# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Byzantine Empire

## Azzurro

A good question, that there does not seem to be definitive answer to, What were the Byzantines? Were they Greek? Were they Anatolian? Or was it truly a mix of all peoples from the surrounding area? 

I know linguistically they spoke Greek but what was the ethnicity of the Byzantines?

----------


## Angela

See:
"Roman identity in Byzantium: a critical approach"
http://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf...-2014-0009.xml

"The main lines of thinking in the research on medieval Eastern Roman identitycould be roughly summarized as follows: The first, extensively influenced bythe retrospective Modern Greek national discourse, approaches this identity asthe medieval form of the perennial Greek national identity.² The second,which could be regarded as preponderant within the field, albeit by no meansmonolithically concordant in its various utterances, speaks of a multi-ethnic imperialstate at least up to the twelfth century, the average subject of which wasself-identified as Roman.³ The third, and more recent, approach dismissed thesupposition of a multi-ethnic empire and suggested that Byzantium should beregarded as a pre-modern Nation-State in which Romanness had the traits of nationalidentity.⁴ "

The author goes for the third option, i.e. a nation state of multiple ethnicities. The core, however, was "Greek", or "Roman" in their parlance.

----------


## LABERIA

Unfortunately, for sure this thread will end in Balkan disagreement.

----------


## Milan

> A good question, that there does not seem to be definitive answer to, What were the Byzantines? Were they Greek? Were they Anatolian? Or was it truly a mix of all peoples from the surrounding area? 
> 
> I know linguistically they spoke Greek but what was the ethnicity of the Byzantines?


They were of mixed,multi ethnic origin as every empire,who identified themselves as Romans.The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources.Here is what emperor Basil thought about himself and the Franks;
In spring 871, the eastern and western emperors, Basil I and Louis II, quarreled over control of Bari, which had been conquered from the Arabs by their joint forces. The "Byzantine" emperor sent an angry letter to his western counterpart, reprimanding him for usurping the title of emperor. He sayed that the Frankish rulers are simple reges, while the imperial title properly applied only to the overlord of the Romans, that is, to Basil himself.
In fact the term Byzantine reffer to a previous small city founded by the Thracian leader Byzas,which later become Constantinople.
We reffer to Byzantine empire ever since Constantine the great (324-337) made Constantinople capital of the empire who was himself of Thracian descent.I can list all the dynasties here up to 12th century majority were Thracian,then Armenian,one Syrian probably.
Heraclius (610-641) who made Greek the official language in the empire was of Armenian descent.

*Constantinian dynasty (306–363) -Thracian/Illyrian*


*Valentinian dynasty (364–379)-Illyrian,Pannonia*

*Theodosian dynasty (379–457) Theodosius was born in Cauca, Gallaecia, Hispania (according to Hydatius and Zosimus)*

*Leonid dynasty (457–518) Thracians*

*Justinian dynasty (518–602) Thracians*

*Heraclian dynasty (610–695) Armenian*

*Isaurian dynasty (717–802) from Syria ressetled in Thrace.*

*Nikephorian dynasty (802–813) I can't find data*

*Amorian dynasty (820–867) Phrygian*



*Macedonian dynasty (867–1056) Armenian or some propose Slavic descent.*

*Doukid dynasty (1059–1081) Constantine Doukas was the son of Andronikos Doukas, a Paphlagonian nobleman who may have served as governor of the theme of Moesia.*

----------


## Azzurro

Angela and Milan, thanks for the answers, I was more on the lines of knowing the average everyday people, as dynasties that Milan listed it is clear that the emperors were of different ethnicities making sense as the Byzantine empire controlled vast territory. In each territory might have had its own ethnicities, but from what I studied (I am a History student) the Byzantines focused more on Christianity and preserving its Roman heritage (Law and Social, not ethnicity) and that Greek was used as a lingua franca. The city of Constantinople would have been for sure multiethnic, consisting of Thracians, Greeks, native Anatolians, Egyptians (from Alexandria), Roman nobles who settled, Albanians, Jews, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, Illyrians and probably more.

Laberia, who knows probably not, since the Byzantine Empire basically had all of the Balkans at one point and was rather peacefully except with the Bulgars, plus Albania and Greece were with the Byzantine Empire until the end.

----------


## davef

> Unfortunately, for sure this thread will end in Balkan disagreement.


lol for sure. Sadly.....

----------


## Boreas



----------


## Azzurro

Boreas, thanks for the map, it is a good representation.

----------


## LABERIA

> 


Boreas, the source of this map, please?

----------


## Angela

I'd also be interested in learning who compiled the data for the map. If correct, far eastern Sicily was probably primarily Greek speaking since the days of Magna Graecia. Alexandria and the area around "Cyrenaica"?, would seem to have kept their heavy Greek influence. There was a very large actual Greek population in Alexandria from the days of the Ptolemies, if not before.

----------


## Boreas

> Boreas, the source of this map, please?


