Originally Posted by
eupator
The problem with your line argument, is that you assign a linguistic tag to those groups because they are relatively close to your "Slavic" prototype on ADMIXTURE.
A better way to approach things is to check the ethnography and material culture and see which groups could have absorbed which, in a manner of speaking.
The Aroumans and other Vlach groups (Karagouni, Arvanitovlachs, and Arvanites themselves, of course) have very distinct ethnography and language that separates them sharply to Bulgarian Slavs, for example.
So, assigning Aroumans and Vlachs the tag "Slavic" is extremely one sided and aggressive to those people's ethnography.
The Greeks of Thrace and East Macedonia, excluding Anatolians and certain groups of Eastern Rumelians and the Gagauzes, have very distinct characteristics, firstly they are Vlach settlers from mid to late medieval era. Secondly, they speak Greek (being a heavily controlled area by the Phanariotes) and specifically the Ioanninan dialect (the "standard" Epirotan Greek dialect), their Thracian version also borrowing Turkish, Bulgarian and even Armenian loanwords, evidence of the Christianised groups that they could have absorbed.
If you want to include them to your Pan-Slavic group, then it's up to you, but you should have the courtesy, as an ethnographer, to ask them first if they agree (so to speak). I know my Thracian folks would disagree vehemently of being called Bulgarians and Slavs, they never spoke Slavic or anything similar or ever considered themselves close to them, they spoke Greek (the aforementioned Ioanninan Arvanito-Vlach dialect) and were an Ottoman-friendly (Phanariote influenced) anti-Bulgarian group, up until the events of the First Balkan War.
Hope it helps.
