# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

## Angela

Razib Khan has been running an analysis on their data sets versus Greeks and Armenians.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

He concludes they're about equidistant between Anatolian Greeks and Armenians. Is that right?

See:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/...medium=twitter

"To my mild surprise, the Anatolian Greeks and Cypriots cluster together, at the end of the Greece cline toward West Asians. :

I disagree with his following conclusion. I would think there are other reasons why Bulgarians, even Bulgarian Turks, might have some East Asian other than inter-marriage with Ottoman Turks. Perhaps Eastara will see this and opine.

"Additionally, there are two Balkan Turk samples. Even on the PCA it’s pretty clear that they’re genetically very different from the other Turks (one of them is from what has become Bulgaria), though the shift toward East Asians indicates that Turkification is very rarely a matter purely of religious conversion to Islam and assimilation of the Turkish language (obviously it initially is for many people, but these people then intermarry with those with some East Asian ancestry)."

"One of the major problems is that the Armenian sample and the Anatolian Greek/Cypriot sample are genetically very close. This is obvious in the Fst distance. This is also totally reasonable since both populations occupy Anatolia, and historically there would have been a lot of gene flow between the two groups through isolation-by-distance dynamics."

"In terms of drift the Turks seem about as far from Anatolian Greeks as Armenians. There’s the gene flow you’d expect, there are two from East Asians to Turks. I think that’s due to the East Asian source being somewhat heterogeneous, and the Dai outgroup not modeling the source populations perfectly."

"Finally, there’s the f3 statistics. They basically show what I’m saying above: Armenians and Anatolian Greeks are both good model sources for Turks. The likely truth is that there is gene flow from all across Anatolia into these Turkish samples."

----------


## Ygorcs

I think that isn't surprising. I find it a bit baffling that so many Turks, as I've had some discussions on this topic on the web, still struggle to accept that, even though, as I reminded them more than once, this fact is actually a positive thing about their ancestors, since it suggests that they weren't genocidal murderers that engaged in massive ethnic cleansing. But it seems that some peoples are still to concerned with outdated ideas of nationalist essentialism, with the necessary myth of a continuous and permanent chain of ancestral lineages until the present world, something that would make their nation completely unique and distinct from others. As we all know, that's not how the past of humankind and the ethnogenesis of most nations happened. 

I've read some sensible comments by Turks on the inadequacy of using the Northeast Asian or East Asian admixture to infer the degree of genetic impact of the Turkic migration into Anatolia, and that really makes some sense. 

If we want to determine how much of the Proto-Turkic ancestry is still found in modern Anatolian Turks, then it is fair to use those admixtures mainly found among overwhelmingly Mongoloid peoples like the Yakut, but one must bear in mind that the Proto-Turks were definitely very different from the medieval Turks of Central Asia, so even though the language and much of the characteristic Turkic culture came from Northeast Asia it isn't right to say that most of the expansion of Turkic languages came from there. The bulk of the expansion was done by the heavily mixed Turks of Central Asia, migrating and making warfare on all sides, north, west, east and south, and those were peoples that were already perhaps only 50% similar to their Proto-Turkic forebears of the Altai and near the Baikal. 

What makes it tricky, then, to establish the real degree of Turkic introgression into Anatolia in the Middle Ages is mainly that, if they came mostly from present-day Turkmenistan, it must be difficult to distinguish what is "Turkic" from what is actually "Iranian Plateau admixtures" or broadly "West Asian". 

The Turks who conquered Turkmenistan must've absorbed a lot of Iranic-speaking peoples, peoples who already had close genetic links especially with the eastern Anatolians, in the Armenian Highlands. The peoples of Central Asia probably descended in high proportions from those in Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau, and those in Anatolia, after the Bronze Age, also had a lot of that mixed ancestry. Even today Turks often appear very close to Iranian samples on PCAs. How can we then determine whether some Iranian-like ancestry was already dwelling in Anatolia for centuries before the arrival of Turks or it in fact arrived with the mixed, heavily Iranian-shifted Turkmen? I wonder...

----------


## XipeTotek

because we are mixed before ottoman on seljuks. seljuks are turko-persian empire. if you can see our historic leaders, ertugrul gazi or other ottoman leaders you can't see mongoloid or turkic face. greeks dont fight with mongoloid turks they fight persians always only name is change.

now we are close more greeks now and fight persians again. anatolia history always like this. just names is different.

and have some reality about asian hablogroups. they are not dominant. where you go you look like native peoples. 

i live in turkey i can say turkey people not looking like real turks. west anadolia is greek/rum middle anatolia greek/semitic/mongoloid east anatolian kurds pers/arab.

but have slanted eyes peoples too. but not so much.

and this is a true about our history we are not genociders like some european invaders. 

our beliefs and cultures dont accept this.

----------


## bicicleur

> The peoples of Central Asia probably descended in high proportions from those in Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau, and those in Anatolia, after the Bronze Age, also had a lot of that mixed ancestry. Even today Turks often appear very close to Iranian samples on PCAs. How can we then determine whether some Iranian-like ancestry was already dwelling in Anatolia for centuries before the arrival of Turks or it in fact arrived with the mixed, heavily Iranian-shifted Turkmen? I wonder...


I would rather think that Central Asians and the populations of Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau had common ancestors.

----------


## DuPidh

This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks. Genetics of Turkey is more complicated than that of Italy. Western Turkey is mixed Euro-Asian-Middle Eastern because of recent large population movements. Western Turkey is industrialized and large number of people from everywhere have moved in the west of Turkey. Istanbul and its immediate surroundings house 1/33 of Turkish population. So any genetic study in this part of Turkey is meaningless. 

Also Turks moved in the Balkans way before the Ottoman times. They were part of Byzantium and at that time there are many large Turkish population movements in Bulgaria, Greece, or Albanians to Thessaly, etc. So not all Turkish genes in the Balkans are legacy of Ottomans

----------


## XipeTotek

> This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks. Genetics of Turkey is more complicated than that of Italy. Western Turkey is mixed Euro-Asian-Middle Eastern because of recent large population movements. Western Turkey is industrialized and large number of people from everywhere have moved in the west of Turkey. Istanbul and its immediate surroundings house 1/33 of Turkish population. So any genetic study in this part of Turkey is meaningless. 
> 
> Also Turks moved in the Balkans way before the Ottoman times. They were part of Byzantium and at that time there are many large Turkish population movements in Bulgaria, Greece, or Albanians to Thessaly, etc. So not all Turkish genes in the Balkans are legacy of Ottomans


i agree. anatolia people totally mixed. i am half albanian and half turkish. i have curly hair white skin and slanted eyes. we are mixed of everything and central asian peoples better mixed than us.

because we live on nomadic area and we are nomadic peoples.

----------


## DuPidh

> i agree. anatolia people totally mixed. i am half albanian and half turkish. i have curly hair white skin and slanted eyes. we are mixed of everything and central asian peoples better mixed than us.
> 
> because we live on nomadic area and we are nomadic peoples.


I am not an expert of Turkey, you know better. But I said the big cities of western Turkey are, because of industrialization. Cities like Istanbul, Bursa, Izmir and many others. But I don't see why Eastern and Central Turkey should be mixed. Over there genetics of people is local. The original inhabitants of Turkey were not nomads. The central Asia Turks were.

----------


## LATGAL

Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:

https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/20...a-from_21.html

Considering they're already rather close to the western Anatolia_BA, my guess is Cappadocian Greeks will end up being very close to ancient Central Anatolians. Despite migrations over time, the Aegean-Anatolian area overall retained a more robust population in medieval times unlike, say, the more depopulated mainland Balkans which were much more influenced by northern intrusions. We still need much more sampling but that's my current guess. Turks seem to be modelled well as Cappadocian Greeks + something East Asian but as mentioned, the exact proportions will depend on early samples of the period, how East Asian the Turkic populations were like and what pre-Turkic post-BA Western Anatolians looked exactly like.


DuPidh, do you actually have a coherent narrative in your mind at least or do you post just whatever you can think up in every topic? You wrote this a while ago:




> Knowing all this stuff, had Hellenes been a majority, today's Greeks genetically should have been closer to Armenians, Western Turks, Syrians, Lebaneese


Now you write




> This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks.


You're incoherent, at least partially because you don't seem to understand these studies at all, and your additions to these topics are anything but useful.

----------


## Angela

> Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:
> 
> https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/20...a-from_21.html
> 
> Considering they're already rather close to the western Anatolia_BA, my guess is Cappadocian Greeks will end up being very close to ancient Central Anatolians. Despite migrations over time, the Aegean-Anatolian area overall retained a more robust population in medieval times unlike, say, the more depopulated mainland Balkans which were much more influenced by northern intrusions. We still need much more sampling but that's my current guess. Turks seem to be modelled well as Cappadocian Greeks + something East Asian but as mentioned, the exact proportions will depend on early samples of the period, how East Asian the Turkic populations were like and what pre-Turkic post-BA Western Anatolians looked exactly like.
> 
> 
> DuPidh, do you actually have a coherent narrative in your mind at least or do you post just whatever you can think up in every topic? You wrote this a while ago:
> 
> ...


Couldn't have said it better myself. I would add anti-Greek Albanian agenda to the mix.

----------


## Ygorcs

> and have some reality about asian hablogroups. they are not dominant. where you go you look like native peoples.


Is that even such a thing as "non-dominant" haplogroups? I really mean this question. As far as I know, those are just genetic markers of the Y chromosome or mytochondrial DNA, not as actively selected as those alleles that are directly related to some function.

----------


## Ailchu

this probably isn't a question for the topic but i sometimes hear that modern day greeks are closer related to swedish people than they are to modern day turkish and other middle eastern people. does anyone know better? my guess is, that this is absolute rubbish.

----------


## Ygorcs

> this probably isn't a question for the topic but i sometimes hear that modern day greeks are closer related to swedish people than they are to modern day turkish and other middle eastern people. does anyone know better? my guess is, that this is absolute rubbish.


As all other genetic studies and also Razib Khan's analyses comparing Greeks from 3 different regions of Greece with Turks clearly demonstrate, yes, that is absolutely rubbish. Greeks are nowadays more shifted to affinities with Northern Europeans (mostly Slavs, not Swedes anyway), but that was just a matter of relative, not absolute, numbers, since ancient Greeks certainly had a quite minor Northern European contribution.

----------


## Sakattack

> Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:
> 
> https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/20...a-from_21.html


I am 100% Cappadocian Greek and can confirm the values that this guy on the link used for Cappadocian Greeks, I score very close to this. 

The fact that the first study clusters Cappadocians and Cypriots thought, I don't find it that wrong, since we tend to score similar. My first population reference is always Cypriots, when Greek subclusters are not included. If yes then Cretans pop up first for some reason. 

I generally agree to what you say here guys about the whole Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Turkish thing. Indeed the Turks have absorbed a lot of this ancestry but still we can't say accurately how much Turkic they are, relying only on their East Asian numbers. 
Seems that their profile had been seriously different from their Uhrheimat source population, when they finally reached Anatolia, because of the long stay in Central Asia and Persia. 

Sent from my Robin using Tapatalk

----------


## ihype02

> Razib Khan has been running an analysis on their data sets versus Greeks and Armenians.
> 
> He concludes they're about equidistant between Anatolian Greeks and Armenians. Is that right?


Here are some additional specific literary historical testimonies and sources which certify us of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual character of Cyprus through the centuries.

0) *The Jews lived well in Cyprus during the Roman rule. During this period, Christianity was preached in Cyprus among the Jews at an early date, St Paul being the first, and Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, the second. They attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity under the ideas of Jesus. Under the leadership of Artemion, the Cypriot Jews participated in the great rebellion against the Romans ruled by Trajan in 117 AD. and they are reported by Dio Cassius to have massacred 240,000 Greeks.
*
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4825-cyprus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Jews_in_Cyprus

*1) In 578 AD, 10000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization purposes, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).
*
"Thus", says Evagrius, "land, which had been previously untilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them that fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, on account of the easy rate at which slaves were procured". (Quote from P. Charanis)

2) A History of Cyprus, Volume 1 By George Hill. Page 261: "*...certainly there was a coast-guard of Albanians in Cyprus under Venetian rule.."* --> In the footnote of the same page, we read the following: *"The Albanians formed a race apart, until they disappeared in the sixteenth century"*.

3) More Armenians arrived during the reign of Armenian-descended Emperor Heraclius (610-641). Source: The Armenians of Cyprus book, page 10.

Link:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=6jH...Cyprus&f=false

*Page 11 of the same book: "Emperor John II Comnenus moved the entire population of the Armenian city of Tell Hamdun to Cyprus. When Isaac Comnenus was self-declared 'Emperor of Cyprus' in 1185 and married the daughter of the Armenian prince Thoros II, he brought with him Armenian nobles and warriors...".
*
Futhermore, on page 12 of this book we read: "...about 30000 Armenian refugees found shelter in Cyprus.." and "A new wave of Armenians arrived in 1335 and 1346 to escape the Mamluk attack." Additionally, on the same page 12:* "In 1403, 30000 Armenians fled to Cyprus, while in 1421 the entire population of the Sehoun region was transferred here. In 1441 the authorities of Famagusta encouraged Armenians and Syrians from Cilicia and Syria to settle here*."

Still on page 12: "*Armenian was one of the eleven official languages of the Kingdom of Cyprus, and one of the five official languages during the Venetian Era.*"

Moving to page 13: "*...about 40000 Ottoman Armenian craftsmen were recruited .. , and many of the ones who survived settled in Cyprus*".

4) Turkish Cypriots were the majority of the population between 1777 and 1800. In terms of numbers, *in 1777 there were only 37000 Greeks and 47000 Turks. In 1800, there were 30524 Greeks and 67000 Turks.*

5) - "Martin Kruzius, (1526-1607), an author who was well familiar with Greek, states that the following 5 languages were spoken in Cyprus: Greek, Chaldean, Armenian, Albanian and Italian. Another writer, who lived in 1537-1590, Stephen Lusignan, says that the following 12 languages were spoken in Cyprus, during his day: Latin, Italian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Jacobine, Maronine, Assyrian, Indian, Georgian, Albanian and Arabian. (See "Description de toute l'isle de Cypre et des roys ..."