It is just to give a basic ideas. Actually it doesn't seem very academic source.

https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...s-a-byzantine/ 

Here is another map, it shows more details. But, it is fiction

----------


## Yetos

@ Azzuro

it is more complex, 

The termination Hellenas Ελληνας was forbiden in East Roman empire, by Codex Theodosianus and Christianity, 
if you identify your shelf as Greek Scythopolis awaited you,
now East Roman empire was a huge land, 
the major ruler of empire was Legio IV Flavia felix until Ισαυροι Isaurian dynasty,
the flavian emperrors (as I call them until Justinian's family) collapse due to unability to defend the empire from Slavs,
But there were also other parts of empire, that were defending empire from East and Iran/Persia 
After Romans came a dynasty from very EAST today Syria and Phrygia (isaurians)
they bring other air, and is the first non Roman Dynasty, that has to do mainly to protect the merchant roads from iran to Con/polis
a lot of Greek from East part, even from Seleykeia to Georgia as also Anatolians and Armenians etc come to Con/polis,
one of them has the nickname Khazzaros due to diplomatic marriage with khazzar Turks.
that is the first de-Romanise of Con/polis and army, 
There is also the Zeybeks the Phrygian Dynasty 
*That is considered the first Hellenization effort of the empire.*
Although Amorio strangely is considered more a Roman city than a Phrygian that time. but we see clearly empire order and names given in Greek language (θεμα Ανατολικων)
The Slavic Kingdoms, including Bulgaria become strong enough, so needed cahnge of politicks,
that brought the Makedonian Dynasty, to some searchers is Armenian, but Armenian dynasty fits to Λεκαπηνοι from Melitini (Malateia) to me. 
that is the last of RomanoLatin in East latin empire.

but even the 4 kingdoms that are considered pure Greek after the 4rth Crusade *DID NOT change the ID,* 
all were Roman citizens,
to understand more 
*the termination Greek ment death penalty, by cdex Theodosianus since was synonym of pagan*
that codex kept strong even after the death of East Roman empire and her kingdoms,
*Turks call Byzantine Greek as Rum or Rumluk etc and Greek language as Rumlar, language of Romans,
*termination Yunan is newer, at old times ment only territorial origin.
Greeks even at 1850 3 decades after the revolt, call themshelfs as *Ρωμιοι,* (East Romans)
The termination Hellas and Hellenes needed decades to be established, due to Christianity, and empire's codexes,
in fact that was a partially reason that Greek Christians made their own church away from Con/polis Patriarch, which kept the codexes of emperrors and the treaties with Sultans, and still consideres the termination Hellenas/Greek as pagan synonym,

Now the map of Boreas has a point at Balkans
where Diocletianos with codex defined Romania and Romylia (Latin alphabet, Greek Alphabet)
also in Minor Asia has correct,
but excludes Galatia, Ceasaria and Cappadokia which should be Greek also until the times of Seljuks, and till Majikert battle,
Majicert battle change enough the population demographics in minor Asia, considering language, religion, nationality, even ethnicity.
that is why we find Greeks that did know a word Greek at 1920, as also Christians who speak Turkish at balkans.

Africa and Palestine,

Egypt until Naser 1950'd had a strong Greek community 
from Libya to Alexandreia the Greek communities were strong, and not even islam touch them at his greater glories,
same with Palestine and Lebanon, 
Lebanon was deserted by Greeks at about 1930's,

so by seeing the map Boreas post,
include Galatia and SEvasteia and Alexandreia and some more, you can understand the Greek influence of the East Roman empire,
by understanding the Aromani, you can understand the Roman's and the Roman influence in East Roman empire,

*anyway, officially the lingua franca of codexes was latin until Makedonian dynasty, were split to Latin for justice and Greek especially for army instructions.
and Greek after,

*so most consider it as pure Roman until around 700, mixed, and pure Greek after 1060
the Hellenization of empire starts at 717 AD but Con/polis is still Roman as city, and many areas are still under Roman generals protection, especially in Balkans and less in minor Asia
which even at 1800 kept their Romano-Latin character (Romania, Aromani etc)

----------


## Azzurro

Yetos, great explanation, I see you are well educated in this subject manner, okay so in reality it was a Roman-Greco hybrid, which for me leads to another question as you mentioned Cappadocia, Caesaria, Galatia, Libya and Alexandria as they had a strong greek community, were they actually Greeks meaning originally from Greece or were they locals that adopted hellenism in ancient times and kept that culture and tradition to this day or was it mix like for example Cappadocia were they Phrygians who spoke Greek and were Orthodox? Surely there must of been some migration in antiquity but the local population was definitely mixed into as well.

----------


## Yetos

> Yetos, great explanation, I see you are well educated in this subject manner, okay so in reality it was a Roman-Greco hybrid, which for me leads to another question as you mentioned Cappadocia, Caesaria, Galatia, Libya and Alexandria as they had a strong greek community, were they actually Greeks meaning originally from Greece or were they locals that adopted hellenism in ancient times and kept that culture and tradition to this day or was it mix like for example Cappadocia were they Phrygians who spoke Greek and were Orthodox? Surely there must of been some migration in antiquity but the local population was definitely mixed into as well.



2 phases

1 . colonisation of Antique

2 Hellenization, is started by Alexander's time, and even when Greece was Roman occupied continued in East.


then comes Romanization but in many areas was very short,

now we know where Greeks build cities from antique, and we know when, full colonise areas.

----------


## Azzurro

Yetos, by full colonization you mean that they were the entire population? I'm sure there were non Greeks in the population that became Hellenized in both cases of colonization.

----------


## Yetos

> Yetos, by full colonization you mean that they were the entire population? I'm sure there were non Greeks in the population that became Hellenized in both cases of colonization.



by colonization we mean people who devaste and colonise,
by Hellenization we mean accept the Hellenic culture and speak Greek,

compare like America today,
All colonists, All colonies in the begin they had names like new Amdersdam, New England, Nova Scotia, etc etc
later they moved West and made Americanization,
Today is called US America,
and in new York are many Italians as your flag, but are Americans,
But if America did not revolt to England, like Australia

in both areas, we have partially Anglicanization, 

a good example of Hellenization are the Gauls of minor Asia, Galatians,
a good example of colonisation is S Italy,

to your answer consider who were trully Romans at 700 BC, and who 100 AD and who at Sancrum Romanum Imperium, and who at 1453 Con/polis, and 1463 at fall of Trebizond,

anyway the termination Byzantium entered by Hieronymos Wolf and the Fugger by writing Corpus Historiae Byzantinae
until 1562 was the East Roman empire, and her first emperrors were Romans, although many are said about their origins today, cause everybody claims whatever, and I do not know something else than the ones which are written,
for example if someone was Spanish and become Roman centurion and his son born in Balkans become emperror, nobody, only the written
or a Greek or an Iranian, become Roman and then become prince or Duke somewhere in the West,
or a Numidian or Egyptian etc etc

----------


## Azzurro

Okay, good examples, I understand what your saying, in terms of colonization what y-lines do you think indicated are Greek in origin? As for Southern Italy I am aware as I am fully Southern Italian in both areas I come from there are both Greek temples and Roman villas.

