 15:45:48 GMT -5
In the Peloponnese there are Slavic place names, especially Greek/Slavic hybrid place names like Hrisovitsi and Kerasitsa. One of my in-law relative's surname is Borovas, which I believe translates to Borovic, a Slavic name. One of the Borovas looks as Mediterranean as possible, reflecting the indigenous type found in the Balkans, specifically Greece and Bulgaria. This is almost insignificant but still says much about Slavs' genetic impact in the southern Balkans. The only study which looked specifically at a sample from the Peloponnese [1] found 5.6% of haplogroup R1a (HG3) in Patra. That is lower than the average for the entire Greece and much lower than the frequency of R1a in Slavic populations where it exceeds 30%. R1a is not a Slavic marker per se, but if the Slavs had inundated the Peloponnese, or Greece itself, then there would be much higher frequency of R1a. Actually, R1a is found in Italy, Turkey and Iraq, i.e., countries where no important Slavic settlements occurred, so it's likely that the importance of the Slavic presence in medieval Greece is very minor. [1] Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Volume 28, Issue 3 , September 2003, Pages 387-395
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Nov 27, 2003 16:22:58 GMT -5
so it's likely that the importance of the Slavic presence in medieval Greece is very minor. [1] Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Volume 28, Issue 3 , September 2003, Pages 387-395 I think too much importance is placed on Slavic settlements in Greece. If the Slavs who settled in Greece were more numerous than the Hellenic population, Greece would be a Slavicized nation today. German anthropologists/historians in the early 20th century wanted people to think that all modern Greeks are descended from Slavs and Albanians. What happened to the Hellenes then? Did they move to Germany?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Nov 27, 2003 18:13:11 GMT -5
There is no indication that any of the ancient peoples of the Balkans moved elsewhere or were wiped out. There were some population movements, usually marginal and there has been assimilation but genetically at least, the ancient peoples of the peninsula are still there. The Slavic speaking, Muslim Pomaki of the Rhodope mountains (border between Greece and Bulgaria) call themselves Agriani. If that does not come from the ancient Agrianes I would be very surprised. The Agrianes were a nation that lived in today's western Bulgaria and are considered a Paeonian tribe. They were faithful allies of the Macedonians. In central and eastern Bulgaria and as far as the Greek colonies of the Propontis lived the Thracians. In FYRO Macedonia lived mostly Paeonians (centre and east). In the west and as far south as lake Ohrid lived Illyrians. The most important of their tribes were the Dardanians who probably extended into Kosovo. South of lake Ohrid were the Greek areas of Lyncus and Pelagonia, politically connected to the Macedonians but probably Dorian speakers. Albania was Illyrian territory except the south which was mostly Greek. The Illyrian tribes stretched north along the Adriatic probably as far as Bosnia at least. Serbia was the country of the Triballi, who were pushed north from their Kosovo homeland by the Illyrians. Most people refer to them as a Thracian nation but I think they were more likely close to the Paeonians. Well, I think there was a fair amount of confusion amongst the ancient Greeks as to who was what. Racially and culturally the various tribes were not dissimilar and political and military alliances must have obscured the picture. The arrival of the slavic nations should not be underestimated. Whether they settled peacefully or made a forced entry they managed to absorbe the indigenous populations in large areas within a few centuries. Only in the south and the west of the peninsula their impact was minimal. Yes I believe the southern Slavs are to a great extent the descendants of the ancient populations but with a generous admixture of Slavic blood.
|
|
Luctor
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by Luctor on Nov 27, 2003 18:47:54 GMT -5
Actually i think that south slavs are basically Slavs,with MAJOR influx of aboriginal balkan blood. 'Illyrism'is idiotic to me becouse Illyrians ceased to exist as recognisable entity in 1 cent.BC. Lets not forget Thracians,Dacians and Celts which also lived in Balkans. All those ethnicities where Romanized,and mixed whith Italic colonists.
Some words and phrases where transfered into common Latin,and then to other languages spoken today in Balkans.
Dinarcism is also dubious,becouse today we have Dinarics in Slovakia,Poland,Bavaria,Spain,Italy and even England. Its true that major bulk of Dinarics live in Balkan region... But other concentration point is Tirol in Austria,also Dinaric core territory.
In racial sense Balkan is actually very composite. Lets not forget Mendel laws of genetics... A person could have mostly Slavic genotype,and 'Balkan'appearance,and other could have aboriginal genotype,and nordid/baltid appearance...etc..
Most probably south Slavs are MIXURE(in various degrees)of original Slavs(slight majority)and Celto/Illyro/Thraco/Daco/Romans(significant minority).
Amalgamation can be observed in both Slavic and non-Slavic nations.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Nov 27, 2003 19:23:52 GMT -5
One of the Borovas looks as Mediterranean as possible, reflecting the indigenous type found in the Balkans, specifically Greece and Bulgaria. This is almost insignificant but still says much about Slavs' genetic impact in the southern Balkans. What I wrote is ambiguous. I meant that someone with a Slavic surname but who looks Mediterranean shows, in an ironic way, what is more and more looking like the Slavs' lack of genetic presence in the Peloponnese. I am still perplexed by the perserverance of Slavic place names. The area needs, I believe, a more intense genetic study. This is something that I'm informally participating in, by having taken the Y DNA test (Haplogroup I, unconfirmed by SNP test), and waiting to take the most advanced tests of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Nov 27, 2003 19:33:47 GMT -5
Actually i think that south slavs are 'Illyrism'is idiotic to me becouse Illyrians ceased to exist as recognisable entity in 1 cent.BC. Let's not forget that a large part of the Roman army after the 2nd century was composed of Illyrians. Many of these Illyrian men were settled elsewhere and did not return home. The Celts did not live in the Balkans! There were some Celts in the very NW part of Illyria, but they were a minority. Most of the Celts in the E Mediterranean region lived in Galatia. >All those ethnicities where Romanized,and mixed whith Italic >colonists. Well, yes, but not many Italians settled in the Balkan region. Spain and Gaul were much more extensively colonized by Italians than were the Balkans, therefore Italians were only a tiny minority in the Balkan regions. Most probably south Slavs are MIXURE(in various degrees)of original Slavs(slight majority)and Celto/Illyro/Thraco/Daco/Romans(significant minority). That's my opinion too. The Slavs must have been a slight majority.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Nov 28, 2003 4:49:57 GMT -5
I've read somewhere that DNA data shows that only 18% of Serbia&Montenegro has Slavic DNA, and the majority of those 18% are north of the Danube.
The rest of Serbia&Montenegro is apparently Illyro-Thraco-Greek.
|
|
Luctor
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by Luctor on Nov 28, 2003 9:32:57 GMT -5
I have actually read that Serbia/Montenegro have 40%of Slavic mtDna,in pure form.... The rest of 60% percent is either mixed(slavic/balkan),or pure aboriginal mtDna.... This also goes to other south Slavic nations...
|
|