----------


## cybernautic

> As all other genetic studies and also Razib Khan's analyses comparing Greeks from 3 different regions of Greece with Turks clearly demonstrate, yes, that is absolutely rubbish. Greeks are nowadays more shifted to affinities with Northern Europeans (mostly Slavs, not Swedes anyway),.


Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs

They never did and they still don't have nowadays.

They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs
> 
> They never did and they still don't have nowadays.
> 
> They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.


I said they are SHIFTED TO AFFINITIES WITH NORTHERN EUROPEANS, not that they are CLOSER to Northern Europeans (e.g. _if a people was 5% like Northern Europeans in the past, and now their affinity with them is 15%, they were shiftd toward a closer affinity with them, even though it's still minor)_. That's what the data demonstrate, there was an increasing influence of Northern European admixture onto the Greek population, especially the mainlanders as opposed to the Greek islanders. And, yes, that Northern European admixture is historically and genetically most clearly related to the Eastern European population that are now mostly Slavic-speaking. Saying that "they are much closer to other Southern European and Southeast European countries" is as true as it is honestly quite irrelevant on this matter, because that fact doesn't negate that the increased Northern European affinity of Modern Greeks, as opposed to the Mycenaean and Minoan Greeks whose DNA were analyzed until now, is still relatively minor, but what can be found is mostly related to Eastern Europe, mostly inhabited by Slavs, and that fits nicely with the very well documented (and still very visible in the Balkans) impact of Slavic and (northern) Turkic migrations during the Middle Ages. You don't need to believe me, you can search in many other topics on this very forum and also in genomic studies.  :Wink:

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs
> 
> They never did and they still don't have nowadays.
> 
> They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.


 Also I would say Greeks have a close genetic and cultural affinity with Levant. Their music, food, etc...

----------


## Mark

I would agree that any more Northern/Western affinity would most likely be due to modern introgressions. The Balkan tribes consisted of some Alpine Celtic peoples (bringing others with them of course) who have since mixed into the rest of the Balkan population. We should expect some intermarriage there back down into the Medieval Northern Greeks and Byzantines. Also the Byzantines and Northern Greek cultural sphere had interactions with Romans, Germanic, Frankish, Rus, Norse, Khazar, Turkic, Balkan, Thrassian, Danubian, pre-Slavic, Gothic, Vandal et al tribes. If we removed all those additional elements, and then Turkic, et al Middle Eastern from Western Anatolia, we’d find a pretty solid case for a fairly simple original population spectrum.

----------


## Angela

> Also I would say Greeks have a close genetic and cultural affinity with Levant. Their music, food, etc...


I'm getting pretty tired of the nonsense you're posting. 

Read the paper on the Mycenaeans and the comparisons drawn to modern Greeks. 
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/...ure23310_0.pdf

----------


## Hauteville

The PCA is not that clear but Treemix and F3 statistic yes. 

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Hauteville

> I am 100% Cappadocian Greek and can confirm the values that this guy on the link used for Cappadocian Greeks, I score very close to this. 
> 
> The fact that the first study clusters Cappadocians and Cypriots thought, I don't find it that wrong, since we tend to score similar. My first population reference is always Cypriots, when Greek subclusters are not included. If yes then Cretans pop up first for some reason. 
> 
> I generally agree to what you say here guys about the whole Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Turkish thing. Indeed the Turks have absorbed a lot of this ancestry but still we can't say accurately how much Turkic they are, relying only on their East Asian numbers. 
> Seems that their profile had been seriously different from their Uhrheimat source population, when they finally reached Anatolia, because of the long stay in Central Asia and Persia. 
> 
> Sent from my Robin using Tapatalk


While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Hauteville

> Here are some additional specific literary historical testimonies and sources which certify us of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual character of Cyprus through the centuries.
> 
> 0) *The Jews lived well in Cyprus during the Roman rule. During this period, Christianity was preached in Cyprus among the Jews at an early date, St Paul being the first, and Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, the second. They attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity under the ideas of Jesus. Under the leadership of Artemion, the Cypriot Jews participated in the great rebellion against the Romans ruled by Trajan in 117 AD. and they are reported by Dio Cassius to have massacred 240,000 Greeks.
> *
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4825-cyprus
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Jews_in_Cyprus
> 
> *1) In 578 AD, 10000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization purposes, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).
> *
> ...


Evidence of Indian presence in Cyprus?

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk

----------


## Ygorcs

> Also I would say Greeks have a close genetic and cultural affinity with Levant. Their music, food, etc...


Cultural, maybe, they've been part of a cosmopolitan Eastern Mediterranean environ for milennia. But genetically? No way. They may have some minor genetic affinity, but it's definitely much less relevant than their affinity with other Southern Europeans, Western Anatolians and, yes, Central/Northern Europeans. Just look at their admixture composition (using various different proxies). They're much more like Italians and other Balkanic peoples than like Levantines.

----------


## Yetos

> While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.
> 
> Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk


the strange with Pontian Greeks and Cretans is this
If rememember correct the numbers

Pontian Greeks J2a1d7
Cretans J2a1d4 (autochthonus)

or the oposite can't remember well and very late to search

I AM EXPECTING MYCENEANS TO BE J2a1D-?

----------


## ihype02

> While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazia_(Pontus)

Pontus was an Hellenized Christian Lazi kingdom.
1. The so-called Satrapy of Pontus of the Hellenistic period, was a Persian state created by the Persian dynasty of Mithridates, while the medieval falsified "Empire of Trebizond" of the Great-Comneni was an Armenian-Georgian protectorate hostile to "Byzantium".

2. The novel term "Pontians" was historically non-existent before the 20th century. Pontians are also now (very recently) called “Ελληνοπόντιοι” - Hellenopontians.

3. In 1923 only 20% of the inhabitants of Pontus fled to Greece. This percentage corresponded to the total Christian population of the region (Vilayets Trebizond, Kerasounta and Kastamonos). The remaining 80% remained in Turkey because of their attachment to Islam.

4. The only criterion of expatriation was Christianity, attachment to the Patriarchate, and the ensuing, almost avid, philhellenism.

5. Half of the Pontus refugees were Turkish-speaking, known as Μπαφραλήδες (Bafrali), the rest of them spoke the Pontic dialect as well as the Laz language. Mixtures with the Turks were innumerable. Apart from the Seljuks who penetrated the Pontus in the 11th century, Chepnis, a Turkmen branch of the Oghuz branch (Ogouzis) who settled in the area of ​​Trebizond in the 13th century, have a strong historical presence.

6. These Pontian exiles in Greece and especially in Macedonia do not have the slightest genealogical relationship with the Ionian settlers of the Black Sea. They are population-medley of Armenians, Seljuks, Georgians and* mainly Lazes*, mixed with the innumerable native peoples of the area. Armenian presence was particularly strong. According to Ronald C. Jennings at the beginning of 16th c. the Armenians of Trebizond constituted 13% of the population.

----------


## cybernautic

> According to Ronald C. Jennings at the beginning of 16th c. the Armenians of Trebizond constituted 13% of the population.


What were the remaining 87% then?

----------


## Angela

Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area. 

Goodness, you might think it was some sort of campaign from another country to reduce Greek influence everywhere. :)

----------


## davef

> Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area. 
> 
> Goodness, you might think it was some sort of campaign from another country to reduce Greek influence everywhere. :)


Yes, exactly! I'm sure there's some Greek gene flow that made it to other areas like Egypt, France, Iberia, Turkey etc. I highly doubt they avoided mixing with the Turkish and the Egyptians because they aren't "European". Lol. Besides, Turkey is a stone throw away from Greece so why can't there be any Greek flow going there as well? 

I recall seeing Pontic Greek results on anthrogenica and they do score significant Italian or Balkan

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area. 
> 
> Goodness, you might think it was some sort of campaign from another country to reduce Greek influence everywhere. :)


 This map is misleading at least for the Albanian coast. Not all artifacts with antique Greek origin mean there was a Greek settlement there. Many artifacts came to Albanian coast through trade. Don't forget that the reason Rome attacked Illyria (modern Albania) was piracy. That meant that Illyrian boats were some of the fastest one for the time, which means other Balkan people were aware of Greek products, and had the boats to go and pick them up. It means that Greek sculptors were hired and payed to do certain job and leave back to your country, contrary to Rome who settled them in the area.

----------


## Yetos

@ ihype02

At least read the History of Pontus correct.

as also search their genetics correct.

and most of all study their dialect,
it has more primitive forms than Homer.
*
Anyway, good effort to express your hate against Greeks.

btw
*Mithridates was not of Greek origin, he descent either from Cyros or from Dareios of Persia
he was a Satrap the times of Alexander who allied with him, possibly Persian
Mithridates was Hellenised.
to Unify the Greeks and the locals, 
*HE WAS THE ONE ACCEPTED AMONG THE ALEXANDER'S EPIGONOI AS EQUAL*
Due to his mother origin, and his half Greek kingdom 

For better info read * Xenophon the 10 000 descent.
*
Besides there is 3rd major ethnic group there, except Rum and Laz and Turks
Do you know them,

the Greco-Persian or Greco-Aryan or Greco-Iranian call it as you like mix is obvious even today.
many of the Pontic Greek names and surnames and some vocabulary is from Persian / Laz origin

as for the numbers, percentces etc
I will not enter in such discussion.
Pontic Greeks existed even in Kars Armenia and Sohoum Georgia,
same Armenians and Georgians existed in Pontus,

the estimations before the Russian Turkish war,
surely Give total population of area much more x2 at least than Greece and Albania had.

Russo-Turkish of war divided all population there THE 19TH CENTURY
Τhat is why exist the terminations Helleno-Pontioi and Roso-Pontioi
and and another group, guess who.

----------


## Ygorcs

> This map is misleading at least for the Albanian coast. Not all artifacts with antique Greek origin mean there was a Greek settlement there. Many artifacts came to Albanian coast through trade. Don't forget that the reason Rome attacked Illyria (modern Albania) was piracy. That meant that Illyrian boats were some of the fastest one for the time, which means other Balkan people were aware of Greek products, and had the boats to go and pick them up. It means that Greek sculptors were hired and payed to do certain job and leave back to your country, contrary to Rome who settled them in the area.


I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.

----------


## Johane Derite

> I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.


Illyricum and Illyria are not the same and shouldn't be confused

----------


## Sile

> I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.


In 168BC the romans took modern montenegro from the illyrians and in the same year ended the third macedonian war ..........the third macedonian war was fought between Roman .v. macedonians and their allies molossians ( epirote people )who ruled over modern northern albania
The outcome was disastrous for Epirus; Molossia fell to Rome in 167 BC and 150,000 of its inhabitants were enslaved.[1]
.
After this the Molossian area was governed by Romans permanently and its major port was Durres........the land became known as a roman protectorate ..........it remained like this until the last macedonian war in 146BC when it became known as Epirus Nova ( new Epirus ).
.
and montenegro became known as Praevalitana 
.
The later Illyrian war of 4 years circa 6 AD was fought between romans and illyrians who came only from Dalmatia and Pannonia

----------


## Ygorcs

> Illyricum and Illyria are not the same and shouldn't be confused


I know that. I'm just saying that you can't just equate Illyrians with Albania, let alone assume that the pirates that annoyed Rome so much and were used a justification for war and conquest in Illyria aren't necessarily to be especially associated with the people who lived in Albania. Liburnians, for example, were some of the most famous, and we know they didn't live in the territory of Albania. Actually, as far as I know, the present territory of Albania was probably regarded as the most "civilized", due to Hellenistic and later Graeco-Roman influences since early on, and not like "Illyria barbara".

----------


## ROS

The Turks are suspected of originating the centum languages in Europe, that is to say, it turns out that we are witnessing the origin of European agriculture and possibly the origin of the much-indo-European Indo-European , the peninsula of Anatolia is important in the history of Europe.

The Anatolian peninsula, I think, is still part of that ancient Indo-European, Roman and Byzantine essence.

----------


## blevins13

> I know that. I'm just saying that you can't just equate Illyrians with Albania, let alone assume that the pirates that annoyed Rome so much and were used a justification for war and conquest in Illyria aren't necessarily to be especially associated with the people who lived in Albania. Liburnians, for example, were some of the most famous, and we know they didn't live in the territory of Albania. Actually, as far as I know, the present territory of Albania was probably regarded as the most "civilized", due to Hellenistic and later Graeco-Roman influences since early on, and not like "Illyria barbara".


This is like saying you should not equate Brazil and Portugal.....no equation here, Illyrians are ancestors of Albanians.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## LeBrok

Affinity of modern population of the region, HarappaWorld run:

Greeks
# of samples
S-Indian
Baloch
Caucasian
NE-Euro
SE-Asian
Siberian
NE-Asian
Papuan
American
Beringian
Mediterranean
SW-Asian
San
E-African
Pygmy
W-African

Greece, mainland
15
0
8
31
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
9
0
0
0
0

Greece, Macedonia
5
0
8
31
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
9
0
0
0
0

Greece, Peloponnese
5
0
9
31
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
9
0
0
0
0

Other mainland
5
0
7
30
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
9
0
0
0
0

Greece, Ionian
2
0
9
34
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
12
0
0
0
0

Greek, Islands, East
13
0
9
38
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
14
0
0
0
0

Cyprus
4
1
10
44
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
20
17
0
0
0
0

Cappadocia Greek, central turkey
1
0
11
46
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
13
0
0
0
0

Turkey
4
1
15
44
11
0
4
3
0
0
1
11
9
0
0
0
0

Armenia
7
1
20
52
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
13
0
0
0
0

Georgia
6
0
21
58
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
6
0
0
0
0

----------


## davef

Holy crap, Greek peleponnese scores exactly like how I should score if I bothered doing a 23andme test and ran my results through Harappa world! lol

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is like saying you should not equate Brazil and Portugal.....no equation here, Illyrians are ancestors of Albanians.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


Well, then I repeat what you say: you should not equate Brazil with Portugal. Brazilians descend much of their ancestry from Portugal, but not all Brazil descends from Portugal, and not all of Portugal is, on equal terms, relevant ancestors of the modern Brazilian people. "Portugal" as a whole is not the ancestor of Brazil. Portuguese people, mostly coming from a few specific regions of Portugal, were (part of) the ancestors of Brazilians. There is no such seamless direct connection, even merely 400-500 years later. 