----------


## Sile

> It is just to give a basic ideas. Actually it doesn't seem very academic source.
> 
> https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...s-a-byzantine/ 
> 
> Here is another map, it shows more details. But, it is fiction


Why is it fiction?

Pity the colours are not distinguishable

----------


## Yetos

@ Azzuro

that is difficult to say for Greeks, 

for example by latest aproaches we know that Palaiolithic Greeks were mainly I1 and PC1,
but as characteristic of Greek we consider the PC4, 
so it is more complex, 

anyway we believe that I1 is palaiolithic
J2a and G2a is neolithic
R1b is mark of Myceneans
R1a is mark of Dorians 

for example if have connection with Locri calabria expect a R1a as possible or R1b
if you have connection with Gela Sikelia expect a possible J2a

I my shelf although I know that my family is in Makedonia centuries now and we found the church books back far as can be found,
I am G2a3a which fits rather to minor Asia and Ionian.
that is something common when search the Greek Y-DNA, 
in fact until medieval times, Greek males had no problem to go to another city to marry,
except if they belong to a noble military class,
in that case woman was brought to house,

----------


## Azzurro

Yetos, you do not think that even E-V13 has something to with Greeks or Greek colonization isn't it like 20% plus in overall Greeks? I always suspected that the Myceneans were R1b, I am J-Z482 or J2a4b3, mine is not from Greek colonization, but probably a lot of J2a's can be.

----------


## Yetos

> Yetos, you do not think that even E-V13 has something to with Greeks or Greek colonization isn't it like 20% plus in overall Greeks? I always suspected that the Myceneans were R1b, I am J-Z482 or J2a4b3, mine is not from Greek colonization, but probably a lot of J2a's can be.



ok I am not a genetists, 
can you give your score? or your Z,
are you L-227

----------


## Azzurro

> ok I am not a genetists, 
> can you give your score? or your Z,
> are you L-227


You mean my subclade I am Z482, which is a downstream of L210/L227.

----------


## Yetos

Z227 is a complex. 
around 170000 is connected with Malta and Italy
above 200000 seems to be connected with Armenians and Cretans/Greeks
around 70000 seems to be Eskenazi far North to poland and Russia and Baltic

that is as far as I know and can tell

PS
are you sure you not a Pelasgian? an Thyrrenian? (Etrusco)

----------


## Yetos

> Yetos, you do not think that even E-V13 has something to with Greeks or Greek colonization isn't it like 20% plus in overall Greeks? I always suspected that the Myceneans were R1b, I am J-Z482 or J2a4b3, mine is not from Greek colonization, but probably a lot of J2a's can be.



Nucleotid V-13 for me is a more complex story,
no matter found in Spain, I do not believe that this Spanish found is connected with Balkans,
there is cross by Italians with Pc1 that say that existed in Bulgaria 6ky from now, 
yet this is a possibility by chances, not a fact, 
the older found E-V13 is very new 2500 ky from now in Balkans and 4 ky at central minor Asia, 
which for me seems enter much late at balkans, 
I mean I believe that entered after bronze age, v-13 for me is the most unexplained and strange Y-Dna in Balkans.
and still I can not understand its peaks,
they are, nearby where Roman legions had camps, 
but a lower percentage is gathered at mountain areas, and has strange distribution
for example in some Aromani is reaching 28% and in some few dozens of km nearby does not exist.

the 4 more complicated for me are

V-13 at Balkans
the mtDNA of far North Europe which seems to be connected with Africa
the mt X2 in N America
and the Roma genes, especially mtDNA.

----------


## Azzurro

> Z227 is a complex. 
> around 170000 is connected with Malta and Italy
> above 200000 seems to be connected with Armenians and Cretans/Greeks
> around 70000 seems to be Eskenazi far North to poland and Russia and Baltic
> 
> that is as far as I know and can tell
> 
> PS
> are you sure you not a Pelasgian? an Thyrrenian? (Etrusco)


Yetos, I know based on Y-matches, Yfull and autosomal, that my line was Jewish, most of my close matches and all of my Y-67 are Jewish. I also have Italian, Spanish, Latino, 1 Syrian, 1 Yemeni and 1 Greek match on Y-12.

Thats my Z482 my more terminal clade, the upstream Z489 is also found in Cypriots, according to 1 study maybe 5% in Paphos and 1-2% overall, two theories on how it got to Cyprus was either Jews (later converted) or through the Phrygians.

The L210 line definitely went to the Levant, it is found throughout the entire Mediterranean.

----------


## Azzurro

You can also take this for an example anywhere the Achaeans settled or colonized in the Mediterranean there is a peak of E-V13, maybe had something to do with pre-Athenian population. Maybe the Pelasgians were E-V13?



[/QUOTE]

----------


## Yetos

> You can also take this for an example anywhere the Achaeans settled or colonized in the Mediterranean there is a peak of E-V13, maybe had something to do with pre-Athenian population. Maybe the Pelasgians were E-V13?


