New J1 map

@ Albanopolis,

E Hg came to Balkans from Minor Asia, (Konya 2000 BC)

today minor Asia is Turkey,

so E-V13 is Turkish,

how about that?

is that the correct logic?


or Hettits were in Turkey so they were Turks,
or that logic is Correct?
E-V13 comes from minor Asia?
I wasn't aware of that.
 
They might be muslim Trojans. ;)
Check DNA of Cyprus and you will laugh. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are identical. The wall seperating both communities looks crazy than ever. Identical people see themselves different. Greek Cypriots cluster so close with Turkish Cypriots that genetists are fighting among each other, if Turlish Cypriots are Muslim Greeks or Greek Cypriots are Helenized Turks. Absolutely sister countries.
 
In my opinion, most of the J1 in Europe is of Neolithic or Chalcolithic origin. The spread of J1 goes hand in hand with haplogroups E1b1b and T. All three haplogroups are common in the southern Levant, where agriculture arose, and would have spread via Anatolia, Greece and Italy, and by the intermediary of the numerous historical peoples from these areas. The Phoenicians, Etruscans, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Arabs all contributed to the further dispersal of J1, often reinforcing the frequency in regions already settled by Levantine/Anatolian people during the Neolithic. It is ludicrous to think that only one historical tribe (meaning post-Bronze Age, as historical implies that writing existed) is responsible for the presence of J1, E1b1b or T in any part of Europe.

In Iberia, J1 is obviously a cumulation of Neolithic, Phoenician and Arabic settlements. IMHO, the Neolithic farmers were the main contributors, because the hotspot of J1 in Portugal and Andalusia matches the hotspot of E1b1b, J2 and T, which means that the four of them came together. Considering the proportions, it rules out an Arabic or North African origin, and points rather at a Levantine/Anatolian origin. This hotspot also matches the earliest known Neolithic sites in Iberia.

Likewise J1 in Central France and Germany is most probably of Neolithic origin, because the Arabs, Phoenicians and other historical Middle Eastern people didn't settle the region. Only the Romans might have contributed to slightly higher levels in France - but they obviously didn't settled North Germany and Poland.

The J1 hotspot in Bosnia is almost certainly due to the colonisation of the region by Muslims from Turkey.

The high frequencies of J1 in Greece, Albania and Italy correspond to the high frequencies of J2, G2a, T and E1b1b, which also confirms a Neolithic to Bronze Age Levantine/Anatolian origin (probably not all in one time, but in several waves, some bringing more of one haplogroup than others depending of the exact place of origin; for example, the Etruscans seem to have had more J1, J2 and G2a, but less E1b1b and T, while the Phoenicians appear to have had particularly lots of J1, T and Q by Near-Eastern standards).[/QUOTE
From what I see in the map, a possible source of J1 in Albania at least, could be the Gypsy population. I notice that Hungarians have a hotspot, so do Romanians, Bulgarians that have a considerable gypsy presence. Since Gypsies originate in India they crossed arabian peninsola at some point.
 
In my opinion, most of the J1 in Europe is of Neolithic or Chalcolithic origin. The spread of J1 goes hand in hand with haplogroups E1b1b and T. All three haplogroups are common in the southern Levant, where agriculture arose, and would have spread via Anatolia, Greece and Italy, and by the intermediary of the numerous historical peoples from these areas. The Phoenicians, Etruscans, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Arabs all contributed to the further dispersal of J1, often reinforcing the frequency in regions already settled by Levantine/Anatolian people during the Neolithic. It is ludicrous to think that only one historical tribe (meaning post-Bronze Age, as historical implies that writing existed) is responsible for the presence of J1, E1b1b or T in any part of Europe.

In Iberia, J1 is obviously a cumulation of Neolithic, Phoenician and Arabic settlements. IMHO, the Neolithic farmers were the main contributors, because the hotspot of J1 in Portugal and Andalusia matches the hotspot of E1b1b, J2 and T, which means that the four of them came together. Considering the proportions, it rules out an Arabic or North African origin, and points rather at a Levantine/Anatolian origin. This hotspot also matches the earliest known Neolithic sites in Iberia.

Likewise J1 in Central France and Germany is most probably of Neolithic origin, because the Arabs, Phoenicians and other historical Middle Eastern people didn't settle the region. Only the Romans might have contributed to slightly higher levels in France - but they obviously didn't settled North Germany and Poland.

The J1 hotspot in Bosnia is almost certainly due to the colonisation of the region by Muslims from Turkey.

The high frequencies of J1 in Greece, Albania and Italy correspond to the high frequencies of J2, G2a, T and E1b1b, which also confirms a Neolithic to Bronze Age Levantine/Anatolian origin (probably not all in one time, but in several waves, some bringing more of one haplogroup than others depending of the exact place of origin; for example, the Etruscans seem to have had more J1, J2 and G2a, but less E1b1b and T, while the Phoenicians appear to have had particularly lots of J1, T and Q by Near-Eastern standards).[/QUOTE
From what I see in the map, a possible source of J1 in Albania at least, could be the Gypsy population. I notice that Hungarians have a hotspot, so do Romanians, Bulgarians that have a considerable gypsy presence. Since Gypsies originate in India they crossed arabian peninsola at some point.