So, it is self-evident that neither the Albanian territory nor the Albanian people inherited _all_ of ancient Illyria, as there were many Illyrian tribes (some linguists even suspect they spoke different languages). Illyria to Romans referred to a much bigger territory and to many other populations, some of which certainly didn't contribute much to the present culture, language and even ancestry of Albanians. Illyrians occupied the whole Western Balkans, Albanians probably descending from Illyrians does not mean that EVERYTHING that pertained to ancient Illyrians, including all the piracy against Roman, came from present-day Albania or from the main direct ancestors of Albanians (remember, the original issue here in this topic was about the coast of Albania and its supposedly "Greek" settlements, that is about territory, not DNA).

So, I maintain a very simple observation were it not for how easily triggered the Albanians on this forum seem to be even when the observation is actually positive to their people: Illyria was a broader term, culturally and territorially, than the modern territory of Albania, and the modern territory of Albania was considered a more civilized, less barbarian part of what the Romans called Illyria, often contrasting that southern territory with the northern territory of "Illyria barbara". So, we can't simply assume that all the Greek material culture there derives from widespread piracy by Illyrians. Many of the most famous Illyrian pirates (referring to the geographic term, not necessarily ethnic), like Liburnians, weren't even in the territory of Albania AFAIK. 

Unless, of course, this is all because the assumption is that all Illyrians were savage pirates, so those Illyrians that Romans talked about as pirates that needed to be fought against and thus used as a justification for their wars of conquest could only, necessarily, be ancient proto-Albanians living in Albanian territory, because all Illyrians lived the same way, and pirates could've been anywhere else [ironic, of course].

----------


## Sile

i doubt anyone can actually match ancients people with moderns people from same lands
all tuscans and not from original etruscans etc
all rome people are not all from ancient romans etc
all french are not all Gauls etc
if we cannot even find where etruscan came from even if we use modern tuscans , what is the minisule percentage of same ethnicity?

----------


## Johane Derite

> Well, then I repeat what you say: you should not equate Brazil with Portugal. Brazilians descend much of their ancestry from Portugal, but not all Brazil descends from Portugal, and not all of Portugal is, on equal terms, relevant ancestors of the modern Brazilian people. "Portugal" as a whole is not the ancestor of Brazil. Portuguese people, mostly coming from a few specific regions of Portugal, were (part of) the ancestors of Brazilians. There is no such seamless direct connection, even merely 400-500 years later. 
> 
> So, it is self-evident that neither the Albanian territory nor the Albanian people inherited _all_ of ancient Illyria, as there were many Illyrian tribes (some linguists even suspect they spoke different languages). Illyria to Romans referred to a much bigger territory and to many other populations, some of which certainly didn't contribute much to the present culture, language and even ancestry of Albanians. Illyrians occupied the whole Western Balkans, Albanians probably descending from Illyrians does not mean that EVERYTHING that pertained to ancient Illyrians, including all the piracy against Roman, came from present-day Albania or from the main direct ancestors of Albanians (remember, the original issue here in this topic was about the coast of Albania and its supposedly "Greek" settlements, that is about territory, not DNA).
> 
> So, I maintain a very simple observation were it not for how easily triggered the Albanians on this forum seem to be even when the observation is actually positive to their people: Illyria was a broader term, culturally and territorially, than the modern territory of Albania, and the modern territory of Albania was considered a more civilized, less barbarian part of what the Romans called Illyria, often contrasting that southern territory with the northern territory of "Illyria barbara". So, we can't simply assume that all the Greek material culture there derives from widespread piracy by Illyrians. Many of the most famous Illyrian pirates (referring to the geographic term, not necessarily ethnic), like Liburnians, weren't even in the territory of Albania AFAIK. 
> 
> Unless, of course, this is all because the assumption is that all Illyrians were savage pirates, so those Illyrians that Romans talked about as pirates that needed to be fought against and thus used as a justification for their wars of conquest could only, necessarily, be ancient proto-Albanians living in Albanian territory, because all Illyrians lived the same way, and pirates could've been anywhere else [ironic, of course].




Honestly I can tell that you dont have bad intentions and you aren't trying to spread misinformation or anything so nothing against you. Miscommunication is happening here, most of the claims you think are being made
are made by a tiny minority that is loud. And the ancient haplogroup ancestors of albanian haplogroups that have been found were found in territories that were illyrian. Dyrrachium/Durres is attested in ancient times as being taulanti, etc.

----------


## Johane Derite

And its important to not mix the borders of Illyricum, which were coordinates in a roman map, with where Illyrian tribes were documented to be residing in different times in history. Illyricum comes later on.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Honestly I can tell that you dont have bad intentions and you aren't trying to spread misinformation or anything so nothing against you. Miscommunication is happening here, most of the claims you think are being made
> are made by a tiny minority that is loud. And the ancient haplogroup ancestors of albanian haplogroups that have been found were found in territories that were illyrian. Dyrrachium/Durres is attested in ancient times as being taulanti, etc.


I'm glad you understand my intentions. I think the main misunderstanding here is that in fact I'm not denying that Albanians descend from Illyrian tribes. Not at all, I'm just saying that Illyria and Illyrians were terms that referred to many other populations and lands - it was a broader term -, and that not everything that Romans wrote about Illyrians, especially specific things like the problem with widespread piracy in the Adriatic Sea, had necessaeily to do with those same Illyrian tribes that lived in Albania and/or those that became the main sources of modern Albanian ancestry. For example, the linguistic and cultural resistance of Albanians and their expansion seem to indicate a people that was originally more concentrated in the highland interior of the country, and not to an intensely seafaring people. And it is just a fact that the most feared pirates from Illyria, the Liburnians, were in fact quite to the north of Albania. Certainly, after so many conquests, not all Illyrian tribes preserved their ethnic/linguistic identity, quite to the contrary, Albanians are probably just a more resisting branch amogn many that went extinct.

None of that negates the Illyrian origins of the language/culture of Albanians, obviously more or less mixed since then with others. It's just to say that, about the former comment about the Greek influence in (present-day) Albanian settlemments, we can't say for sure that it was mainly due to piracy on Hellenic cities, and not just due to natural trade contacts and mutual connections between the two neighboring cultures.

----------


## LABERIA

> And its important to not mix the borders of Illyricum, which were coordinates in a roman map, with where Illyrian tribes were documented to be residing in different times in history. Illyricum comes later on.


I would suggest you to avoid the use of this kind of maps that are not designed by serious scholars but by unknown people. This map and others like this, are products of Greek chauvinism and have as their purpose to justify, from the "historical" point of view, the invasion of part of the Albanian territory, the physical extermination and assimilation of the Albanian population, native in this territory and the territorial ambitions of Greece for the remaining part of the Epirus which today is part of Albania. Never heard about Megali idea? The map that you have posted is a product of this criminal ideology.

----------


## cybernautic

> I said they are SHIFTED TO AFFINITIES WITH NORTHERN EUROPEANS, not that they are CLOSER to Northern Europeans (e.g. _if a people was 5% like Northern Europeans in the past, and now their affinity with them is 15%,_



Yes compared to their ancient ancestors Mycanaeans for the Mainland and Minoans in the Aegean but this is almost trivial.

About 70% of modern Greeks ancestry is still Mycanaean like.
You can read about here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...nt-dna-reveals

You can find the original study upon which this article is based at nature.com i think.
But i'm not sure if the access is free or one has to pay something.

So in your own words their Northern affinity is about 10% more compared to their ancient ancestors.
This is about the same as the Mycanaeans of the Bronze Age in Mainland Greece were more Northern like than the
Minoans who were a wave of Mycanaeans who migrated earlier to Crete and the Islands and thus didn't recieved the
additional Northern admixtures.

----------


## Yetos

> i doubt anyone can actually match ancients people with moderns people from same lands
> all tuscans and not from original etruscans etc
> all rome people are not all from ancient romans etc
> all french are not all Gauls etc
> if we cannot even find where etruscan came from even if we use modern tuscans , what is the minisule percentage of same ethnicity?



Yet we still found the traces.
and many times the traditional remains,
so yes modern Tuscans are not Etruscans, but still have a % of them
Modern Greeks are not the ancient, but still have a % of them
Aromani people are Romans, but most of them might not descent from Rome.


And the dangerous with Genetics to be open far wide 
is what happened to a nearby country,
when genetic tests proved that he had different origin
they remove him from his public job, and send him to prison,

----------


## ihype02

Guys pay more attention to my post before you respond back.

----------


## ihype02

I was about to respond back but I have already a feeling it would fall to deaf ears.

----------


## Johane Derite

> I would suggest you to avoid the use of this kind of maps that are not designed by serious scholars but by unknown people. This map and others like this, are products of Greek chauvinism and have as their purpose to justify, from the "historical" point of view, the invasion of part of the Albanian territory, the physical extermination and assimilation of the Albanian population, native in this territory and the territorial ambitions of Greece for the remaining part of the Epirus which today is part of Albania. Never heard about Megali idea? The map that you have posted is a product of this criminal ideology.


Thats possible, but I was only sharing it as a counter to the map of Illyricum which reflected borders in a Roman map of their province at one point in time, not where tribes are living. 

I could have also posted this image as a counter:



But yes its possible there are ommissions and manipulations in the map, but i haven't been able to find any other maps which pinpoint illyrian tribes and where they live so its all I have at the moment. If you have 
a map of where illyrian tribes were living that is more reliable i would appreciate you sending it in my inbox, thanks.

----------


## LABERIA

> Thats possible, but I was only sharing it as a counter to the map of Illyricum which reflected borders in a Roman map of their province at one point in time, not where tribes are living. 
> 
> I could have also posted this image as a counter:
> 
> 
> 
> But yes its possible there are ommissions and manipulations in the map, but i haven't been able to find any other maps which pinpoint illyrian tribes and where they live so its all I have at the moment. If you have 
> a map of where illyrian tribes were living that is more reliable i would appreciate you sending it in my inbox, thanks.


My intervention in this discussion was because i noticed (and i was not the only one who noticed this) the use of these maps that first of all are without an author and second that come from, certain addresses that are not a perfect example of credibility.

----------


## Yetos

> My intervention in this discussion was because i noticed (and i was not the only one who noticed this) the use of these maps that first of all are without an author and second that come from, certain addresses that are not a perfect example of credibility.




Fantastic map,  :Cool V: 

I see Epirus  :Good Job: 
I see Makedonia  :Good Job: 
But I do not see Illyria  :Laughing: 


 :Thinking:   :Thinking:   :Thinking:  

The author did that on Purpose,  :Angry: 
He is enemy  :Angry: 

Nice joke

----------


## Angela

This is not going to devolve into another Albanian war, gentlemen. Am I cear? THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALBANIA. Get on topic.

----------


## cybernautic

> This is not going to devolve into another Albanian war, gentlemen. Am I cear? THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALBANIA. Get on topic.


+1.............

----------


## cybernautic

> This is like saying you should not equate Brazil and Portugal.....no equation here, Illyrians are ancestors of Albanians.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


No one here cares who Albanians ancestors are.

This thread is not about Albanians

What is so difficult to understand about it.

----------


## Johane Derite

> No one here cares who Albanians ancestors are.
> 
> This thread is not about Albanians
> 
> What is so difficult to understand about it.


The first person to mention Albanians in this thread was a half *turk* half Albanian guy. 

The thread is titled "Are Turks Anatolians Under the Hood?"

If they are not then it's relevant to the thread, correct? If a big percentage of today's turks are georgians, armenians, greeks, albanians, bulgarians, bosnians, etc then these are all relevant to the thread.

If there are many other ethnicities other than Anatolian Greeks that make up todays turks, then this is the truth. 

Its too convenient for Greek nationalist ambitions to claim all western turkey as simply assimilated Greeks or no?


*It is true however that the thread was veering off too much into illyrian specific stuff that is unrelated to this thread.*

----------


## Dianatomia

Turks have considerabele non-anatolian ancestry. There is little need to hypothesize, we actually have DNA material of Bronze Age Anatolians:


The Bronze Age Anatolians cluster very close to the Mycenean Greeks. Compared to the modern peoples they are most closely related to the Greeks in general (also to South Italians and Albanians), but most of all to modern Cypriots. 

The modern Turks in the above graph cluster somewhere between Armenians and Iranians (in the Caucasus Iran circle). So it is quite remarkable that modern people who do not live in Anatolia are more related to the Bronze Age Anatolians than the modern people who actually live in Anatolia. 

There has certainly been a genetic shift in Anatolia. The modern population of Anatolia (Turks) drifted apart considerably from the original Bronze Age Anatolians. There must have been considerable recent admixture. This is true because in particular Cypriots and some other islanders practically overlap with Bronze Age Anatolians (who where highly similar to Mycenaeans).

I suspect that Turks still must have cosiderable Anatolian admixture, but the argument that they are simply Turcofied Anatolians seems to be false.

This also says something about the Armenians. They also deviate from the Bronze Age Anatolians. But let's not forget that Armenians originally inhabited the Caucasus area rather than Anatolia. Somewhere between Iran and Anatolia. So Armenians may have al lot Iranic admixture.

----------


## Cpluskx

On these plots Anatolian Turks deviate a lot because of their atypical Central Asian Turkic admixture (about %10) Rest of their ancestry must be very close to the Ancient Anatolians. (with some Balkan / Caucasus admixture added in)

----------


## Dianatomia

> On these plots Anatolian Turks deviate a lot because of their atypical Central Asian Turkic admixture (about %10) Rest of their ancestry must be very close to the Ancient Anatolians. (with some Balkan / Caucasus admixture added in)


I think they may have considerable Iranic/Caucasus admixture as well.

----------


## Boreas

> Turks have considerabele non-anatolian ancestry.


With that perspective, the only people who have european ancestry, are Neandertals.
About Turks and Bronze Age Anatolians, Using Early Farmer Anatolian or Bronze Age Anatolian figures and trying to use to understand relationship between Modern Turkish and Early Anatolian is not rational. Becuase those cultures were just in West Anatolia, farming spreaded to Greece before many place in Anatolia.



Also even current big city populations in Western Turkey are from Blacksea and East Central Anatolia. Example: Istanbul

Add modern Bulgarian and Romanian population to Modern Greeks and then see how close you are to Myceneans

haberturk.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> I think they may have considerable Iranic/Caucasus admixture as well.


BA "Anatolia" was rather genetically diverse place. Also it is hard to call it Anatolia or locals Anatolians before Iron Age.