[/QUOTE]

i know about Achaians, 
but pelasgians were J2, 
V-13 is inland not seafaring

----------


## Azzurro

Are you sure they were J2? Or possibly a portion of them, Minoans were J2a

----------


## Azzurro

Aeolians are also associated with E-V13, as it peaks along the coasts of NorthWestern Turkey

----------


## Milan

I favor the Greco-Aryan hypothesis,used in tandem with the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan
To me at least the Greek language sound most similar to Indo-Iranian and most cognates are to be found among them,then the Greek i believe come in closeness with poorly attested Thracian/Phrygian.
As such will be very suitable to be used in Eastern Mediteranean as lingua franca since ancient times.
So i think that the migration to Greece came from Anatolia,if this speakers will be associated with R1b,it will be with this subclade,but i doubt that they weren't admixed with other haplogroups.

----------


## Azzurro

Milan, that actually makes sense and would explain a portion of why Southern Italians including myself get 25-40% Asia Minor in Nat Geo and ftdna. Its 20-30% this R1b clade in areas of Magna Grecia. It even gets 10-15% even in the area surronding Constantinople. Also possibly explains why Greek is one of the more unique languages of Europe.

----------


## Angela

> Milan, that actually makes sense and would explain a portion of why Southern Italians including myself get 25-40% Asia Minor in Nat Geo and ftdna. Its 20-30% this R1b clade in areas of Magna Grecia. It even gets 10-15% even in the area surronding Constantinople. Also possibly explains why Greek is one of the more unique languages of Europe.


I thought you were claiming to be central Italian? There is no way a Central Italian would get 25-40% Asia Minor on National Geographic. How could you have gotten your Genographic results and not looked at the autosomal make up of Tuscans on it? They are 4% Asia Minor, lower than Greeks and Romanians, which makes sense from everything else we know about them, particularly in relationship to Greeks, where they plot north of even the more northern Greeks. 
https://s22.postimg.io/y9x754ylb/Gen...uth_Europe.jpg 

If you are central Italian of any sort and have numbers like that, you should carefully check your tree. You have very recent admixture from elsewhere. 

I'm even surprised southern Italians would get those levels of Asia Minor. How many samples have you seen?

Also, why does an Italian not know how to spell "azzurro"? I mean, everybody has a brain freeze occasionally, but you're looking at that every time you post.

----------


## Yetos

> Aeolians are also associated with E-V13, as it peaks along the coasts of NorthWestern Turkey


Νο

Con/polis area was a sink for more than 2 milleniums,
Build by Romans habbited by Greeks Thracians SouthSlavs Turks Vikings Russians Kurds Georgians Egyptians Jews Tattars etc
you can not have a clear view of Romans by analyzing Rome's cemeteries of 100 AD,
same is some areas where people gathered,

as for Achaians, remember that the area that has high peak was Roman guard base,
although few km south that has a more normal it is also a mountain area,

Anyway,
Allow me to have my precautions about the E-v13 as palaiolithic and epipalaiolithic in Balkans and Italy,
and yes it has the star shape expansion, and has peaks etc etc,
but still I am not conviced as palaiolithic.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Milan, that actually makes sense and would explain a portion of why Southern Italians including myself get 25-40% Asia Minor in Nat Geo and ftdna. Its 20-30% this R1b clade in areas of Magna Grecia. It even gets 10-15% even in the area surronding Constantinople. Also possibly explains why Greek is one of the more unique languages of Europe.


No way southern Italians get 25-40% Asia Minor and I doubt that you're Italian. A true Italian never would mistake the word "azzuro".

----------


## Azzurro

Angela, thanks I didn't even realize! How do you change it? No i'm fully Southern Italian my father is from Basilicata and my mom is from Sicilia, I don't know maybe mine in particular is higher than normal? I got that from speaking to administrators from FTDNA, they did averages of members that are of fully Italian descent being that most are from Southern Italy, in the South some got high numbers like 25-40% and in North some got either zero or 1-2%, it can also maybe be that maybe it is combination of two parents having 15-20% so maybe thats why its high or maybe ftdna and nat geo give extra Asia minor?

----------


## Azzurro

Pax Augusta, I am of full Italian descent, but I wasn't born in Italy, and it was an honest mishape spelling I forgot the additional r, and look some do and some don't I guess not everyone will have the same autosomal dna, they post averages, its possible alot of the Asia Minor probably was with neolithic farmers.

----------


## Azzurro

Yetos, I guess the best way to determine would be finding ancient samples, I'm talking about Greece, we all have our theories about the spread of haplogroups, I just think E-V13 was part of the Greek expansion or was part of Ancient Greece.

----------


## Azzurro

> No way southern Italians get 25-40% Asia Minor and I doubt that you're Italian. A true Italian never would mistake the word "azzuro".


Letting no that you said no way, I am Southern Italian and got 29%, I have spoken to others and they got similar results the highest I saw was 37% and she was half Tuscan and half Lucana (Basilicata), maybe if more people do these tests they will be able to distinguish whether it was ancient or recent and re-categorized under Southern European, but possibly some could have been more recent, probably Roman Era or early middle ages.

----------


## Angela

> Angela, thanks I didn't even realize! How do you change it? No i'm fully Southern Italian my father is from Basilicata and my mom is from Sicilia, I don't know maybe mine in particular is higher than normal? I got that from speaking to administrators from FTDNA, they did averages of members that are of fully Italian descent being that most are from Southern Italy, in the South some got high numbers like 25-40% and in North some got either zero or 1-2%, it can also maybe be that maybe it is combination of two parents having 15-20% so maybe thats why its high or maybe ftdna and nat geo give extra Asia minor?


You were speaking about Nat Geo. As I said, Tuscans get 4% Asia Minor on Nat Geo. Northern Italians probably get a little less. Yes, there's a cline in Italy, but I'd want to see a large number of VERIFIED results from southern Italians before I would believe that it jumps from 4-40% or even 25% in southerners. The differences are not that extreme. 