This southern levant theory of yours for T as being with J1 and E1b1b does not seem logical. If they where there together at the same time, then they would be in the balkans together. But T arrived in levant/Egypt/africa later than E. my guess it was residing in the northern levant and might have filled some void in southern lands after people already migrated. I can only imagine the initial interest for T was in the triangle of persian gulf, black sea and caspian sea in very early times. Basically what I am saying is that T was in anatolia far far earlier than in southern Levant or Egypt.
Remember the Phoenicians are northern levant people.
I envisage that T and J2 traveled with G2 into europe. I believe they where the early HGathers who became traders and farmers later
 
Haplogroup T is actually older in the levant than in anatolia
 
Haplogroup T is actually older in the levant than in anatolia

Yes it is , but only the northern levant and not the southern levant. This is due to babylonian trade with the north ( assyria, phoenicia etc) , while the south ( israel) hebrews and palestianians was always invaded by baylonians. The one time mass group of 10000 prisoners carried to babylonia was around the year 500BC.
 
Check DNA of Cyprus and you will laugh. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are identical. The wall seperating both communities looks crazy than ever. Identical people see themselves different. Greek Cypriots cluster so close with Turkish Cypriots that genetists are fighting among each other, if Turlish Cypriots are Muslim Greeks or Greek Cypriots are Helenized Turks. Absolutely sister countries.

And since Greeks don't have the newly arrived haplogroups from Central Asia in them, it means that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are muslim and christian Cypriots who were all Greek before the Turkish arrival.

The same is true for Greece. Yes, there were 600.000 muslims out of a 3-4 million population that were deported to Turkey from Greece. But the fact is that these people were mostly turcofied Greeks. Much like the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina are actually Balkan Slavs and not Turks.

In the Ottoman empire conversion was a one way street. Turks were not Hellenized. That was an anathema.

Same is true for Armenians. They lived among the Turks for centuries, but like the Greeks they don't have any newly arrived central asian haplogroup in them. They are close to modern Turks though, because the Ottomans Turcofied many Armenians.

As for the Albanians, the muslim Albanians may have intermarried with Turks, but they would inherit mostly old Anatolian genes. Genes which were quite identical to the Greeks to begin with. Bosniaks may have mixed with Turks too, but like Albanians they would inherit mostly Anatolian genes which were once Greek, Hitite, Armenian.
 
Albanian-Turkish intermarrieges have happened all the time, but they chose to stay in Turkey. Economically Albania was a hell compared to Turkey. Even Albanians went to Istambul to make money. Many never came back. As bad as it was it had something good for Albanian proper. It remained clean of Turkish genes. Had they left their genes Mongolic haplogroups should have been present among Albanians. I mean haplo Q, N,. Even J2a which is predominant among Turks is low in Albania.
 
Yes indeed autosomal genetics show that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are largely indistinguishable genetically. Regarding the rhetorical question that you pose whether Turkish Cypriots are Muslim Greeks or Greek Cypriots are Hellenized Turks, the answer is pretty obvious. It is the former and the evidence is below:

1. Greeks have been present in Cyprus since the 12th century BC, while Turks only arrived in 1571 AD. That is almost 3000 later and just 400 years ago. Check a nice map of Iron Age Cyprus below:

http://explorethemed.com/IACyprus.asp?c=1

2. During the Ottoman rule of Cyprus (1571-1878), special benefits were given to the oppressed Cypriots who chose to convert from Christianity to Islam. They paid less taxes and had a more humane treatment overall. This forced a substantial number of Greek Cypriots to temporarily 'switch' to Islam. When the British took control of Cyprus in 1878, many of these individuals asked from the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus to accept them to convert back to Christianity, but he was so 'open-minded' as to refuse them. Thus they remained permanently in the Turkish Cypriot community of the island. All these are documented in historical texts and manuscripts.

3. A paper by Cruciani et al (2007), found the frequency of E-V13 reaching 10% among Turkish Cypriots. This settles the issue once for good, unless someone believes that E-V13 is a Turkish marker and not a Greek/Balkan marker.

As Albanopolis states, however, I agree that the division of the island seems even more irrational now..
 
Dianatomia soy said :"Same is true for Armenians. They lived among the Turks for centuries, but like the Greeks they don't have any newly arrived central asian haplogroup in them"

is there a research for every one of them?? or just some sided and relative reseaches which are made on 50-100 people?
 
"1. Greeks have been present in Cyprus since the 12th century BC, while Turks only arrived in 1571 AD. That is almost 3000 later and just 400 years ago."

not true,why you considering only Ottomans as Turks? why don't you mention the Mamluk conquest of cyprus?Mamluks were kipchak-oguz turks.

"2. ..
When the British took control of Cyprus in 1878, many of these individuals asked from the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus to accept them to convert back to Christianity, but he was so 'open-minded' as to refuse them. Thus they remained permanently in the Turkish Cypriot community of the island. All these are documented in historical texts and manuscripts. "

could you give any of that texts and manuscripts? and any evidence for your claims?

"3. A paper by Cruciani et al (2007), found the frequency of E-V13 reaching 10% among Turkish Cypriots" is that paper is a research on all turkish cypriots,or just 50-60 persons of them?
 
albanopolis
please try to admit the facts wthout any nationalistic emotions and motivations,the history of humanity doesn't walks with that way
 
Do you think anyone is stupid enough to believe anymore that the nazis killed millions of Jews? Jews moved on to bless the middle east.
 
"1. Greeks have been present in Cyprus since the 12th century BC, while Turks only arrived in 1571 AD. That is almost 3000 later and just 400 years ago."

not true,why you considering only Ottomans as Turks? why don't you mention the Mamluk conquest of cyprus?Mamluks were kipchak-oguz turks.
This statement needs clarification. Mameluks were divided in two dynasties first Bahri (1250-1382) had Kipchak origin, while second Burji (1382-1517) was of Cricassian origin. Cyprus was never conquered by Mameluks but had become tributary state in 1426. So it is correct to say that Turks arrived in Cyprus in 1571.
 
I really wonder if Maciamo has included those figures from Capelli et al 2009 for this map....

I really doubt it....

1pijq1.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 81113 times.

Back
Top