----------


## LeBrok

> On these plots Anatolian Turks deviate a lot because of their atypical Central Asian Turkic admixture (about %10) Rest of their ancestry must be very close to the Ancient Anatolians. (with some Balkan / Caucasus admixture added in)


 I also think that a difference between Turkey and Anatolia is this 10% of Turkic admixture. Welcome to Eupedia.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> BA "Anatolia" was rather genetically diverse place. Also it is hard to call it Anatolia or locals Anatolians before Iron Age.


How diverse it was? 

The second thing you say makes no sense. The term is a modern geographic term and we can use it just like we use other modern geographic terms. 

The 'locals' never identified as Anatolians.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=A. Papadimitriou;538846]How diverse it was? 

M300627
Kum4

M740087
I2499

Anatolia, North
EBA, 5kya
Anatolia, SE
BA

Run time
2.41

Run Time 4.58

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

Baloch
12.04

Baloch
8

Caucasian
15.06

Caucasian
42

NE-Euro
41.42

NE-Euro
7

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0

American
4.53

American
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Mediterranean
13.9

Mediterranean
29

SW-Asian
11.92

SW-Asian
13

San
0.49

San
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

Pygmy
0.63

Pygmy
-

W-African
-

W-African










> The second thing you say makes no sense. The term is a modern geographic term and we can use it just like we use other modern geographic terms. 
> 
> The 'locals' never identified as Anatolians.


I thought it was in use in Byzantine Empire, and being Greek in origin it makes sense to introspect this name from Classical Greece (Iron Age) till Turkic Conquest of Anatolia.

----------


## markozd

Great summary by a Turkish blogger: http://www.haplogruplar.com/the-gene...uz-migrations/

Cappadocian Greeks can be modelled as Anatolia_BA + Iran_Neo + Minor Steppe.

Modern Turks can be modelled as Cappadocian Greeks mixed with a population that consists of Steppe + Iran_Neo + Siberian + East Asian + South Asian. This mix is typical of contemporary Central Asians.

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=LeBrok;538854]


> How diverse it was? 
> 
> M300627
> Kum4
> 
> M740087
> I2499
> 
> Anatolia, North
> ...


Are all those samples from the same time period?

----------


## Angela

> Great summary by a Turkish blogger: http://www.haplogruplar.com/the-gene...uz-migrations/
> 
> Cappadocian Greeks can be modelled as Anatolia_BA + Iran_Neo + Minor Steppe.
> 
> Modern Turks can be modelled as Cappadocian Greeks mixed with a population that consists of Steppe + Iran_Neo + Siberian + East Asian + South Asian. This mix is typical of contemporary Central Asians.


That does make a lot of sense. Looked at in this way, the "Ottoman Turk" gene flow is higher than looking just at Han or Siberian would indicate, so, indeed, more than 10%.

----------


## markozd

> That does make a lot of sense. Looked at in this way, the "Ottoman Turk" gene flow is higher than looking just at Han or Siberian would indicate, so, indeed, more than 10%.


Yes, it's obvious when you look at the South Asian component that probably has but a weak relationship to the Turkic ethnogesis in the eastern steppe, and didn't exist in Anatolia before the arrival of the Turks. It must have been picked up in Central Asia. Assuming contemporary Turkmens are representative of those immigrants, I'd say the impact could be as high as 30%.

----------


## matadworf

> I said they are SHIFTED TO AFFINITIES WITH NORTHERN EUROPEANS, not that they are CLOSER to Northern Europeans (e.g. _if a people was 5% like Northern Europeans in the past, and now their affinity with them is 15%, they were shiftd toward a closer affinity with them, even though it's still minor)_. That's what the data demonstrate, there was an increasing influence of Northern European admixture onto the Greek population, especially the mainlanders as opposed to the Greek islanders. And, yes, that Northern European admixture is historically and genetically most clearly related to the Eastern European population that are now mostly Slavic-speaking. Saying that "they are much closer to other Southern European and Southeast European countries" is as true as it is honestly quite irrelevant on this matter, because that fact doesn't negate that the increased Northern European affinity of Modern Greeks, as opposed to the Mycenaean and Minoan Greeks whose DNA were analyzed until now, is still relatively minor, but what can be found is mostly related to Eastern Europe, mostly inhabited by Slavs, and that fits nicely with the very well documented (and still very visible in the Balkans) impact of Slavic and (northern) Turkic migrations during the Middle Ages. You don't need to believe me, you can search in many other topics on this very forum and also in genomic studies.


You're right. Modern mainland Greeks cluster with Balkanites on every calculator I've seen including Bulgarians, Romanians, Kossovars, and Serbs. There is also a genetic connection to Central/Southern Italy (comparative I would guess).You rarely see either an Aegean Islander in a mainlander's top 20 let alone a Cypriot, Anatolian Greek or Turk.

----------


## cybernautic

> You're right. Modern mainland Greeks cluster with Balkanites on every calculator I've seen including Bulgarians, Romanians, Kossovars, and Serbs. There is also a genetic connection to Central/Southern Italy (comparative I would guess).You rarely see either an Aegean Islander in a mainlander's top 20 let alone a Cypriot, Anatolian Greek or Turk.


Are you serious?
I have never seen Mainland Greeks clustering with Serbs and Romanians not in a single calculator






> Modern mainland Greeks cluster with Balkanites


Nope ,they cluster with South Balkan and Central to South Italians.





> There is also a genetic connection to Central/Southern Italy (comparative I would guess)


Mainland Greeks with the possible exception of some outliers in the North are closer to Central/South Italians than to 
Serbs and Romanians.

----------


## Ygorcs

> There has certainly been a genetic shift in Anatolia. The modern population of Anatolia (Turks) drifted apart considerably from the original Bronze Age Anatolians. There must have been considerable recent admixture. This is true because in particular Cypriots and some other islanders practically overlap with Bronze Age Anatolians (who where highly similar to Mycenaeans).
> 
> I suspect that Turks still must have cosiderable Anatolian admixture, but the argument that they are simply Turcofied Anatolians seems to be false.
> 
> This also says something about the Armenians. They also deviate from the Bronze Age Anatolians. But let's not forget that Armenians originally inhabited the Caucasus area rather than Anatolia. Somewhere between Iran and Anatolia. So Armenians may have al lot Iranic admixture.


This is a good analysis but IMO with a fatal flaw: the argument presented by Razib Khan rests on the assumption that the Turkic immigration could have been massive, but didn't change the genetic pool of Anatolia as much as some, especially in Turkey itself, would've believed, so the comparison is just between Medieval Anatolia around 1100 AD and Post-Turkish Anatolia in the contemporary era. The argument isn't that those "Anatolians" who would've become "Turkified Anatolians" were entirely indigenous, living there without much change since thousands of years before. 


There was certainly a lot of genetic shift in Anatolia between the Bronze Age and the Medieval Era, though I wouldn't say it affected the majority of the local ancestry, but there were also some 2,500 years for that genetic shift to happen, and I find it very doubtful that virtually nothing happened in Anatolia, in terms of admixture, until the Turks arrived so much later, and Anatolia_Bronze Age would therefore be a good fit for how the genetics of Anatolians were like in the beginning of the 12th century, before the bulk of the Turkic immigration.

----------


## Dianatomia

> This is a good analysis but IMO with a fatal flaw: the argument presented by Razib Khan rests on the assumption that the Turkic immigration could have been massive, but didn't change the genetic pool of Anatolia as much as some, especially in Turkey itself, would've believed, so the comparison is just between Medieval Anatolia around 1100 AD and Post-Turkish Anatolia in the contemporary era. The argument isn't that those "Anatolians" who would've become "Turkified Anatolians" were entirely indigenous, living there without much change since thousands of years before. 
> 
> 
> There was certainly a lot of genetic shift in Anatolia between the Bronze Age and the Medieval Era, though I wouldn't say it affected the majority of the local ancestry, but there were also some 2,500 years for that genetic shift to happen, and I find it very doubtful that virtually nothing happened in Anatolia, in terms of admixture, until the Turks arrived so much later, and Anatolia_Bronze Age would therefore be a good fit for how the genetics of Anatolians were like in the beginning of the 12th century, before the bulk of the Turkic immigration.


Well, we could safely assume that a lot happened between the Bronze Age and 1100 A.D. Yet, I find it remarkable that the Cypriots would still cluster very close to the Bronze Age Anatolians. One might say, Cyprus, being an island was probably better isolated from migrations within Anatolia. The same is true, after all, for other Greek islanders. Yet, also people like Albanians are quite close to Bronze Age Anatolians. So in this regard, we have to assume that until 1100 A.D. there has been a larger genetic shift in Anatolia than there has been in the Balkans. Perhaps, but still, I find that hard to believe. 

Instead, I think this may indeed have something to do with the fact that Anatolia was heterogenous and that these Bronze Age specimens are from Western Anatolians as Boreas stated. Makes sense, if Western Anatolia was somewhat Mycenaean-like during the Bronze Age, and the Cypriots were perhaps colonized by Anatolian like peoples and Mycenaeans, then the similarity makes sense. The Central and Eastern Anatolians had more Caucasus input. Turks brought even more of that. So, the difference between Western Bronze Age Anatolians and modern Turks is considerable. 

That said, in this line of thought Western Turks should be Western Anatolians + some Turkish admixture. They should therefore cluster closer to the Bronze Age Western Anatolians. I.e. closer to modern Cypriots. I don't know whether this is true.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Well, we could safely assume that a lot happened between the Bronze Age and 1100 A.D. Yet, I find it remarkable that the Cypriots would still cluster very close to the Bronze Age Anatolians. One might say, Cyprus, being an island was probably better isolated from migrations within Anatolia. The same is true, after all, for other Greek islanders. Yet, also people like Albanians are quite close to Bronze Age Anatolians. So in this regard, we have to assume that until 1100 A.D. there has been a larger genetic shift in Anatolia than there has been in the Balkans. Perhaps, but still, I find that hard to believe. 
> 
> Instead, I think this may indeed have something to do with the fact that Anatolia was heterogenous and that these Bronze Age specimens are from Western Anatolians as Boreas stated. Makes sense, if Western Anatolia was somewhat Mycenaean-like during the Bronze Age, and the Cypriots were perhaps colonized by Anatolian like peoples and Mycenaeans, then the similarity makes sense. The Central and Eastern Anatolians had more Caucasus input. Turks brought even more of that. So, the difference between Western Bronze Age Anatolians and modern Turks is considerable. 
> 
> That said, in this line of thought Western Turks should be Western Anatolians + some Turkish admixture. They should therefore cluster closer to the Bronze Age Western Anatolians. I.e. closer to modern Cypriots. I don't know whether this is true.


IMO quite a lot of change could've happened - at least theoretically, we still have to prove or disprove this with ancient DNA samples - after many post-Bronze Age but pre-Turkic invasions and long periods of dominance by Hurrian, Urartian, Assyrian, Persian, Armenian and other peoples, who most probably had more CHG and Iranian_Chalcolithic-related admixture than Bronze Age Western Anatolians, and also some peoples that must've increased the steppe-derived admixture in Anatolians even before Turks from Central Asia, like Cimmerians. As you say, I also think it is possible that Western Anatolia simply got more influenced by Eastern Anatolia/Armenian Highlands - and in fact this pattern seems to be confirmed by several east-to-west historic movements of peoples e.g. Urartians, Armenians, Kurds). The unification of many Middle Eastern territories under one polity in the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Roman and other empires should've also facilitated more genetic exchange with peoples who weren't very like Bronze Age Anatolians. In my opinion, the impact from the Turkic migration wasn't minor at all, most probably between 25% and 30% of the local genetic makeup, but also not that transformative so that all changes since the Bronze Age could be attributed to them.

----------


## Angela

@Dianatopia,

Modern Albanians cluster with Bronze Age Anatolians? Could you please show me how close they are using an academic PCA?

----------


## Dianatomia

> @Dianatopia,
> 
> Modern Albanians cluster with Bronze Age Anatolians? Could you please show me how close they are using an academic PCA?


I have said they are quite close, far closer than Turks. I didn't say they cluster with Western Anatolians. Albanians typically are very close to central Greeks. In the PCA I posted, most Greeks are from Thessaloniki. Which I don't understand. Why would you compare Mycenaean DNA specimens from Bronze Age Pelopponese and Crete to modern Greeks from Macedonia? At the very least you can compare it to the people living in those localities. 




> In my opinion, the impact from the Turkic migration wasn't minor at all, most probably between 25% and 30% of the local genetic makeup, but also not that transformative so that all changes since the Bronze Age could be attributed to them.


You could be right. That is significant admixture though.

----------


## Angela

> I have said they are quite close, far closer than Turks. I didn't say they cluster with Western Anatolians. Albanians typically are very close to central Greeks. In the PCA I posted, most Greeks are from Thessaloniki. Which I don't understand. *Why would you compare Mycenaean DNA specimens from Bronze Age Pelopponese and Crete to modern Greeks from Macedonia*? At the very least you can compare it to the people living in those localities. 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. That is significant admixture though.


I've never understood that either. Makes no sense.

----------


## MOESAN

> That does make a lot of sense. Looked at in this way, the "Ottoman Turk" gene flow is higher than looking just at Han or Siberian would indicate, so, indeed, more than 10%.


I agree - BTW the same sort of reasoning could apply to late moves of IEans in Southern parts of Europe (maliciously I think to the so debated Mycenian question) and to gradual transmission of languages

----------


## Ygorcs

> I agree - BTW the same sort of reasoning could apply to late moves of IEans in Southern parts of Europe (maliciously I think to the so debated Mycenian question) and to gradual transmission of languages


Absolutely. Turkic impact must've been around 25-30%, the East Asian component is just the most distinctive, alien marker that allows us to clearly identify the arrival of Turkic peoples in a region that was something like 99.9% West Eurasian before. In the same way, especially in heavily populated regions further away from the core geographic and ecological zone of Indo-European tribes, I think we can safely bet that the REAL demographic impact of their migrations was at least 2x or even 3x as much as the post-immigration proportion of Steppe_EMBA or Steppe_MLBA would indicate, because the rest of their admixtures would've been too close to those that characterized the peoples they conquered. In the case of Mycenaeans, for example, a ~10-15% steppe in ancient Greeks would probably have meant a ~25-35% actual genetic impact, at least if they had lived for many generations (I think that's the most likely hypothesis) in the Balkans, and didn't just pass through it directly from the steppes (and by that time, transitioning between LPIE and Proto-Greek, even the - western, especially - steppe would've received much more EEF than centuries earlier).