If you kept a screen shot of this conversation you supposedly had with people who looked at large numbers of samples please provide it. I'd be very interested to read it and also to contact them personally if they are actually the people who run the program .

There's way too much reliance in the internet world on results which can't be verified. That's why it's always better to get the averages from the academics or the people who run the companies. 

At any rate, even 25% would be far higher than what appears in any other analysis or calculator I've ever seen. On 23andme, for example, the highest score I've ever seen a southern Italian get for "Middle Eastern", which is modal, in their system, in Anatolia or "Asia Minor", is 12%, and many have a lot less than that. (North African is what is modal not only in North Africa, but in Egypt, Arabia, and Palestine or the southern Levant. I've never seen a southern Italian get more than 2-3% of that.) Of course, you could always run into some outlier, or something.

If you do indeed have 25-40% Asia Minor and you're not misreading your results, if I were you I would, as I suggested above, really analyze my tree. You most probably have relatively recent ancestry from elsewhere. Have your parents been tested? 

As for changing "azzuro" to "azzurro", go to your settings and see if you can change it. I thought it was strange given that in my experience even if Italian Americans are unfortunately rather ignorant of Italian history, culture and language, they usually know "The Azzurri"! :) They even, at World Cup time, where the tee shirts.

Oh, sorry for any misunderstanding about your regional breakdown. It's just that there was someone at anthrogenica today or yesterday who made almost exactly the same argument, with what sounded to me like the same "voice", only he claimed to have 100% of his ancestry from the Marche. That would make results like this even more absurd, of course.

----------


## Azzurro

> You were speaking about Nat Geo. As I said, Tuscans get 4% Asia Minor on Nat Geo. Northern Italians probably get a little less. Yes, there's a cline in Italy, but I'd want to see a large number of VERIFIED results from southern Italians before I would believe that it jumps from 4-40% or even 25% in southerners. The differences are not that extreme. 
> 
> If you kept a screen shot of this conversation you supposedly had with people who looked at large numbers of samples please provide it. I'd be very interested to read it and also to contact them personally if they are actually the people who run the program .
> 
> There's way too much reliance in the internet world on results which can't be verified. That's why it's always better to get the averages from the academics or the people who run the companies. 
> 
> At any rate, even 25% would be far higher than what appears in any other analysis or calculator I've ever seen. On 23andme, for example, the highest score I've ever seen a southern Italian get for "Middle Eastern", which is modal, in their system, in Anatolia or "Asia Minor", is 12%, and many have a lot less than that. (North African is what is modal not only in North Africa, but in Egypt, Arabia, and Palestine or the southern Levant. I've never seen a southern Italian get more than 2-3% of that.) Of course, you could always run into some outlier, or something.
> 
> If you do indeed have 25-40% Asia Minor and you're not misreading your results, if I were you I would, as I suggested above, really analyze my tree. You most probably have relatively recent ancestry from elsewhere. Have your parents been tested? 
> ...


I will send my autosomal breakdown and where I got my information on private message.

To my high Asia Minor when I initially got my results I was surprised too, and I started asking administrators and others if this result was normal and averages, I got a variety of answers but generally from ftdna I got the response that it is normal, maybe it has something to do with their MyOrigins calculation system, but even DNA.Land was giving me 60-65% Southern European and the rest Middle Eastern. Even Calculators on Gedmatch sort of give me similar results but it is instead replaced with East Med, West Asia and North African (all the tests and sites gave me 4%). I am currently pursuing my Tree, so far the only non Italian born was an ancestor from Malta (Attard) and it goes back to the 1710's. My parents are not tested.

I tried to change it but have not been able to, we are very proud and love the Azzurri. Every Euro and World Cup I put out my flag and wear my jersey. It all depends from where, in Montreal we keep to Cultural routes of course its more of Italian Culture from the 50's when they all came. In terms of history I agree, I personally do, I know Italian history better than the Canadian one. For the language as well I give my best effort, I took Italian courses and practice with i nonni.

No worries it is fine, it happens sometimes :)

----------


## Angela

I guess I wasn't clear enough; if you have a *screen shot* of this *conversation with the STAFF* at these testing companies *with their names on it*, or if you can even just provide me with their names, I'll be happy to read it and/or to contact them. *I'm not interested in anyone's unverifiable "results"* when they so obviously make no sense.* I've told Sickelliot that over and over again, on 23andme , and here. I'm not any more receptive when someone else tries to do it.* A half Palestinian/half northwest European could post scores saying he or she is sourthern Italian, as has been done, by the way. The insanity that reigns on some anthrofora is mind boggling. 

Even if something nefarious isn't going on, I'm afraid I've learned not to put too much credence in people's hearsay testimony of what they *think* they heard. No offense, of course, in that case, it's just the way our memories work.

I repeat: these numbers make no sense. A half Tuscan/half Basilicata person scores 37%? REALLY? Do the math, for goodness sakes! For that to be correct, given that the Tuscan half of her ancestry would undoubtedly score 4, her Basilicata parent would have to score 70% for her to get a score of 37! It's absurd. Either you're remembering it incorrectly, or *someone is lying*.

There's no where near that kind of spread in Italy on 23andme for "Middle East", which is basically the same ancestry. 

If I find out that this is just some typical anthrofora game I'm going to get really ****** that you wasted my time.

Fix your flag while you're at it. Your IP is Montreal. 

In fact, I would suggest you quit while you're ahead.

----------


## Azzurro

Angela I just sent you proof of what I was talking about, I sent it in private messages

----------


## Angela

Azzuro, listen to what I'm saying. Those conversations you sent me are not screen shots. Do you understand? You could have typed them up fifteen minutes ago. I hate to put it that way, but I've been burned by supposedly legit "evidence" before on these kinds of boards. Plus, I have no idea whether this person is, as she says she is, half Tuscan and half from Basilicata. You're aware that people can say anything they want about their ancestry, yes? (Don't go buying any bridges, ok?) Her scores make no sense if they are Nat Geo scores, based on the listed score for Tuscans. 

