Other ancestral myths

In the previous article, it was explained that the myth "una fazzia una razza" for Italians and Greeks is entirely incorrect. There is another myth abouth contemporary Hellenes that is also incorrect. According to that second myth, contemporary Hellenes are 100% descentants of ancient Hellenes. It is true that the main ancestry of contemporary Hellenes is ancient Hellenic but this could be less than 50%.

Hellenes, Thracians and Illyrians may have been racially related from start. Additionally,since ancient times, they mingled and mixed. Gradually, everywhere in the vast territory from Palestine, Cyprus, Crete to southern Ukraine and Slovakia, people were mixed Greco-Thraco-Illyrians. In the southern part they had more Hellenic ancestry, in the eastern and northern part more Thracian ancestry and in the western part more Illyrian ancestry.

During Byzantine era, the mix increased because they were in the same state. Byzantines were mixed, mainly Hellenes, Thracians and Illyrians. Slavic ancestry was added when Slavs started moving in large numbers during sixth century AD. Slavic migration lasted for many centuries and their numbers were singificant compared to the local populations.

Countries in Balkans originate from Byzantine Empire. We should add that Greco-Thraco-Illyrian territory was larger than Byzantine. So not only in the territory that was Byzantine Empire but further north, people were also mixed, Hellenes, Thracians, Illyrians and Slavs. Slavic ancestry ranges from 25% in Greece to almost 50% in Serbia and Bulgaria and more than that in Croatia. The rest is mainly Greco-Thraco-Illyrian.

Vlachs, originating from present day Romania, migrated to all Greco-Thraco-Illyrian territory, including contemporary Hellas. This migration increased the percentage of Thracian ancestry in Illyrian and Hellenic territory since Vlachs were descendants of Thracian tribes. Arvanites moved into large numbers only in present day Hellas. That increased Illyrian ancestry because Arvanites were descentants of Illyrian tribes.

In addition to ancient Hellenic which is the main ancestry of contemporary Hellenes, there is significant Thracian, Illyrian and Slavic ancestry. There is also some Uralic-Altaic and other (various). In other, Italian (Roman) is probably the highest. According to an unofficial source, the order of ancestry from higher to lower is; a) Ancient Hellenic b) Slavic c) Thracian d) Illyrian e) Uralic-Altaic f) Italian g) other.

Slavic is probably higher than Thracian or Illyrian. But if we take Greco-Thraco-Illyrian as one, it is high. According to a verbal, unofficial, rough, estimation by an expert, ancestry of contemporary Hellenes could be; a) Ancient Hellenic 40% b) Slavic 25% c) Thracian 15% d) Illyrian 10% e) Other 10%. We should emphasize that this is not the result of a scientific research and could be highly debatable.

Nevertheless, we will use it as an example because although the numbers could be different, most likely the should not change very much. Slavic is more than Thracian and Illyrian. If we take Thracian and Illyrian together it is 25%, equal to Slavic. Greco-Thraco-Illyrian is 65% and Greco-Thraco-Illyro-Slavic 90%. In the other 10% are the rest, including Uralic-Altaic and Italian.

Let's assume that the real percentages are not very far from the expert's estimation. Both myths are entirley incorrect. It is a BIG MISTAKE to claim that ITALIANS and GREEKS are ONE RACE when contemporary Greeks have at least 90% GRECO-THRACO-ILLYRO-SLAVIC ANCESTRY and Italian is less than 10%. Also it is a big mistake to claim that contemporary HELLENES are 100% DESCENTANTS of ANCIENT Hellenes when that ancestry could be as low as 40%, eventhough it is the highest percentage.

There is a another myth that Kievan Russes had significant Germanic (Viking) ancestry. This myth was also in the Nazi propaganda. The area northern of Black Sea and all the way to Baltic Sea was inhabited mainly by Eastern Slavic tribes. In the southern part, near the Black Sea, there were also Thracians and Hellenes. In the northern part, near the Baltic Sea, there were also some Uralic tribes.

Kiev was initially a Slavic trade center but it was not always under Slavic rule. Khazars and Vikings ruled Kiev for some period. Khazars were an Altaic tribe. Undoubtedly, Slavs mixed with Khazars and Vikings. But was that mix significant? Claiming that Kievan Russes have significant Viking ancestry is like claiming that people in India have singificant British ancestry because British ruled India for some time.

Another myth exists about Celtic ancestry in Eastern Europe. There were indeed some Celtic tribes that moved eastwards in Eastern Europe and reached even Asia Minor. Their numbers were very small, compared to the local populations. There is some Celtic ancestry in the areas where these Celtic tribes stayed or passed through but it is not significant.

Marseille is France's second largest city and largest port. It is the largest city in southern France. It was founded by Greek settlers from Phocaea in 6th century BC. That does not imply that people in southern France have significant Hellenic ancestry. The numbers of the Phocaean settlers were very small compared to the local Celtic tribes. People in southern France have some Hellenic ancestry but it is very small.

Also there is an issue on how significant is defined. How much is significant? This is subjective. There are mixes that are certainly significant. There are also others that are definitely insignificant. There can be a third category that is in between. There can even be four or more categories. Five categories could be; a) very small b) small c) substantial d) large e) very large.

Mix of Greeks and Italians is certainly not significant. But it is possible that it is between significant and insignificant, if we add a third category. In any case, the myth "una faccia, una razza'" is definitely incorrect. Likewise, mix between Vikings and Slavs was not significant. But if we add a third category between significant and insignificant, it could fit there.

It is undeniable that there was some mix. What we have examined in many previous articles were significant mixes. The number of Vikings was small, compared to the number or Slavs. Russian, Belarusians and Ukrainians originate from Kievan Russes. People in these countries have some Viking (Germanic) ancestry but it is not significant. Uralic-Altaic is much higher.

In Greece there is some Italian ancestry. There is no question that Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians have some Germanic (Viking) ancestry. In some Eastern European countries there is Celtic ancestry. Also in Eastern European countries that are next to Western European there is some Germanic, Celtic or Italian ancestry. But this ancestry is NOT SIGNIFICANT.