----------


## LeBrok

> Absolutely. Turkic impact must've been around 25-30%.


 No way, I don't see it in numbers. 10-15% the most, if original Turkic tribe had similar admixture characteristic to Mongolians.



> Mycenaeans, for example, a ~10-15% steppe in ancient Greeks would probably have meant a ~25-35% actual genetic impact, at least


Again, the numbers point to 10-15%. If you go with 30, that would mean that about 15% of invaders never mixed in and died off or moved out. To my understanding, as soon as the new combined trieb starts speaking the same language, cultural barriers are gone, everybody feels like member of the same tribe and equal, and they all mix together without hesitation. This way, all the invaders are mixed into locals.

----------


## Ygorcs

> No way, I don't see it in numbers. 10-15% the most, if original Turkic tribe had similar admixture characteristic to Mongolians.
> Again, the numbers point to 10-15%. If you go with 30, that would mean that about 15% of invaders never mixed in and died off or moved out. To my understanding, as soon as the new combined trieb starts speaking the same language, cultural barriers are gone, everybody feels like member of the same tribe and equal, and they all mix together without hesitation. This way, all the invaders are mixed into locals.


That's not necessary, they - the Turkic-speaking immigrants - just had to be much less Northest Asian than you think for that. I'm talking about the demographic impact of a migration, not about the intensity of its genetic imprint, bringing alien elements to the local genetic pool. I think that 25% to 30% is more plausible because the bulk of the Turkic migration to Anatolia happened after the 11th century and came not from the northern steppes nor even less so from anywhere near Siberia, but from present Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan, and the Turks had already started to expand extensively in that southern part of Central Asia for at least 500 years before they came in droves to Anatolia. 

Besides, the Turks themselves that had expanded southward to Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan had already established important khanates and tribal confederacies in the Eurasian Steppe around modern Kazakhstan, where they definitely mixed with local Europoid tribes and thus arrived the Turan region with their East Asian-like ancestry already a bit diluted. So, in my opinion, the Turks that invaded Anatolia were already much more "West Eurasian" than the Turks that first invaded the Pontic-Caspian steppe and Central Asia centuries earlier. They had dozens of generations for that. 

So, my position, at least until contrary proofs are presented (I have no strong personal interest in maintaining this opinion of mine), is that if Siberian+East Asian admixture in contemporary Turks account for ~10-15% of their genetic makeup, that must mean a demographic impact from the Turkic migrations between 20% and 30%. 

That, of course, means that I assume that those Turks were in fact "just" ~50% East/Northeast Asian(more or less like modern Uyghurs and Uzbeks), a mixture of Turks with the former Iranic peoples of Central Asia, and of course many of them came not just sraight from Central Asia, but actually from heavily Iranian (in the Middle Ages) Northern Iran & Azerbaijan, further mixing with West Eurasians there.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

Someone I know, speaking for a certain TV station as an expert on Turkey, was arguing that Turks themselves do not see each other as equal. He was saying that Anatolian Turks, or dark skinned Turks to use his words, see themselves as legitimate Turks. And then there are white Turks, with Balkan and other European Turks, who are the political and business elite are seen as intruders by Anatolian's. Turks have known this divide and for long have suppressed anyone who has tried to bring into open the division reality. He was saying that division runs deep and I was surprised to hear that. The white population of Turkey is quite large. According to some estimates Albanian population of Turkey surpasses 6 million (at least one parent). But the largest number should be Turkified Greeks and Armenians. Also Bosniak's, Serbs, Georgians, reside in large numbers. The person I am referring to had studied Theology so I don't know how accurate his data are. I don't quite get the purpose of this thread but Present day Turkey is ethnically quite complicated. It has been part of Ancient Greece, Rome, Ottomans and is at the crossroads of all hominids movements.

----------


## LeBrok

> That's not necessary, they - the Turkic-speaking immigrants - just had to be much less Northest Asian than you think for that. I'm talking about the demographic impact of a migration, not about the intensity of its genetic imprint, bringing alien elements to the local genetic pool. I think that 25% to 30% is more plausible because the bulk of the Turkic migration to Anatolia happened after the 11th century and came not from the northern steppes nor even less so from anywhere near Siberia, but from present Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan, and the Turks had already started to expand extensively in that southern part of Central Asia for at least 500 years before they came in droves to Anatolia.


 Keeping in mind that Anatolia was rather populous country compared to steppe/mountainous region like Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, it would require movement of all the inhabitants of this region to mix in proportions you suggest. It makes it very unlikely. Uzbekistan and farther to the center of Asia, numerous invasion would drastically lower Caucasian admixture in Turkey. So the direct invasion of Central Asiatic Turkish tribes in 30% proportion did not happen. Max is 15% by the numbers. Turkmenistan population is actually similar to Turkey, and it looks like they were the victim of the same conquering force. This more likely than being invaders themselves. Again, looking at massive 50% of caucasian admixture in Turkey, makes them overwhelmingly inhabitants of this caucasian/sub caucasian region almost forever.
The only huge replacement of population, from the available samples, I can see, was from late Neolithic to Bronze Age, when Anatolian Neolithic Farmer was replaced by BA Armenian Farmer. Possibly caused by expansion of IEs. Steppe admixture is growing in Armenia and Northern Anatolia at same time.




> Besides, the Turks themselves that had expanded southward to Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan had already established important khanates and tribal confederacies in the Eurasian Steppe around modern Kazakhstan, where they definitely mixed with local Europoid tribes and thus arrived the Turan region with their East Asian-like ancestry already a bit diluted. So, in my opinion, the Turks that invaded Anatolia were already much more "West Eurasian" than the Turks that first invaded the Pontic-Caspian steppe and Central Asia centuries earlier. They had dozens of generations for that.


It might look like it, but it wasn't. Again, when I look at admixture numbers, it would take almost all Turkmenistan to replace contemporary Anatolians to get to modern Turkey numbers. It is hugely unlikely.




> So, my position, at least until contrary proofs are presented (I have no strong personal interest in maintaining this opinion of mine), is that if Siberian+East Asian admixture in contemporary Turks account for ~10-15% of their genetic makeup, that must mean a demographic impact from the Turkic migrations between 20% and 30%.


I really think, the invasion was more direct from Central Asia. I have seen pictures of people from some secluded villages in Turkey, and people looked Central Asiatic/Mongolian.

Having said that there is quite a bit speculation on my part, though I'm trying to stay true to numbers. Getting our hands on IA samples from Anatolia, and the ones before Turkish invasion would answer few questions.
Peace out.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Keeping in mind that Anatolia was rather populous country compared to steppe/mountainous region like Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, it would require movement of all the inhabitants of this region to mix in proportions you suggest.


Not if they were originally significantly less than 20-30% (my medium estimate is 25%), but they had a demographic advantage (in terms of reproduction and rate of surviving children) over the natives for several generations during the Middle Ages and early Modern Era, which is quite likely considering they became the conquerors and the members of the new political and military elite. Also, there are at least a few evidences that Anatolia suffered some local demographic catastrophes during the later Middle Ages, with partial depopulation of some regions, so that some parts of Anatoli could've been impacted by the waves of immigration right when they were at a nadir of their native population. If, as I think is quite plausible, the Turks, especially elite Turks, left more offspring than others, their demographic impact could easily reach some 25% even if the number of immigrants as a percentage of the local Anatolian population was originally much inferior to 25%, say around 15%. They didn't need to have defined their final demographic impact in the makeup of Anatolia right when they came from Central Asia. 

Anyway, I do agree with you that for now we are just speculating, although we could say that these are well informed guesses. I hope we will have Late Antiquity and Medieval samples from Anatolia soon, then it will easier to answer this question. There is, however, a certain overlapping of at least the West Asian and some of the Caucasian admixture between Anatolia and southern Central Asia, but there must be a way to distinguish one and the other since they must've had some noticeable drift in the last thousands of years. I look forward to the day when this controversy will be finally settled out, except for the fringe deniers, of course.  :Smiling:

----------


## Cpluskx

Dienekes calculated the Turkic admixture at 14%. I don't believe the impact can be as high as 30%. Turks would look too different in that case.

----------


## LeBrok

> Dienekes calculated the Turkic admixture at 14%. I don't believe the impact can be as high as 30%. Turks would look too different in that case.


 Good point, At 30% we would definitely see more asiatic phenotypic features.

----------


## Angela

I don't know what the percentages will turn out to be; I think you need genomes from the invaders at that time period for comparison. 

However, Ygorcs' point is that this 30% would have been itself mixed. The "Mongolian" or "East Asian" like component could have easily been less than 50%. So, the lack of "Mongolian" phenotypes would not be very surprising.

Plus, it does show up, depending on the area. 

These are Central Asian Turks. 




By the time they reached Anatolia they might have been even more admixed. 

These are modern day Turks. Now, granted, many Turks don't look like this, but a lot of "Turks" are full or part Balkan, or Turkified Greek, or Armenian.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

Ygorcs is rational. The admixture can be even higher than 30% because those who migrated and eventually conquered the land weren't proto-Turks (and I don't believe proto-Turks were East Asian) but Oghuz Turks and they could have been mixed more with Persian-like populations than other Oghuz Turks.I don't believe we earn anything by denying their Turkicness and I don't understand what the motives are.

----------


## Angela

> I don't know what the percentages will turn out to be; I think you need genomes from the invaders at that time period for comparison. 
> 
> However, Ygorcs' point is that this 30% would have been itself mixed. The "Mongolian" or "East Asian" like component could have easily been less than 50%. So, the lack of "Mongolian" phenotypes would not be very surprising.
> 
> Plus, it does show up, depending on the area. 
> 
> These are Central Asian Turks. 
> 
> 
> ...


Chad Michael Murray is 1/4 Chinese. Keanu Reeves is 1/4 Polynesian and 1/4 Chinese. Even if you can see it now, would you have guessed?





SSA ancestry is more visible.

----------


## ihype02

> Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area.


The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here. 

Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus

---

----------


## Ygorcs

> Good point, At 30% we would definitely see more asiatic phenotypic features.


As I said, if the mix was not between Mongol-like people and West Asians, but instead between Uzbek-like and West Asians, you may be almost sure that the outcome would be more or less what many Turkish people look like today. The strongest Turkic expansion to Anatolia happened roughly 1,000 years after the first signs of widespread Turkic expansion to the west, first causing the absorption of the Scythians into the Turkic culture/identity. That's a lot of time for a lot of mixing to happen. There are several - not a majority, but still a sizeable minority - Turks in Turkey that absolutely look like they have some East Asian phenotypical features thrown into their mostly West Eurasian traits. Some of them even look like the average Central Asian (not Kazakhs, but the "southerners" like Turkmen and Uzbeks). I've talked to a few Turkish men who told me their autosomal results for East Asian & Siberian ancestry were well above the average of other Turkish people, around 30%. Many other people have less than 5%. So, it seems like there is still quite a lot of structure within Turkey itself, even after hundreds of years.

----------


## ad0nis

> The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here. 
> 
> Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.
> 
> 
> ---


The majority of those in Colchis and Black Sea region were Greek by identity after colonization right up until the exchange. We can't tell for sure what genetic input is like there but it's safe to assume that it's fairly minimal. I've run across a few Pontic Greek GEDmatch results myself and they basically come up as Laz as you would expect.

----------


## Boreas

> The majority of those in Colchis and Black Sea region were Greek by identity after colonization right up until the exchange.


No, even before exchange they lost their preponderance
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id...orence&f=false

----------


## Yetos

> The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here. 
> 
> Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus
> 
> ---



1) What connection have the Laz? with the greek of Pontos?
2 Why Mithridates you think changed his satrapy to primary Helenistic?
and why he always tried to unify Greek colonies of Black sea?

The Pontic greek dialect is more ancient than Homer,
In it exists more ancient forms, that even Homer did not use,


BTW, 
I am not a Pontic Greek,
But I live among them,
Laz are different, but they never had problem with Greeks
Pontic Greeks are a mix of Ionians, with Anatolians, a part of Persians, and Laz

as for numbers?
and %?

search,

----------


## Yetos

> No, even before exchange they lost their preponderance
> https://books.google.com.tr/books?id...orence&f=false


hmm

Thessalonki is consider the homeland of Kemal correct?

Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis

*DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND ONE?*

I know cause about 1500 Ofle people live about 4 km from my house,
he has far relatives here in Makedonia

Serach the effects of the 2 russo-Turkish wars one at 17th century
one at early 19th century,

at the last one, how many expelled to Georgia, and how many islamizised

Do you know the second ofle great leader ?

----------


## Boreas

> Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
> his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
> that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
> the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis
> 
> *DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND ONE?*


Even I couldn't find any Ipsilantis who was born in Of. I guess This family was Pontic Greek but all historian figures were born in Istanbul.





> at the last one, how many expelled to Georgia, and how many islamizised?


and how many of local Caucausians were Hellenized...

----------


## LABERIA

> hmm
> 
> Thessalonki is consider the homeland of Kemal correct?
> 
> Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
> his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
> that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
> the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis
> 
> ...


From the last time that we discussed i remember that Ypsilanti was a total failure. When we talk about Greece, a great leader or hero is someone dressed with fustanella.

----------


## Yetos

> From the last time that we discussed i remember that Ypsilanti was a total failure. When we talk about Greece, a great leader or hero is someone dressed with fustanella.


Mind your heroes

and leave the Greeks to have their own,

cause if do not know the Greek revolt correct and the Filliki
better go serve west,

----------


## LABERIA

> Mind your heroes
> 
> and leave the Greeks to have their own,


Stay on topic Yetos and don't involve other ethnic groups who have nothing to do with that region of the world.

----------


## Yetos

> Even I couldn't find any Ipsilantis who was born in Of. I guess This family was Pontic Greek but all historian figures were born in Istanbul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how many of local Caucausians were Hellenized...


Ipsilanti was born in Con/polis
But his father came from Of

Now do you know anyone else who born in Istanbul
but his amncestors came from Of? offcourse not that back.

You want help?

----------


## Yetos

> Stay on topic Yetos and don't involve other ethnic groups who have nothing to do with that region of the world.


I suggest the same also to you.


BTW
find kasomoulis,

you will find my greater family surname there.