Plus, this was supposed to be about Nat Geo, not FTDNA. Have you succeeded in confusing me?

Look, this is off topic for this thread. Continue this conversation with me by PM. Or, if people want to be involved, let me know, and I'll transfer these posts to a new thread.

Again, fix your flag. You're a Canadian, posting from Quebec. The flag should reflect that.

----------


## Boreas

> Why is it fiction?


That is a new plan which looks old and author hasn't given any source. But still look nice  :Heart:

----------


## berun

> Now the map of Boreas has a point at Balkans
> where Diocletianos with codex defined Romania and Romylia (Latin alphabet, Greek Alphabet)
> also in Minor Asia has correct,
> but excludes Galatia, Ceasaria and Cappadokia which should be Greek also until the times of Seljuks, and till Majikert battle,
> Majicert battle change enough the population demographics in minor Asia, considering language, religion, nationality, even ethnicity.
> that is why we find Greeks that did know a word Greek at 1920, as also Christians who speak Turkish at balkans.


Flawed data as Galatians and Cappadocians are not more here; there were locals speaking indigenous languages, you can check up the Pontic region per example, taken by the Turks late: there the Greeks were city dwellers and the Lazi were living in the countryside.

----------


## bicicleur

> I favor the Greco-Aryan hypothesis,used in tandem with the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan
> To me at least the Greek language sound most similar to Indo-Iranian and most cognates are to be found among them,then the Greek i believe come in closeness with poorly attested Thracian/Phrygian.
> As such will be very suitable to be used in Eastern Mediteranean as lingua franca since ancient times.
> So i think that the migration to Greece came from Anatolia,if this speakers will be associated with R1b,it will be with this subclade,but i doubt that they weren't admixed with other haplogroups.


your linguistic arguments may be correct or may not be

even so, you can't conclude that early Greeks came from Anatolia
IMO they came from Catacomb culture and spread from the Pontic steppe to the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan
archeology shows war charriots and swords arrived like that in the Carpathian Basin and in Mycenia shortly after (ca 1650 BC)
during or after the era of the Sea Peoples, 12 th - 10 th cent BC there were incursions into Anatolia, cfr the Mushki who fought the Assyrians alongside the Hurrites
IMO these intruders were the forfathers of the Phrygians and Armenians
Urartu was a multi-ethnic and multilingual federation ; at first the ruling elite spoke Hurrite, but later this Hurrite dynasty was replaced by an Armenian speaking dynasty

----------


## LABERIA

> Flawed data as Galatians and Cappadocians are not more here; there were locals speaking indigenous languages, you can check up the Pontic region per example, taken by the Turks late: there the Greeks were city dwellers and the Lazi were living in the countryside.


There is this interesting article from this greek website regarding the inhabitatns of Asia Minor. I will post some parts from this article:
http://www.freeinquiry.gr/pro.php?id...2f04c9715f5254

The formal education of the current Greek state presents a warped image of Asia Minor, in which the region everything was supposedly Greek and those who were/are "barbarians" invaded it, and were sooner or later 'inoculated with the Greek culture' and Hellenized. 

So, in the current residents of Greece of Asiatic origin (Pontians) has created the illusion that they are genuine descendants of the ancient Greeks. Present inhabitants of Greece from Asia Minor, however, originate from a medley of Asian tribes who lived in region over the centuries. The connecting links which unite them with the other inhabitants of Greece (eg. Vlachs, Albanians, Slavs), is the common Orthodox Christian faith and the use of Romaika language (Modern Greek), which were imposed during the Byzantine period several times by force. The refugees from Asia Minor to Greece and particularly to Macedonia, have no racial connection to the ancient Greek colonists (eg. ancient Greek colonists created Marseille, but today there are no claims that Marseille is Greek), but are a population medley of Georgians, Armenians, Seljuk, especially Laz, mixed with innumerable other natives. 

*Multinational Asia Minor in antiquity* 

The mixing of peoples and cultures, which has been in Asia Minor, the biggest crossroads of peoples on Earth, not the likes you have seen anywhere in the world. Nobody can say (with certainty) what peoples, what nations inhabited today's Asia Minor. Ancient peoples who lived in the area: Hittites, Phrygians, Mysians, Cimmerians, Bithynians, Cappadocians, Lydians, Pisidians, Lycaonians, Isaurians, Leleges, Carians, Lycians, Ionians, Aeolians, Galatians (divided into three tribes: Tectosages, Tolistobogii, Trocmi) etc.. dividing Ancient Greeks in Asia Minor (not called so at the time, this name appeared after the fourth to fifth century AD) in 15 countries, bringing mostly the names of the people who lived in them, which was to the north: Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, west: Mysia, Lydia, Caria to the south: Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphilia, Cilicia and middle: Phrygian Isauria, Lycaonia, Galatia and Cappadocia. Galatia, for example, was a country already in the third century BC, which was inhabited by Celtic tribes. Later became a Roman province. The residents were addressed in the "letter to the Galatians" of the Apostle Paul. 

