How "Slavic" are South Slavs?

[Dianatomia]

Yes, I know this. Thessaly still is the place of origin of many of the Greek Vlachs. So in general I do tend to think that except for the Arvanite contribution, which according to my understanding is very considerable throughout mainland Greece and some islands, especially Thessaly (accompanied by all the areas belonging to the Pindus) must all have a very characteristic Vlach genetic contribution.

Vlachs throughout the Balkans genetically overlap with the native people which coinhabit their lands, rather than other Vlachs in distant area's. I.e. Greek Vlachs and Serb Vlachs do not overlap genetically. This means that Vlachs have absorbed native populations.

As for Thessalians, they have the highest rates of E-V13 and low R1b, while Vlachs in general have high R1b and low E-V13. The Vlachs have been situated in the Pindus mountains. Not Thessaly overall. It's only the last decades where some Vlachs settled in the Thessalian plain.

That said, I think Thessaly differs somewhat from Southern Greece and Greek islanders, and these differences may very well have been present during the Bronze Age where Hellenic tribes started to migrate South from that area.

 

[Userius]

It's a difficult subject since we have few direct and mostly derived sources explaining Dacian language. The few that claim to be direct were mostly Romanian forgeries under Ceausescu that contained blatant anachronisms. I forget the name, but there was one tablet or something that was supposedly a Dacian message during the Roman wars and it mentioned Christian derived names like Maria that could not have been used in Dacia at the time, and it was also written in an obvious creole that contained modern Romanian Latinisms as well as other elements.

However, whatever we do have shows that it was a Satem language and somewhere actually very close to the Balto-Slavic spectrum. Also interestingly, it shared some elements common in Albanians and Romanians, as well as some other Romanian influenced or derived populations.

Geographically they spread out much farther than just Romania. The Getae themselves have been present on the southern Danubian plain, and may have extended into Bulgaria as well prior to the Celtic invasions of the 3rd century BC under Brennus (no, not the one who sacked Rome), who ruined their capital of Helis, which may have been near Sveshtari. Other Dacian tribes have been present in Ukraine and Moldova, namely the Carpi. Under Burebista there was also further expansion that led them to create loose communities farther out. Supposedly they even west as far west as the Noricum region of Slovenia. In the northern expanse, a tribe related to the Carpi seems to have created Setidava/Getidava as far north as Znin in Poland (the exact location is disputed), forming a new tribe of Costoboci.

In general the Carpathian region seems to have been a strong domain for R1a and R1b migrations, and from my understanding of the early Indo-European migration patterns and the "Scythian" ethnographic qualities of the Dacians and in particular the Getae, they would at least have been as northern plotting as modern Slavs, if not Balts. Militarily they seem to have focused on more hit-and-run and ambush tactics, including the use of poisoned arrows as the later encroaching Slavs were reputed to do. Procopius even considered the Sklaveni as synonymous with the Getae.

As far as looks go, the busts and other shows of appearance make them look a very Yamnaya or Bell-Beaker long skulled but still broad and brachycephalic type.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...dJxK2Kp8PaxOAqTyeLrut-lXYIrmv6SeSQQNe7UA1TgOt

https://statuidedaci.ro/images/statui/roma/muzeulcapitolin/statuie-dac/cap1.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Dacians_people.JPG

Maximinus Thrax, who judging by the geopolitical playing field of his time, was likely rather Getae than "Goth", along with Alanic. He reminds me of Mariusz Pudzianowski: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Maximinus_Thrax_Musei_Capitolini_MC473.jpg

So at the least, if they weren't Slavs or vice-versa, there was at the very least a close level of ethnographic kinship.

Modern Romanians do show a notable southern influence genetically, so there's that to show for a migration from the Balkans.

 

[JajarBingan]

I am not that far into the book so nothing I have read so far suggests what you claim. I don't think Slavs are Dacians. However, theres always a possibility South Slavs, or rather Proto-Slavs could have been related to the more wild and primitive Getae. This label was even applied to Sklavenoi in many sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Getae were closest to the Proto-Slavic domain, or at least overlapped it, so perhaps there was some shared relation via ancestry.

Additionally, I am open to reading all positions and seeing which is more logical/supported by facts and reason. You can inbox me what you read. I will still finish his book though. It is interesting so far.

The proto-Slavic domain was not on the steppes, but around Kiev. That's a minimum of 1000km Northeast of the Getae.
Getae are supposed to have been a mix of steppe Scythian-like Indo-European elites and local farmers. Kind of like Dacians and Thracians too, but they weren't as organised administratively in the beginning. However, they merged with the Thracians at some point, under the rule of the Odrysian Kingdom. They are also confused or considered the same people as Dacians in ancient sources, but now it seems more likely that they were related but still distinct Thracian tribes.