BTW2
kontea Fustanella etc are Greek dressing

so either Fustanella, either vraka, either panteloni
the revolt was one, 
The ones who want to divide,
are enemies of Balkans,

----------


## ihype02

> 1) What connection have the Laz? with the greek of Pontos?
> 2 Why Mithridates you think changed his satrapy to primary Helenistic?
> and why he always tried to unify Greek colonies of Black sea?
> 
> The Pontic greek dialect is more ancient than Homer,
> In it exists more ancient forms, that even Homer did not use,
> 
> 
> BTW, 
> ...


I found them here:
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...784#post168784

Not related but probably you would interested on this one:

----------


## ihype02

> The majority of those in Colchis and Black Sea region were Greek by identity after colonization right up until the exchange. We can't tell for sure what genetic input is like there but it's safe to assume that it's fairly minimal. I've run across a few Pontic Greek GEDmatch results myself and they basically come up as Laz as you would expect.


Not really sure if you are agreeing with me or not. They were Romans (Byzantine-Greeks) by identity though if that is what you mean.

----------


## ihype02

> The Pontic greek dialect is more ancient than Homer,
> In it exists more ancient forms, that even Homer did not use,
> 
> I am not a Pontic Greek,
> But I live among them,
> Laz are different, but they never had problem with Greeks
> Pontic Greeks are a mix of Ionians, with Anatolians, a part of Persians, and Laz
> 
> as for numbers?
> ...


Cited from Wikipedia:
*The Lazic coast and its hinterland* was neither Greek nor Trapezuntine-controlled, apart from a few points on the coast. The uniqueness of the appellation points to the likely absence of any effective administration

Pontic Greeks, according to genetics, overlap with Lazes, Georgians and Armenians, then with other west Asians (but to a lesser degree of course). 

Can you elaborate on how is the Pontic dialect more ancient than the language of Homer?

----------


## ihype02

A comparison between Pontic, Cappodocian, Asia minor and Peloponnesian Greeks.

----------


## Angela

> A comparison between Pontic, Cappodocian, Asia minor and Peloponnesian Greeks.


Post the link to the study.

----------


## ihype02

> Post the link to the study.


https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718/figures/3

I cropped the picture from the PDF format (better quality).

_PCA comparisons of the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking Asia Minor populations shows only partial overlap with the population of the Asia Minor Aegean coast.

_*Western Asia Minor Greeks were resettled there from Europe.

----------


## Angela

So, you either don't know what you're doing, or you're trying to spread false information. 

"PCA comparisons of the Peloponneseans with three *Greek-speaking* Asia Minor populations"


If you want to know the overlap between Turks and Greeks use the* appropriate* PCA. 

My patience is wearing thin.

----------


## ihype02

> So, you either don't know what you're doing, or you're trying to spread false information. 
> "PCA comparisons of the Peloponneseans with three *Greek-speaking* Asia Minor populations"
> If you want to know the overlap between Turks and Greeks use the* appropriate* PCA. 
> My patience is wearing thin.


I don't understand? This is about Anatolian Greeks not Turks. I said the difference between Pontic, Anatolian and Peloponessian Greeks. I did not say anything about Turks.

----------


## Angela

> I don't understand? This is about Anatolians Greeks not Turks. I said the difference between Pontic, Anatolian and Peloponessians Greeks. I did not said anything about Turks.


READ a paper before you use it to make points. Even the abstract would have told you that this is a study based on MODERN dna, not ancient dna. THERE ARE NO ANATOLIANS LEFT. The only people living in Anatolia today are modern day TURKS.

----------


## ihype02

> READ a paper before you use it to make points. Even the abstract would have told you that this is a study based on MODERN dna, not ancient dna. THERE ARE NO ANATOLIANS LEFT. The only people living in Anatolia today are modern day TURKS.


My aim was to show that Greeks from Pontus and Cappodocia are hellenized natives. As if the historical data was not enough. Well here we have it.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> My aim was to show that Greeks from Pontus and Cappodocia are hellenized natives. As if the historical data was not enough. Well here we have it.


How did you show that? Can you form an argument with the premises clearly stated?

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> So, you either don't know what you're doing, or you're trying to spread false information. 
> 
> "PCA comparisons of the Peloponneseans with three *Greek-speaking* Asia Minor populations"


You will judge who is Greek?

----------


## Angela

> You will judge who is Greek?


Where the heck did I even address that? From what I could tell he was another Albanian t-rolling Greeks by trying to say that Peloponnesians overlap with Turks. In fact, the PCA showed that some Greeks who live in Turkey either overlap with or are very close to Peloponnesians. 

If you don't understand the conversation between two people it's always best to be quiet or to ask for clarification.

----------


## Jovialis

> You will judge who is Greek?


Actually, the *study* is doing that, enough already a. papadimitriou.

----------


## davef

Let's wrap this up. We know that:

Turks don't overlap with pelopponesians or even come close to them genetically, except for the non-Pontic/non-Cappadocian Greeks living in Turkey.

Pontic/Cappadocian Greeks are also very distinct from Pelopponesians, but I won't hesitate to consider them as Greeks themselves. I would do wrong otherwise.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

[QUOTE=davef;551077]Let's wrap this up. We know that:

Turks don't overlap with pelopponesians or even come close to them genetically, except for the non-Pontic/non-Cappadocian Greeks living in Turkey.

Pontic/Cappadocian Greeks are also very distinct from Pelopponesians, but I won't hesitate to consider them as Greeks themselves. I would do wrong otherwise.[/QUOT

The problem is comparing Greece and Turkey genetically is noT an honest discussion. Turks have 8 times as much people and territory as Greece. Of course there are Turks who are different. There are regions where they do overlap with Peloponesians.
Greeks and Turks for thousand of years were in good relations and cohabited entirely Anatolian areas. They exchanged women and goods as part of their strategy of coexistence. The bottom line is the discussion is futile as long as there are no detailed Turkish DNA studies by smaller regions. The best way to end this discussion is to wait for more studies. I dont by it that certain areas of Turkey do not overlap with peloponesus.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> Where the heck did I even address that? From what I could tell he was another Albanian t-rolling Greeks by trying to say that Peloponnesians overlap with Turks. In fact, the PCA showed that some Greeks who live in Turkey either overlap with or are very close to Peloponnesians. 
> 
> If you don't understand the conversation between two people it's always best to be quiet or to ask for clarification.


I don't know where these Greek live. Do you know?

You didn't understand or don't want to admit that what you implied is offensive and inaccurate. 

(All Greek groups have some 'non-Greek' admixture)

We don't need anyone to defend what is obvious (Peloponneseans don't overlap with Turks) while implying something more offensive.

The way to deal with the ****** is to ban them.

----------


## ihype02

> I don't know where these Greek live. Do you know?
> 
> You didn't understand or don't want to admit that what you implied is offensive and inaccurate. 
> 
> (All Greek groups have some 'non-Greek' admixture)
> 
> We don't need anyone to defend what is obvious (Peloponneseans don't overlap with Turks) while implying something more offensive.
> 
> The way to deal with the ****** is to ban them.


I showed a PCA with Greeks from Turkey and Peloponnese, Angela misunderstood me thinking I was comparing Greeks with Turks. She did not imply anything offensive for Greeks, it is just a misunderstanding.

----------


## Angela

> I showed a PCA with Greeks from Turkey and Peloponnese, Angela misunderstood me thinking I was comparing Greeks with Turks. She did not imply anything offensive for Greeks, it is just a misunderstanding.


Thank-you, ihype, for clarifying what you were doing. I misjudged your intentions. You handled this very well.

As for the other one, he specializes in acting like a jerk. Ignore him.

----------


## Johane Derite

Many of the actors of turkish serials openly have balkan origins. Actor "Can Yaman" for example in this interview says he is stubborn from his Albanian fathers side:

https://www.mynet.com/erkenci-kus-un...0474-mymagazin

google images: https://www.google.com/search?q=can+...w=1242&bih=564

----------


## Lenab

> https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201718/figures/3
> 
> I cropped the picture from the PDF format (better quality).
> 
> _PCA comparisons of the Peloponneseans with three Greek-speaking Asia Minor populations shows only partial overlap with the population of the Asia Minor Aegean coast.
> 
> _*Western Asia Minor Greeks were resettled there from Europe.


Those are  Pontic, Cappodocian, Greeks etc from Asia minor they won't cluster with Peloponnesian Greeks. They are closer to the original Anatolians/Hittites .

There is no such thing as ''Anatolian Greeks'', but rather Pontian Greeks who inhabit Anatolia.

Many of these Greeks especially in the Alevi/Alawite population were forced to convert during the Ottoman rule especially before during and after the genocide , people also confuse this by saying by ''Turks'' in the racial sense. Most Turks have a average of 10 to 14 percent Central Asian ancestry. 

http://www.oodegr.com/english/thriskies/Islam/lost_christians_asia_minor.htm

----------


## Lenab

> Many of the actors of turkish serials openly have balkan origins. Actor "Can Yaman" for example in this interview says he is stubborn from his Albanian fathers side:
> 
> https://www.mynet.com/erkenci-kus-un...0474-mymagazin
> 
> google images: https://www.google.com/search?q=can+...w=1242&bih=564


That's not a secret either but nothing to do with this.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Those are  Pontic, Cappodocian, Greeks etc from Asia minor they won't cluster with Peloponnesian Greeks. They are closer to the original Anatolians/Hittites .
> 
> There is no such thing as ''Anatolian Greeks'', but rather Pontian Greeks who inhabit Anatolia.
> 
> Many of these Greeks especially in the Alevi/Alawite population were forced to convert during the Ottoman rule especially before during and after the genocide , people also confuse this by saying by ''Turks'' in the racial sense. Most Turks have a average of 10 to 14 percent Central Asian ancestry. 
> 
> http://www.oodegr.com/english/thriskies/Islam/lost_christians_asia_minor.htm


You are wrong. Anatolian Greeks do exist and before the population exchange of 1923 they were very numerous, reaching as much as 20% in some Aegean regions of Turkey. Anatolian Greeks are not the same as Pontian Greeks, who have much more "Caucasian/Kartvelian-like" genetics, they are mainly the Hellenic population that preceded the Turks in Western Anatolia, not in the Black Sea north coast of Turkey.

However, you are riht that Turks as a whole, but especially so Anatolian and Caucasian Turks, cannot be described as a discrete population in genetic terms, far less as a race. Turkification seems to have happened with really massive assimilation of pre-Turkic populations. Only that can explain the huge genetic diversity of all Turkic-speaking peoples nowadays in everything, mitochondrial haplogroups, Y haplogroups, autosomal admixtures and so on. Even the Central Asian Turkic input in Anatolia was itself the result of previous Turkic-Iranic admixture in Central Asia, not contribution from Early Turkic people themselves.

----------


## Lenab

> You are wrong. Anatolian Greeks do exist and before the population exchange of 1923 they were very numerous, reaching as much as 20% in some Aegean regions of Turkey. Anatolian Greeks are not the same as Pontian Greeks, who have much more "Caucasian/Kartvelian-like" genetics, they are mainly the Hellenic population that preceded the Turks in Western Anatolia, not in the Black Sea north coast of Turkey.
> 
> However, you are riht that Turks as a whole, but especially so Anatolian and Caucasian Turks, cannot be described as a discrete population in genetic terms, far less as a race. Turkification seems to have happened with really massive assimilation of pre-Turkic populations. Only that can explain the huge genetic diversity of all Turkic-speaking peoples nowadays in everything, mitochondrial haplogroups, Y haplogroups, autosomal admixtures and so on. Even the Central Asian Turkic input in Anatolia was itself the result of previous Turkic-Iranic admixture in Central Asia, not contribution from Early Turkic people themselves.


No I was comparing Pontian Greeks to Anatolian Hittites not general Greeks who inhabit Western Anatolia. There is descriptions about their comparisons online Pontian Greeks compared to Hittites remember that guy who I sent you in military uniform my Grandmothers Father and who you say he resembles to you, it's those type of people/ancestry . Go back to our private messaging if you want.For the other Greek ethnic background people who inhabit Anatolia I don't know much about.

I just know Pontian Greeks are close to Hittites and others. But they are also not racially Turks and other comparisons that people try to imply

----------


## Lenab

Yes I know Turks are a mixture of Balkan ancestry, pre Slavic ancestry, Greek ancestry Central Asian ancestry Circassian all sorts the list goes on and all. Sometimes multiple mixture of these sometimes and that Central Asian, sometimes without etc etc.

----------


## matadworf

I"m a Peloponnesian Greek and typically overlap with Albanians, Thessalians, Tuscans, and/or to a lesser degree Abruzzo Italians. I've seen at least 50 plus mainland Greek results and none are remotely close to Islanders let alone Anatolian Greeks.

----------


## matadworf

I"m Peloponnesian Greek (100 %) and typically cluster with NW Greeks, Thessalians, Albanians, Tuscans and/or Central Italians. I have not seen any mainland results anywhere near Anatolia let alone the Greek Islands. In my own results I don't get Islanders in my top 20 so how is it possible to compare Anatolian Greeks to mainlanders?

----------


## matadworf

> A comparison between Pontic, Cappodocian, Asia minor and Peloponnesian Greeks.


 I've seen literally 100's of mainland Greek results (which are pretty uniform) and most mainland Greeks cluster with other mainlanders; i.e., :Peloponnesians (like myself) with Thessalians, NW Greeks, Macedonians as well as Albanians and Central Italians. This is a grossly inaccurate PCA.

----------


## Lenab

> I've seen literally 100's of mainland Greek results (which are pretty uniform) and most mainland Greeks cluster with other mainlanders; i.e., :Peloponnesians (like myself) with Thessalians, NW Greeks, Macedonians as well as Albanians and Central Italians. This is a grossly inaccurate PCA.


Pontos ones should be next to Asia Minor.

All the culture and history came from Anatolia West I wouldn't be that grossed out or insulted.

----------


## Cpluskx

https://abload.de/img/1231312bwkss.png

----------


## Angela

A lot of people place their absolute confidence in the amateur calculators of people like Eurogenes and others of his ilk. Imo, that's not a good idea. 

Stick with the academics, who have all the pertinent samples and know how to use the damn programs they themselves created. 

Just take a look at the latest paper on Crete. Peloponnesians overlap with Sicilians, and some overlap with the people of Crete, and I'm sure if they included a few samples not from Cappadocians but from far western Turkey on the coast there would be a little overlap too. 