*Multinational Asia Minor 
and the Byzantine and Ottoman period*

Something similar happened during the later Byzantine period, when the territories of Asia Minor were organized into: East, Armeniakon Thrakesion, Opsikion, Optimatou, Boukellarion, Paphlagonia, Chaldia, Koloneia, Sebasteia, Lykandou, Seleukeia, Kibyrrhaiotai, Cyprus, Samos (included and Smyrna) and Aegean (islands). Backed by professional military forces, composed of Armenians, Syrians, etc. locals. At plateau, the origin of the inhabitants were Armenian, Syrian or mixed. Following the 7th century. A.D. appeared Arabs, who came up and Istanbul, while, as we will examine in more detail below, were too extensive Slavic settlements to meet population gaps due to wars and plagues. During the 11th century invaded Mongolia, which prevailed under the leadership of Selcuk. After the decline of the rule of Selcuk, Ottoman Turks appeared (osmanli), who in 1453 conquered Constantinople. Later, Anatolia was divided into vilayets of the Ottoman Empire.

Here I must make a note: The name Turks is derived from Turany, who lived in Central Asia. Kemal Ataturk was the one that imposed by law, the common name for all Turkish residents of the country in which they live hundreds of different tribes. To say that today's Turkey, they are "pure Turkish" is a phenomenon that is related to our claim that we are "pure Greeks". The more bastard you are, the more insistently seeks blood purity. In this article, the term "Turkish" is used conventionally with more geographical, ethnological despite complexion. then invaded Asia Minor, found established various peoples of Turkish origin, such as Turkmen, who had come from Central Asia. Different ethnos are Laz... Other Asia Minor, but non-Turkish races are Circassians or Circassians, the Iberians (Georgians), Kurds, Roma, Armenians, Jews and others.


_Asia Minor_ _
_ _in the 12th century._ _A.D.
_
*The Multinational Seacoast*

For many indigenous peoples provide information Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus and others. 

*Persian kingdom of Pontus* 

The Kingdom of Pontus (northern coastal part of the Asia Minor peninsula), which the Greeks 'claim', is actually the kingdom of the Persian king Mithridates, which was abolished by the Romans. Had nothing to do with Greeks. The population was in the majority of non-Greek origin. Composed of different tribes, speaking 22 languages. The Romans succeeded in breaking it after long struggles and turned it into a province of the Roman Empire. Gradually, all parts of Pontus were annexed to the Roman Empire. The Christianization of the people started in the 3rd century.

The Byzantine Seacoast 

The period of Roman occupation and the prevalence of Christianity marked the loss of the name "Greek (Hellene)" -which, moreover, in some cases, had acquired religious significance stating the Pagan-and while prevalence of the name "Roman" survives to this day. During the Byzantine period principal people of the region were the Laz, who belong to the same race of Iberian Caucasus. The Laz were Christianized by Justinian (6th century)., like the tribes of Colchians, and Tzanata. Population decimation and Significant losses due to epidemics, such as p, x, the great plague of 541/542. Syklonisan pestilence empire and other times, as in 558, the 560/1, the 585, the 602, 746-747 etc.. According to calculations, the loss rate of the famine reaches 40% in Asia Minor.


*Important ethnographic changes 
during the Byzantine period*

The largest ethnographic changes suffered Byzantium was after the sixth century, when it became a massive installation of the Balkan Slavs. At the same time, the Arabs made ​​frequent attacks in Asia Minor and not a couple of times, but almost every year for about two hundred years. Several raids reached as the Black Sea, the Aegean, and even Konstantinopol. Whenever ​​invasion was made, killing, looting and taking captives into slavery followed, while the Byzantines/Romans were burning their crops, to deprive the enemy of supplies. Many cities of Asia Minor were entirely destroyed, depopulated, and abandoned. The same applies to the Aegean. Many islands had already been ravaged/depopulated by the middle of the seventh century, when Arab fleet began to dominate the eastern Mediterranean (the conquest of Crete (823-828)).

It is not difficult to imagine the consequences of this long process: a large part of Asia Minor had been destroyed and had reduced the population irreparably. He had created a huge demographic gap. Reduced populations indicates the settlement policy of the emperors. Various populations and tribes are used on a large scale for the implementation of this policy (Armenians, Syrians, Slavs, Bulgarians, etc). Farmers and soldiers were urgently needed . The Constans II (7th century). Slavs moved to Asia Minor in LARGE numbers. Justinian II moved a big number of Slavs to Bithynia. First was unlucky, because most of them deserted to the enemy, causing the emperor to impose harsh reprisals to their families. (Epiphany: "Diary", ed C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 365). However, we learn that 208,000 Slavs migrated to Bithynia at will during the decade of 760. (Nikephoros Patriarch: "Short History", ed C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1880, pp. 68-9). In the 8th century Syrians settled in Thrace.

Among the new settlers, the most important were the Armenians; flow into the empire lasted many centuries. Many settled in Cappadocia and in other parts of eastern Asia Minor, many in Thrace, others in the region of Pergamon. In 578, 10,000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).

*Multilingualism in Asia Minor*

There were two official languages spoken in the eastern and western Roman empire: Greek and Latin. The boundaries of each spread is not always clear. In general, however, with the exception of the Balkans, where there was a lot of language mixing, the western part of the empire used exclusively Latin and eastern exclusively Greek, MEANING that these were the languages of administration and educated people. Almost all educated in the West spoke Latin, but a large part of ordinary people do not even speak one or the other language. Constantinople, founded as Latin center in the East, like all capitals, was a melting pot of disparate elements. Among its inhabitants were Illyrians, Italians, Africans, whose native language was Latin, eg even of the Emperor Justinian. Any provincials had settled there and shuttled to commercial or government affairs. Among the many slaves were barbarians. Included many foreign and military units, from the 6th century consisted of either Germans or Huns and others from some of the most hardened provinces, as were the Isaurians, the Illyrians and Thracians. Syrians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians monks, who spoke little or no Greek, flocked to the capital impressing the locals with strange feats of asceticism. The ubiquitous Jews earn their living as craftsmen or merchants.

