The appearance of Serbs and other South Slavic people has not changed since their migration to the Balkans.
All of the Byzantine sources state that the Sklaveni and Antes were exceptionally tall, but most do not mention the color of their skin, eyes or hair, thus we could assume that they did not have particularly blonde hair, and that blue eyes were not extremely present amongst them (although, this is not to negate the existence of fair haired, light eyed individuals amongst them.) The only source which mentions their appearance, outside of just height is one that states that they had a "slightly ruddy complexion" and that "their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type", written by Procopius of Caesarea. Modern South Slavs would generally fit the same description, very tall (at least compared to someone who's height is 165cm), with brownish hair, some of them also having light eyes (maybe around 1/3rd).
However, the Arabic sources from the same time speak of the exceptional blonde and ruddy color of the east and west Slavs, some of them written centuries after the Byzantine sources.
So what exactly occurred here? Clearly, the South Slavs did not change in appearance, but there is nothing denoting that the west and east Slavs changed in appearance either.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Slavs are originally miners. When they arrived in Europe, there was a lot of Finnish speaking tribes all around Europe. These Finns were similar to the Natives of America and spoke a similar language. In short, the Slavs enslaved the Finns for mining in ancient times. Then, slowly, over hundreds of year, the class distinctions vanished, and the modern Slav and his modern language appeared.
Slavs already branched into Antes and different tribes early on, different groups absorb different peoples. Some mixed with Finnics, some with Scythians, Goths, Avars etc.
This board is so anti-Slavic that it's almost hilarious. Majority of posts are made by: New Worlder muh heritage mongrels that would be outright killed by the populations they are larping as. Some chud looking Swedes that for some odd reason are obsessed about Slavs. And literal brownoids posting from their comfy NEET apartaments in Netherlands, UK, Belgium and France.
To answer the question: Slavs were never one group, just as Germanics and Celts had a shitton of various and different tribes.
>To answer the question: Slavs were never one group, just as Germanics and Celts had a shitton of various and different tribes.
So from where did the Sklaveni and Antes acquire brown hair, and from where did the East and West Slavs get fair hair, and lighter eyes?
Or, to better phrase it, if the Slavs had originated from multiple groups, from which groups did the darker ones come from, and from which the lighter?
> the South Slavs did not change in appearance
South Slavs absolutely changed in appearance since they took over the women of the local native Balkanates.
Croats also destroyed and massacred the Avars in the Balkans and lower Pannonia according to De Administrando Imperio and forced the survivors into servitude, so they likely have loads of Avar females in their ancestry.
>South Slavs absolutely changed in appearance since they took over the women of the local native Balkanates.
What proof do you have for such a claim? As we see, the descriptions of the first Slavic settlers in the Balkans entirely correspond to the modern-day appearance of these people.
And also, The Illyrians, Dacians, Thracians and other pre-Slavic people in the Balkans, except for Greeks, were in very small numbers due to plagues, wars, and previous raids. Most of the countryside was abandoned, and the natives mostly lived in fortified cities. Seeing as the Slavs were in great numbers, and that they also greatly decreased this already dwindling population with centuries of raiding, I doubt that there was any substantial genetic impact on the South Slavic population.
> What proof do you have for such a claim?
1 Genetics
2 We know relatively accurately from where Slavs originally came from, and when you look at the people in modern times living in those areas, from where Slavs came from originally, namely Polesia and the surrounding area;
those people look like how og Slavs looked like,
and those people are much northern, lighter in hair and paler in skin on average than the Balkan Slavs.
When you imagine original Slavs, just see modern southern Belarusians, eastern Poles and western Ukrainians, everyone else has loads of foreign maternal blood in them and a little bit paternal.
Russians from Ugro Finnic tribes they took over, western Slavs from Germanics they took over, and Balkan Slavs from Balkanites they took over.
This does not explain how the Slavic invaders who migrated into the Balkans were not ever considered to be blonde or particularly fair haired, and how the only source describing their hair says it is, essentially, brown.
You also do not show how the native Balkan populations could have an influence on the south Slavs, when clearly, they were in tiny numbers compared to the Slavic populations.
What is your genetic proof?
> This does not explain how the Slavic invaders who migrated into the Balkans were not ever considered to be blonde or particularly fair haired, and how the only source describing their hair says it is
Alright you fricking moron.
Hear this;
a few descriptive historical sources mean absolutely jack shit
genetics is reality, some frickface writing about some shitscum that he likely never even saw but was like 400 km away in a court in either Thesaloniki or constantinople is not the rule of reality, you utter imbecile
So again, if you want to see how Slavs actually looked like in the 5th and 6th century AD, go to fricking western Ukraine, eastern Poland or southern Belarus.
It is that fricking simple, those people are literally direct descendants of those people without any significant genetic inflow whatsoever, just now instead of then.
The Sclavinia in your picture represents the Slavic subjects and allies of Emperor Otto III, so the various West Slavs, not South Slavs.
*and the original looks a bit different
I made your pic more in line with reality OP.
see
That's the late 10th / early 11th century original. The OP pic which you edited was made in the late 19th century.
It is clear that their roles were inverted considering that the shitskin wears a Roman toga while white one wears a Celtic tunic and a crown with a lys flower symbolizing France.
Thats the exact one that I posted, the original is clearly moronic, it depicts Celts and gypsies.
>NOOOOOOOOOOO 19TH CENTURY REVISIONISM IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE THAN PERIOD DEPICTIONS
so romans were yellow
Balkanoid cope
What exactly would be the issue with me having partial native Balkan ancestry?
being a slav was never an ethnic identity. The slavic tongue became a lingua franca in the avar khaganate which slowly assimilated people with differing phenotypes