What's the big issue here?

----------


## davef

The issue is that academics who have advanced degrees and who have done their hard time in the research lab aren't nearly as qualified or as intelligent as the racist bloggers bc well....uhhh..durrrrr.....they're..uuuuurrr..."pol itically correct" or uh somethin like a dat..yeah dats about it. 

Sadly no matter how educated or qualified you really are, you will never convince anyone with the simplest explanations you can muster

----------


## torzio

The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands. 


*The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066*.
In 1671, according to the ﬁrst Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands

----------


## Angela

What the hell does this have to do with the topic, even if it's true?

----------


## Salento

> The issue is that academics who have advanced degrees and who have done their hard time in the research lab aren't nearly as qualified or as intelligent as the racist bloggers bc well....uhhh..durrrrr.....they're..uuuuurrr..."pol itically correct" or uh somethin like a dat..yeah dats about it. 
> 
> 
> Sadly no matter how educated or qualified you really are, you will never convince anyone with the simplest explanations you can muster


They’re stubborn bc they tend to think they know more than they actually do!

I pay attention to the Scientists, and much less to the so call Citizen-Scientists.

The term “Citizen Scientist” is an oxymoron. imo

Being an amateur expert doesn't make anybody a Genius (besides you, me, and some others) Obviously  :Grin:

----------


## bigsnake49

> The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here
> 
> when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says
> 
> in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands. 
> 
> 
> *The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066*.
> In 1671, according to the ﬁrst Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
> ...


Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)

----------


## Angela

> Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)


I think the Italians of the time might have felt the same way about "The Gothic War". :)

Don't get me wrong; this was a different situation. I wish the Byzantines had won, but by the time they left Italy she was in even a worse condition than after the Goths. The Langobards were the coup de grace. 

Btw, I would take all these figures with a whole truck load of salt. Some of the chronicles would have you believe there were no North Italians left, and the north was completely populated by Langobards. Now, I've always said perhaps they carried some variety of U-152, but if it really was just I1 and U-106, well, grossly exaggerated is putting it mildly.

----------


## torzio

> The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here
> 
> when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says
> 
> in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands. 
> 
> 
> *The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066*.
> In 1671, according to the ﬁrst Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
> ...


oops, placed in wrong thread........the issue if you try to use a mobile phone 
sorry folks

----------


## torzio

> Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)


How did they get the cretans in a war, it was venetian lands ............they tried to keep the muslims at bay 
french and saxons, brunswickers also tried to help the venetians to hold off the turk

Did you want crete to be a muslim/arab land centuries before it was ?

your comments are ridiculous

----------


## Angela

What is ridiculous is your response to a rather light-hearted comment. 

What's even more ridiculous is that you think, or pretend to think, or want us to think that Venice created its maritime and commercial empire, and, in fact, virtually made colonies of so much of the Greek eastern Mediterranean solely out of concern for the safety of other Christians from the Ottoman Muslims. They were protecting their commercial interests, their MONEY, as the Byzantines before them wanted to re-take Italy. 

How much any of the Western Christian countries acted out of religious motives is unprovable, but they sometimes surely didn't act like it. You do remember the Sack of Constantinople, the wiping out of a CHRISTIAN city by Western Christians I take it, Venetians among the leaders? Did the family stories forget that fact?

Before you remind us, yes, Genova was no better, if less directly involved.

The French were much more direct. At times they just allied themselves with the Ottomans.

If you go by the principle that nations, like people, usually act for their own self-interest, you won't go far wrong. 

My God, with some people is no objectivity possible about the actions of their ancestors???

----------


## torzio

> What is ridiculous is your response to a rather light-hearted comment. 
> 
> What's even more ridiculous is that you think, or pretend to think, or want us to think that Venice created its maritime and commercial empire, and, in fact, virtually made colonies of so much of the Greek eastern Mediterranean solely out of concern for the safety of other Christians from the Ottoman Muslims. They were protecting their commercial interests, their MONEY, as the Byzantines before them wanted to re-take Italy. 
> 
> How much any of the Western Christian countries acted out of religious motives is unprovable, but they sometimes surely didn't act like it. You do remember the Sack of Constantinople, the wiping out of a CHRISTIAN city by Western Christians I take it, Venetians among the leaders? Did the family stories forget that fact?
> 
> Before you remind us, yes, Genova was no better, if less directly involved.
> 
> The French were much more direct. At times they just allied themselves with the Ottomans.
> ...


the attack on constantinople was due to the franks unable to pay the venetian bill/invoice for the ships it built for the frankish army, the franks where broke.........after the sack, the government of constantinople was frankish it was not venetian

as for crete, if not venice it would be Genoese, like the bulk of the black sea ports.....if it was neither of them it would be ottoman by the 15th century instead of the 17th century.......its small populace, size of fertile lands and its position in the med would not have made it be left alone.

There was no religious motive in any land acquistion made by any european power at the time...........even spanish holdings in north africa where not religiously motivated

you are missing the point, either crete went to a christian country or it became moslem , there is no in between

----------


## Angela

Yes, we know: it was all the fault of the Franks, no Venetians in the councils or among the looters. 

Go pick up a university level history book for Christ's sake, or even a popularized history of The Fourth Crusade. 

Or even read google. 

The Venetians were heavily involved in all the decisions, and that's the long and the short of it. It's all well documented whether you like it or not. 


"Historians continue to debate the exact reason why the Crusaders then turned on Constantinople instead of Jerusalem, but one crucial ingredient in the troublesome mix of mutual suspicions between the western powers and Byzantium was the Republic of Venice and one man, in particular, the Doge Enrico Dandolo (r. 1192-1205 CE). Intent on winning Venetian domination of the trade in the east, he well remembered his undignified expulsion from Constantinople when he served as an ambassador. This seemed as good an opportunity as ever to finally knock out Constantinople as a trade competitor. In addition, the Pope would achieve the supremacy of the western Church once and for all and the Crusader knights would not only gain revenge on the duplicitous Byzantines for their unhelpful support of previous Crusades but also surely pick up some glory and handsome booty in the process. The riches of Constantinople could then pay for the rest of the Crusade as it marched on to Jerusalem. It may not have been so cynically planned by all parties but, in the end, it is exactly what happened with the exception that the Fourth Crusade ended with the fall of the Byzantine capital and Jerusalem was left for a later date."

""Alexios Doukas, known as _Mourtzouphlos_ or "Bushy-Browed" attempted to put up a serious defence of his capital against unfavourable odds. For now Doge Dandolo and the Crusaders saw their golden opportunity not just to receive aid from the Byzantines but to loot the city entirely for all it was worth. "

"With the fall of the city, many of its religious icons, relics, and artworks were spirited away and the ByzantineEmpire was divided up between Venice and its allies."

" After the dust settled and everyone had their fill of pillaging and looting, the _Partitio Romaniae_ treaty, already decided on beforehand, carved up the Byzantine Empire amongst Venice and its allies. The Venetians took three-eighths of Constantinople, the Ionian islands, Crete, Euboea, Andros, Naxos, and a few strategic points along the coast of the Sea of Marmara. Baldwin of Flanders was then made the Latin emperor (r. 1204-1205 CE) and crowned in the Hagia Sophia, receiving five-eighths of Constantinople and one-quarter of the empire which included Thrace, northwest Asia Minor, and several Aegean islands (notably Chios, Lesbos, and Samos). Boniface of Montferrat took over Thessalonica and formed a new kingdomthere which also included Athens and Macedonia. In 1205 CE, following the death of Baldwin in a Bulgarian prison, William I Champlitte and Geoffrey I Villehardouin (nephew of the historian of the same name) founded a Latin principality in the Peloponnese while the French duke Othon de la Roche grabbed Attica and Boeotia."

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1188/...onstantinople/

Post another deliberate "distortion" of the facts, and you'll get an infraction and I'll further delete the post. Then the infractions can total up under Torzio as well as Sile. 

Are we clear????

----------


## torzio

> Yes, we know: it was all the fault of the Franks, no Venetians in the councils or among the looters. 
> 
> Go pick up a university level history book for Christ's sake, or even a popularized history of The Fourth Crusade. 
> 
> Or even read google. 
> 
> The Venetians were heavily involved in all the decisions, and that's the long and the short of it. It's all well documented whether you like it or not. 
> 
> 
> ...



It wasn’t just the West that had troubled the Venetians in this period. The concessions they had been granted by Byzantine emperors became a source of friction. In 1171 the Byzantine Emperor felt ready for a drastic move and suddenly arrested all the Venetians in his empire and seized their properties.
Venetian’s retaliation came in 1204. This is the date of the Fourth Crusade, what proved to be the most profitable transaction in Venetian history. The Venetians had played a fairly passive role in the previous expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Infidels for their situation in fact was already extremely favourable in the Mediterranean.
Yet, in 1204 the Venetians became protagonists.

The crusaders asked the Venetians to provide them with transportation to the Holy Land and in return they agreed to repay them with an exorbitant sum of money. The time came for the crusaders to depart, but not all the money had yet been paid. Instead of making for the Holy Land, they set sail for Constantinople… This is an obscure page of history, full of intrigues… To be brief, in the end Constantinople was captured and sacked for three days.

*The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople*
Jonathan Phillips sees one of the most notorious events in European history as a typical ‘clash of cultures’.



*Jonathan Phillips* | Published in History Today Volume 54 Issue 5 May 2004

----------


## LABERIA

*Massacre of the Latins*

----------


## bigsnake49

> It wasn’t just the West that had troubled the Venetians in this period. The concessions they had been granted by Byzantine emperors became a source of friction. In 1171 the Byzantine Emperor felt ready for a drastic move and suddenly arrested all the Venetians in his empire and seized their properties.
> Venetian’s retaliation came in 1204. This is the date of the Fourth Crusade, what proved to be the most profitable transaction in Venetian history. The Venetians had played a fairly passive role in the previous expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Infidels for their situation in fact was already extremely favourable in the Mediterranean.
> Yet, in 1204 the Venetians became protagonists.
> 
> The crusaders asked the Venetians to provide them with transportation to the Holy Land and in return they agreed to repay them with an exorbitant sum of money. The time came for the crusaders to depart, but not all the money had yet been paid. Instead of making for the Holy Land, they set sail for Constantinople… This is an obscure page of history, full of intrigues… To be brief, in the end Constantinople was captured and sacked for three days.
> 
> *The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople*
> 
> 
> ...


I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!

----------


## torzio

> *Massacre of the Latins*


correct
the why it happened and aftermath is how you discuss history

----------


## torzio

> I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!


agree................religion had nothing to do with it even if the pope led the charge 
there has never been a religious government had has succeed in bringing harmony to its people.

----------


## LABERIA

> I will never ever defend the Byzantine Empire. I have some choice words for them. It was 11 centuries of corruption, palace coups, poisonings, heavy taxation and did I mention corruption? Just to set the record straight. But the so called crusades were nothing but an opportunity for the leaders of those crusades to enrich themselves at the expense of the local populations whose cities were sacked, their women raped, their crops confiscated or burned and their animals stolen. The Crusaders caused more damage than the rest of invaders combined (OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but only a little). They left the Byzantines ripe to be invaded by first the Seltzuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Thanks, buddies!


There was a way to avoid the Ottoman invasion, recognizing the Papal primacy.

----------


## Angela

> correct
> the why it happened and aftermath is how you discuss history


Then there are those who pretend their ancestors never committed any foul deeds, provoked or not, whose motives were always pure, never crass greed.

----------


## Angela

As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge. 

Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be. 

There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?

There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.

For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news? 

Then there's the age old and ever present curse of ignorance and incompetence. The Franks and the knights from the Rhine in particular had no clue what they were doing, and refused to take advice. The only leader who had a good shot at a treaty allowing access to the holy sites was Frederick, and he could have done it with no war, but the other leaders hated him, and so, among other reasons, there went that. 

Why do some of you always just try to score points for one side or the other instead of trying to "understand" it, and maybe, just maybe, learn from it?

Fwiw, I sincerely doubt that even a unified "Christian" front would have saved the east from the Muslims. The Byzantines were too weak by that point to help much. They eventually got to the very gates of Vienna let's not forget, and almost took the whole Mediterranean.

----------


## Yetos

> There was a way to avoid the Ottoman invasion, recognizing the Papal primacy.



 :Thinking:   :Thinking:   :Thinking:   :Thinking:   :Thinking: 

again religious stupidity?

 :Useless:   :Useless:   :Useless:   :Useless: 

recogn the papal supremacy,hm, but who should do this?
the east Roman nobility? who lost and disband and were attacked? if they recogn papal supremacy they would have been restored?
or the crusaders of 4rth Crusade? who collapse the stability and brought Latinocracy? were n't they on a 'bless mission'?


As always and typical of you,
you think and post only poison and hate,  :Depressed:   :Depressed:

----------


## bigsnake49

> As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge. 
> 
> Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be. 
> 
> 
> There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?
> 
> There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.
> 
> ...


Oh there was. There was a People's crusade under Peter the Hermit. Misguided but probably of pure motives. But even those committed atrocities, perpetuating the Rhineland Jew massacres (the first Holocaust) and then the massacre at Zemun in which 4,000 Hungarians were slaughtered.

My only problem with all these Crusades was all of them were over land. Why would they not attack by sea?

I also think that it was too late for the Byzantine Empire by the time of the Crusades. It had been fighting on too many fronts for far too long. Constantinople shed too bright a light and everybody and their brother wanted to sack and plunder it. Lots of infighting first between the aristocrats and the emperors, religious schisms that the empire got dragged in, civil wars, etc., etc.

----------


## Yetos

> As always, imo, many of you take extreme positions, out of either hyper and uncritical nationalism, or atheism, or lack of detailed knowledge. 
> 
> Human events, even great human events, are rarely as simple as some of you make them out to be. 
> 
> There were a lot of reasons why people went on the Crusades, and to deny the religious element is to deny history. Were some just rapacious merchants eager for more markets and to cut out the Byzantines as middlemen, some second sons hungry for land, some men escaping from crime, some dragged along by their lords? Of course there were. Maybe they were even the majority. Who knows?
> 
> There were innocents too, however. What of the "Children's Crusade", none of which children even made it there? He was completely incompetent, but it really looks as if King Louis IX (Saint Louis, by the way) was sincere in his religion. We can tell from the writings of the time that emotions had been stoked high by tales of the slaughter of Christian pilgrims in the east and Christian religious sites being desecrated, tales which were largely true, if probably exaggerated. That motivated people.
> 
> For goodness' sakes, that sort of thing motivates people today. Don't you read the news? 
> ...