*The common Alexandrian, that a simplified form of ancient Greek language at all levels (phonetics / pronunciation, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), was built by the scholars of Alexandria for the bureaucratic needs of non-Greek sages and scholars.* Was then introduced lowercase letters and multitone to pronounce and emphasize each word correctly and facilitate to non-Greeks. Christians found ready this International language, 'English' of the time, and made ​​it their own. Note, that the common Alexandrian not spoken by mainly Greek but non Greek-speaking peoples (Jews, Syrians, Persians, etc.). Evolution of the language adopted and used in territory of Greece (that is by Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs etc.).* The current Greek, Romeiko, to be precise, is a variation of the Alexandrian (the language of the Gospels, the Fathers of the Church, the hymnology) and not of the primarily Greek of ancient Greeks.*

----------


## LABERIA

Part II 
http://www.freeinquiry.gr/pro.php?id=2165

*Byzantinization, not Hellenization of 'foreigners'*

Towards the end of the eighth century, the populations were reshuffled so much and so violently, that it is difficult to say which ethnic groups lived in what areas and in what numbers. Often stated that eliminating even painful, the main non-Greek language elements as the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Illyrians, the Byzantine Empire became more homogeneous. It is also argued that those who were not Greeks, Hellenized and gradually absorbed mainly through the Church and the Army, and how something like this happened mainly in the indigenous populations of Asia Minor and the Slavs in the Peloponnese and in other parts of Greece. (Read the " free inquiry ": What happened to so many Slavs? )

First of all, the very designation "Greek", which we use so freely, is completely absent from contemporary sources. Someone who lived south of Thessaly, could call themselves "Greek", even though they were Slavs, for example. This also applies to residents of other regions, whose names are derived from the name of the province, for example Paphlagonians or Thrakesion (from Thrakision Subject in Western Asia Minor). There was no concept of "Greekness".

This process was Byzantinization. Bithynia, for example, as mentioned above, Slavs settled in large numbers at the end of the seventh and towards the middle of the 8th century, some two hundred years later, the Byzantine Armada, assembled in 949 in an attempt to conquer Crete, included Slavs established in Opsikion (administrative name of Bithynia), who had their own leaders. [Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "Exhibition of Ceremonies (De cerimoniis)», CSHB, I, 666, 669]. 

During the next century, Anna Comnena mentions a town in Bithynia, " Sagoudaous , "apparently from the tribe of Sagoudaton, testified in Macedonia in the 7th century. (Anna Comnena: "Alex», xv. 2.4, ed B. Leib, iii, Paris, 1945, 192). 

Shortly thereafter, the Slav element in Bithynia reinforced by Emperor John Komnino, who set up groups of Serb prisoners near in Nicomedia. (Nikitas Choniates "History", ed J.-L. van Dieten, Berlin, 1975, 16). Serbian villages out even in these places in the 13th century.

----------


## Milan

> your linguistic arguments may be correct or may not be
> 
> even so, you can't conclude that early Greeks came from Anatolia
> IMO they came from Catacomb culture and spread from the Pontic steppe to the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan
> archeology shows war charriots and swords arrived like that in the Carpathian Basin and in Mycenia shortly after (ca 1650 BC)
> during or after the era of the Sea Peoples, 12 th - 10 th cent BC there were incursions into Anatolia, cfr the Mushki who fought the Assyrians alongside the Hurrites
> IMO these intruders were the forfathers of the Phrygians and Armenians
> Urartu was a multi-ethnic and multilingual federation ; at first the ruling elite spoke Hurrite, but later this Hurrite dynasty was replaced by an Armenian speaking dynasty


That is what make more geographical sense to me,movement of people,language spread and historical sources as i believe to be true,including this subclade of R1b.At the end is irrelevant whether migration came from east or north,but they might have come from north of Caucasus into the Armenian teritory and that area around,but from there they moved in Greece already as different languages.The Greek-Armenian-Indo Iranian split i mention prior.Greek into West,whereas Armenian(middle) Indo Iranian in East migration,they most probably covered vast area of the steppes too with different haplogroups but same language group.
The Phrygian language have little to do with Armenian,Phrygian would plot something in between Greek-Thracian similarities with Balto-Slavic (languages alike) in my opinion.Noted by Gimbutas too.Which again make geographic sense.Although sometimes was written in hybrid Greek-Phrygian sentences.
Which in my opinion can be interpreted coming from the Balkans and that area north of it.
Although there might be confusion with the name Muski which have eastern and western Mushki.Phrygians is assumed to have entered/invaded Anatolia from west,Macedon territory most probably.Bythinian,Phrygian,Mysian presense is well recorded in Asia minor covering vast land.

Chariots weren't used much in warfare in Greece,chariots at that time were present in many different places than just the Carpathian basin,their development is obsecure,also that Mycenaean culture borrowed from previous Minoan.I haven't checked the sword types from that times in different areas.For the chariots i give no much relevance to them.

----------


## Diurpaneus

> I thought you were claiming to be central Italian? There is no way a Central Italian would get 25-40% Asia Minor on National Geographic. How could you have gotten your Genographic results and not looked at the autosomal make up of Tuscans on it? They are 4% Asia Minor, lower than Greeks and Romanians, which makes sense from everything else we know about them, particularly in relationship to Greeks, where they plot north of even the more northern Greeks. 
> https://s22.postimg.io/y9x754ylb/Gen...uth_Europe.jpg


The genetic projects like National Geographic or Family Tree DNA rely on
circumstances,without having a statistical basis.
This database from Family Tree DNA contains only the results of the Romanian Ashkenazi Jews.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...ia/dna-results


https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

----------


## bicicleur

It is indeed possible too that Armenians and even Mushki entered through the Caucasus, but for Mycenians it seems very likely to me they came from the Pontic steppe just behind those who entered the Carpathian Basin.

Chariots were quite useless in Mycenian warfare. But the were present for status and ceremonial purpose.

----------