The Carpathian-Danube region in which the Romanian ethnic community evolved was settled about 2000 BCE by migratory Indo-Europeans who intermingled with native Neolithic (New Stone Age) peoples to form the Thracians. When Ionians and Dorians settled on the western shore of the Black Sea in the 7th century BCE, the Thracians’ descendants came into contact with the Greek world. The Greek historian Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, called these people Getae (Getians). Together with kindred tribes, known later to the Romans as Dacians, who lived in the mountains north of the Danubian Plain and in the Transylvanian Basin, the Getae developed a distinct society and culture by the second half of the 4th century BCE.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Cultural-institutions#ref476933

We actually have samples from the Scythian confederation in Moldova, which provide a sneak peek at the Getae.
They are diverse, but also distinguishable from Ukrainian and Russian "Scythian" nomads by increased levels of farmer admixture.

They are all more Southerly-shifted than modern Romanians and Moldovans, so there's that for the walls of text above me, which still support the revisionist Hungarian theory of migrations from the Balkans. And that makes sense, considering that Romanians are supposed to have absorbed at least some Slavs.

The only Thracian that we got shows even more farmer admix, which is also logical since they migrated and settled earlier.

Population	Region	Anatolia_N	CHG	WHG	EHG	Levant_N	Iran_N	East Asian	SSA	AASI	SUM
Thracian_Balkans_IA_I5769	Europe_Southeast	74.2%	9.2%	0.0%	13.2%	0.0%	3.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Moldova_192_Getae?	Europe_Southeast	64.2%	12.0%	1.6%	18.2%	0.0%	3.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%	100.0%
Scythian_Moldova_197_Getae?	Europe_Southeast	57.8%	23.2%	4.6%	13.4%	0.0%	1.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Moldova_300_Getae?	Europe_Southeast	66.2%	0.0%	0.0%	21.6%	1.8%	10.0%	0.0%	0.4%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Moldova_301_Getae?	Europe_Southeast	45.6%	14.8%	2.8%	29.0%	0.4%	2.4%	5.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Moldova_311_Getae?	Europe_Southeast	37.4%	19.2%	0.0%	27.0%	4.8%	0.6%	4.6%	0.0%	6.4%	100.0%
Scythian_Ukraine_009_proto-Slav?	Europe_Northeast	42.8%	8.4%	12.2%	36.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Ukraine_010_Scythian?	Europe_Northeast	45.6%	11.4%	11.6%	31.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Scythian_Ukraine_011_Scythian?	Europe_Northeast	41.2%	16.2%	0.0%	37.8%	0.0%	0.0%	2.4%	1.2%	1.2%	100.0%
Scythian_Samara_Original Scythian	Europe_Northeast	17.6%	13.0%	0.4%	46.8%	1.8%	12.6%	7.8%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Cimmerian_Moldova_357	Europe_Southeast	29.6%	8.0%	0.0%	46.8%	0.0%	8.4%	7.2%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Cimmerian_Moldova_358	Europe_Southeast	25.6%	11.4%	0.0%	28.4%	1.0%	21.8%	11.8%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Cimmerian_Moldova_359	Europe_Southeast	10.4%	13.8%	0.0%	42.0%	0.0%	0.0%	33.8%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Albanian	Europe_Southeast	62.8%	13.0%	0.4%	22.0%	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Bulgarian	Europe_Southeast	56.0%	12.6%	2.8%	26.8%	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
JajarBingan	Europe_Southeast	50.2%	11.2%	3.8%	32.6%	0.0%	0.0%	2.2%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Moldovan	Europe_Southeast	49.6%	12.6%	4.8%	33.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Romanian	Europe_Southeast	56.0%	12.0%	2.8%	29.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Ukrainian	Europe_Northeast	41.8%	9.6%	8.0%	40.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Getae_Average?	Europe_Southeast	54.2%	13.8%	1.8%	21.8%	1.4%	3.5%	1.9%	0.1%	1.4%	100.0%
Getae+Thracian_1:1 AVG	Europe_Southeast	64.2%	11.5%	0.9%	17.5%	0.7%	3.5%	1.0%	0.0%	0.7%	100.0%

East Slavs resemble one of the Scythians who might be the earliest proto-Slav that we got, Scythian_Ukraine_scy009. He still needs a bit of an EHG boost, which could have come from the local populace of the area, but otherwise his admix levels are in line with those of the East Slavs.

 

[gidai]

Slavic has no ethnic meaning....it is just a linguistic family shared by many ethnicities. There's not a slavic race. Please read this book of florin Kurta

The making of the slavs : history and archaeology of the Lower Danube region, ca. 500-700"

This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in south eastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories." "The conceptual emphasis here is on the relation between material culture and ethnicity. The author demonstrates that the history of the Sclavenes and the Antes begins only at around A.D. 500. He also points to the significance of the archaeological evidence, which suggests that specific artifacts may have been used as identity markers. This evidence also indicates the role of local leaders in building group boundaries and in leading successful raids across the Danube. The names of many powerful leaders appear in written sources, some being styled "king". Because of these military and political developments, Byzantine authors began employing names such as Sclavenes and Antes in order to make sense of the process of group identification that was taking place north of the Danube frontier. Slavic ethnicity is therefore shown to be a Byzantine invention."-

I think the same.

 

[Wonomyro]

Curta's theories on Slavs are passé. Genetics improved in a meantime so we now know much more on the origin of Sout Slavs then we knew ten or fifteen years ago.