That is 2 centuries after fall of Con/polis to Mohamet 2nd and 4 centuries after the 4rth crusade,

yet Genova and Venice, with the mercenairies East Romans and East Roman failed nobility, manage to hold, and hold for centuries.

It was other things, that drove Byzantium to weakness,
and one of those is considered the 4rth crusade, in fact the catalytic factor is 4rth crusade,
and while some other crusades help East Rome to stabilize,
4rth was a disaster for East Roman,

just to mention 2 other factors,
1 the ratio among monks and soldier, turn to monks with much heavier percentaces, it said that young boys at the age of 16 run to church instead of jobs, military, family, etc etc
2 the lost of Africa to Islam brought new roads of rare merchandise,
3 the Kiev Ross gained the almost zero taxation on merchandise from Con/polis, by providing the Warrangian guards
etc etc 

the warning sign is considered Majikert battle,
the catalytic day of pass from empire collapse, to a local kings federation or confederation is the 4rth Crusade.

There is a castle at Thrace, called *DIDYMOTEICHO*
it is a castle that 3 emperrors were crowned there,
and famous for its relation with crusaders,

East Rome had problem with youth that went to church, and taxation,
but in 3rd and 4rth crusade the sacked from inside of crusaders, just droped the myth of unbeatable Roman,
and drop morale, 

read the story od *Didymoteichon castle* against crusaders, you will understand very well,
you will find it very interesting for what happened that era,
especially the how many families from all over Europe West and East, North and South wanted it

----------


## Dreptul Valah

All of the Christian forces had literally no chance in the conflicts with Turks,during those periods.


The main problem with the Crusaders, South Slavs and even the Byzantines was that they were used(and even obliged) with highly ideological warfare,as the main form of the State/dynastic perpetuation,thus,making constant advancements and extremely energetic charges as their basic tactics.



Unfortunately, in these combats,with all the stamina drained... berserkely,we didn't see good defensive standstills...either-to the contrary,as a rule ,after the failed charges,panic followed.



This is what the Turks really wanted, because they knew very well how to counter these actions.


At Nicopolis,Mircea the Elder ,who was the Hungarian's king military advisor, as many of the Wallachian warlords, had advised the Crusaders for a more tactical start of the battle ,meaning, that his experienced infantry ,against the Ottomans, to form the first line;they were probably hardly to lure by the Ottomans.

----------


## Dreptul Valah

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v_0-Vc7uA4g


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rn85RHrShrI


EDIT


Somehow related,I don't think that the Vlachs killed Samuil's brother,David,in Bulgarian lands,with a Comitopuli military hegemony, "knocking on heaven's door",and surely this is not an isolated action of this type.



https://books.google.ro/books?id=-71...prespa&f=false

----------


## bigsnake49

To amplify, monks or priests did not have to serve in the army or pay taxes. Eventually the monasteries owned so much land and did not pay taxes to the point where the taxes on the remaining peasants were crushing!

----------


## Angela

Gentlemen,

We have gotten way off topic. If you want to continue the conversation, let me know and I'll move every pertinent post to a dedicated thread.

----------


## Parapolitikos

> The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here
> 
> when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says
> 
> in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands. 
> 
> 
> *The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066*.
> In 1671, according to the ﬁrst Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
> ...


Never underestimate the impact of the barbarism of Ottomans. You should read some records about how they treated Venician prisoners after the fall of Cypriot and Cretan cities.
Here is a taste from the fall of FAmagusta:




> Famagusta's defenders made terms with the Ottomans before the city was taken by force, since the traditional laws of war allowed for negotiation before the city's defenses were successfully breached, whereas after a city fell by storm all lives and property in the city would be forfeit. The Ottoman commander agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Venice-held Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general accused him of murdering Turkish prisoners and hiding munitions. Suddenly, Mustafa pulled a knife and cut off Bragadin's right ear, then ordered his guards to cut off the other ear and his nose.
> There followed a massacre of all Christians still in the city, with Bragadin himself most brutally abused[4]. After being left in prison for two weeks, his earlier wounds festering, he was dragged round the walls with "sacks of earth and stone" on his back; next, he was tied to a chair and hoisted to the yardarm of the Turkish flagship, where he was exposed to the taunts of the sailors.[5] Finally, he was taken to his place of execution in the main square, tied naked to a column, and flayed alive.[6] Bragadin's quartered body was then distributed as a war trophy among the army, and his skin was stuffed with straw and sewn, reinvested with his military insignia, and exhibited riding an ox in a mocking procession along the streets of Famagusta. The macabre trophy, together with the severed heads of general Alvise Martinengo, Gianantonio Querini and castellan Andrea Bragadin, was hoisted upon the masthead pennant of the personal galley of the Ottoman commander, Amir al-bahr Mustafa Pasha, to be brought to Constantinople as a gift for Sultan Selim II


All Venician soldiers captured were massacred too.

----------


## torzio

> Then there are those who pretend their ancestors never committed any foul deeds, provoked or not, whose motives were always pure, never crass greed.


I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600

----------


## torzio

> I do not know what you mean....the veneti where not part of the 4th crusades, only the venetians participated.....the veneti did not go under venice until circa 1400......besides my ancestors did not enter veneto from trentino until circa 1600


further on this IIRC 

only Venetian held lands at the time of the 4th crusade was the Venetian lagoon area plus western istria

Treviso was held by the swabian, Carrera family 
Padua by the Este family who eventually fled to Ferrara circa 1430
Vicenza by the Bavarian, Ezzellini family
Verona by the Swabian, Scaliger family ( italians sometimes call this family, La Scala )

All the above taken by Venetians circa 1400

Friuli plus croatia and Dalmatia was held by the Hungarians at the time of the 4th crusades and all given to the Venetians in 1436 after an on-off 400 year war

----------


## Angela

It's now quite clear, and I assure you I'll remember it. You're not a Venetian and don't have Venetian ancestry. You can claim none of their accomplishments for your ancestry. You can claim only things specifically done by people from the Trentino or whatever "Alpine" villages you hail from.

----------


## torzio

> It's now quite clear, and I assure you I'll remember it. You're not a Venetian and don't have Venetian ancestry. You can claim none of their accomplishments for your ancestry. You can claim only things specifically done by people from the Trentino or whatever "Alpine" villages you hail from.


Never ever claimed i was venetian, veneto yes from circa 1600.....before this from towns of dermulo, tres, cles and smarano in trentno, val di non
I have done by paternal line via professionals
As for my mothers line.....they come from basically the bassano del grappa area....
Neither line ever saw the sea from what i have been given

----------


## Angela

> Never ever claimed i was venetian, veneto yes from circa 1600.....before this from towns of dermulo, tres, cles and smarano in trentno, val di non
> I have done by paternal line via professionals
> As for my mothers line.....they come from basically the bassano del grappa area....
> Neither line ever saw the sea from what i have been given


Yes, and the world is stunned by what those areas have given the world and how pivotal they were in world events. :)

----------


## Cpluskx

Edar frequency in Turkey is 0,5% suggesting either a very small or a heavily Caucasoid Turkic intrusion.

----------


## Constantine

> Edar frequency in Turkey is 0,5% suggesting either a very small or a heavily Caucasoid Turkic intrusion.


Not so sure if the derived EDAR variant is a reliable indicator of East Asian ancestry. It's been found, last time I checked, in Swedish hunter-gatherers, Yamnaya, and even the Yoruba. And these were small sample sizes with no other "East Asian"-type DNA if I recall

----------


## Cpluskx

A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.

----------


## Angela

> A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.


I would have to agree. Numerous studies have been done, and the highest I remember is about 20% total Central Asian admixture.

----------


## Cpluskx

> I would have to agree. Numerous studies have been done, and the highest I remember is about 20% total Central Asian admixture.


Well, they have gotten very angry at me and started hurling insults for suggesting these calculations seem too high :)) Clearly some people who are into ancient dna are not very nice and mentally peaceful people.

----------


## Angela

> Well, they have gotten very angry at me and started hurling insults for suggesting these calculations seem too high :)) Clearly some people who are into ancient dna are not very nice and mentally peaceful people.


Some people are blinded to the facts because they want to cling to the foundational myths they've been fed by their governments. My father was a bit like that, to be honest, because of holdovers in thinking from the Mussolini Era. He was, however, an intelligent and rational person,and he would have been persuaded by the science, I'm sure.

Indeed, a lot of people in this hobby are not quite mentally sound. It makes discussion a challenge, shall we say. :)

----------


## Angela

> Not so sure if the derived EDAR variant is a reliable indicator of East Asian ancestry. It's been found, last time I checked, in Swedish hunter-gatherers, Yamnaya, and even the Yoruba. And these were small sample sizes with no other "East Asian"-type DNA if I recall


I have no idea how the Yoruba would fit in, but it makes perfect sense and indeed corroborates the genetics findings for Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and the Yamnaya, as these are precisely populations high in ANE.

----------


## torzio

> A group called Turkish Dna Project claims there is 10% East Asian (Mongoloid) and 45% total C.Asian total admixture in modern Turks. Needless to say i found their calculations insane.


The turks from central asia only arrived in modern turkey about only 1000 years ago,

----------


## ihype02



----------


## Angela

I have to go read that section of the paper when I have the chance.

Right off the bat those sample sizes are ridiculous. You test 1 person in a province???

Even if accurate, it would still probably average out to 25% for Turkey as a whole, I think.

Mugla province with 68% East Asian seems extraordinary. That would mean they're essentially all Eurasian, and should show it phenotypically. It's a resort area. Surely people would have noticed?

----------


## ihype02

> I have to go read that section of the paper when I have the chance.
> 
> Right off the bat those sample sizes are ridiculous. You test 1 person in a province???
> 
> Even if accurate, it would still probably average out to 25% for Turkey as a whole, I think.
> 
> Mugla province with 68% East Asian seems extraordinary. That would mean they're essentially all Eurasian, and should show it phenotypically. It's a resort area. Surely people would have noticed?


It seems too high for me too. 25% seems more accurate.

----------


## Frosty_Chateux

> Someone I know, speaking for a certain TV station as an expert on Turkey, was arguing that Turks themselves do not see each other as equal. He was saying that Anatolian Turks, or dark skinned Turks to use his words, see themselves as legitimate Turks. And then there are white Turks, with Balkan and other European Turks, who are the political and business elite are seen as intruders by Anatolian's. Turks have known this divide and for long have suppressed anyone who has tried to bring into open the division reality. He was saying that division runs deep and I was surprised to hear that. The white population of Turkey is quite large. According to some estimates Albanian population of Turkey surpasses 6 million (at least one parent). But the largest number should be Turkified Greeks and Armenians. Also Bosniak's, Serbs, Georgians, reside in large numbers. The person I am referring to had studied Theology so I don't know how accurate his data are. I don't quite get the purpose of this thread but Present day Turkey is ethnically quite complicated. It has been part of Ancient Greece, Rome, Ottomans and is at the crossroads of all hominids movements.


Yeah people underestimate just how much intermixing has occurred in Anatolia. At least 5 million Albanians and perhaps even 10 million Greeks have descendants in current-day Turkey. At least a third of the country is "white" if not even more. Excluding the Kurdish population, most Turks could pass typically or atypically in most parts of Southern Europe. People are too heavily focusing on ethnic Kurds or other minorities who have actual MENA admixture. 

I mean hell look at Erdogan. He's not THAT exotic. He passes better in Iberia or Sicily than in actual Arab countries. He doesn't pass in Iran either. At best the Caucasus.

----------


## LTG

Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_East
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.26959276
Armenian

-0.26844373
Udi

-0.26822079
Armenian_Erzurum

-0.26818999
Georgian_Meskheti

-0.26454459
Armenian_Hemsheni

-0.26449022
Greek_Trabzon

-0.26410674
Assyrian

-0.26333202
Georgian_Jew

-0.26062743
Georgian_Laz

-0.25998392
Mountain_Jew



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_Trabzon
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.29894080
Greek_Trabzon

-0.28929277
Armenian_Hemsheni

-0.28566496
Armenian

-0.28509793
Armenian_Erzurum

-0.28447970
Georgian_Laz

-0.28016478
Georgian_Meskheti

-0.27815648
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.27770752
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.26624622
Assyrian

-0.26618866
Georgian_Kakh



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_Central
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.24289651
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.24204805
Armenian

-0.24186699
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.24184000
Armenian_Erzurum

-0.23998304
Greek_Trabzon

-0.23948950
Georgian_Jew

-0.23927122
Georgian_Meskheti

-0.23841996
Assyrian

-0.23810402
Mountain_Jew_o

-0.23700032
Udi



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_South
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.21163087
Armenian

-0.21140572
Armenian_Erzurum

-0.21134605
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.21107994
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.21097752
Georgian_Meskheti

-0.21073914
Georgian_Jew

-0.21007381
Assyrian

-0.20998494
Udi

-0.20969350
Greek_Trabzon

-0.20938790
Mountain_Jew_o



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_Southwest
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.21397365
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.21267299
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.21229273
Greek_Kos

-0.21164575
Cypriot_B

-0.21161653
Greek_Dodecanese

-0.21066615
Cypriot

-0.21058154
Greek_Crete

-0.21012534
Georgian_Meskheti

-0.20990272
Armenian

-0.20977442
Armenian_Erzurum



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_Northwest
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.21067214
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.21024365
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.21017924
Greek_Crete

-0.21006436
Greek_Kos

-0.20944880
Greek_Dodecanese

-0.20809490
Cypriot_B

-0.20708641
Italian_Calabria

-0.20676403
Greek_Izmir

-0.20671604
Italian_Campania

-0.20668341
Cypriot



Distance difference: ( AC - BC ) ↑
A: Turkish_Istanbul
B: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
C: ↴

-0.24656450
Greek_Crete

-0.24545075
Greek_Kos

-0.24536298
Greek_Central_Anatolia

-0.24457188
Greek_Dodecanese

-0.24413905
Greek_Cappadocia

-0.24170331
Greek_Izmir

-0.24155141
Italian_Calabria

-0.24115853
Italian_Campania

-0.24107065
Italian_Basilicata

-0.24060863
Italian_Apulia

----------

