Greece and Turkey genetic map( today)

Originally posted by Maju That's it: Turkmen didn't arrive to an empty Anatolia but to a rather densely populated one. In this case also it's clear that they made up the upper class of warriors and needed scores of servants to cultivate their newly acquired lands and provide them with other services.Turk migration is very recent and is well documented, so this scheme shouldn't provoke any major doubt.

Wishful thinkings ......... Very interesting but you can not even see the datas shown on the map because you do not want to see them... And you are talking with slogans.......

Maju you do not even know a few years earlier history of Turkey but you are claiming that Turkish migration is very well documented....Give us a name of a book that you read on Turkish or steppe history...

Yes Turkish arrival in Anatolia is indeed very well documented. Earlier arrivals to Balkan much before Anatolia have also been very well documented too....You can read Byzantine chronicals. But what are your sources? Give us name........ Do you know other Turkic states of that time in the world?

When crusaders came into Anatolia after e few years later of Menzigert they call it Turcia after seen the situation in Western Anatolia. Turks have occupied the whole Anatolia from 1071 to 1074 until Marmara Sea. As you know at the 1. Crusader crusaders have taken Nicae which was the capital city of Turks in Anatolia on the shores of Marmara Sea.

There were certainly mixes with other populations but it is not as much as you imagine. Just compare Uighurs, Turkish and Kazan Tatars gene composition on the map. In Kyrgyzs it seems as they have more IE genes than any other European state. Uzbeks have barely %15 Mongoloid genes but as history tells us Kazaks are indeed Mongolian dominated society and I have told about this historical fact many times in my posts in All Empires. It is clear that Turks do not have Mongoloid dominance at all except Kazaks. Despite this fact; insisting on a prerequisite idea such as "Turks were Mongoloids" and relating this prerequisite "If they are not Mongoloid now it is beacause they have mixed with other Anatolian populations" is totally wrong and nonsense. Just look at the genetic map.

Claiming that Turks were mixed but Greeks remained unmixed is totally wrong and idioticly nationalistic idea. In addition to this, let's assume that Turks were Mongoloids. Is there a rule of unmixed during their way Mongolia to Anatolia? In fact you are claiming that a mixture can only occure in Anatolia........ How do you believe in those kind of craps?

 

Claiming that Turks were mixed but Greeks remained unmixed is totally wrong and idioticly nationalistic idea. In addition to this, let's assume that Turks were Mongoloids. Is there a rule of unmixed during their way Mongolia to Anatolia? In fact you are claiming that a mixture can only occure in Anatolia........ How do you believe in those kind of craps?

It is very likely that they did and were exchanged later on. Since in Ottoman times, beside language barriers, there was also religious ones. Inter-faith marriages were not allowed and while the prima-nocta rule did take place, it doubtful a Pasha could be "strong" enough to actually affect the blood of a general population. It was Turks in the end who had the power of assimilation, not slavs, kurds, greeks, armenians, albanians etc.

Originally posted by Alparslan Claiming that Turks were mixed but Greeks remained unmixed is totally wrong and idioticly nationalistic idea. In addition to this, let's assume that Turks were Mongoloids. Is there a rule of unmixed during their way Mongolia to Anatolia? In fact you are claiming that a mixture can only occure in Anatolia........ How do you believe in those kind of craps?

Well no, this or any similar statement, has nothing to do with nationalism but with what scholars/scientists have to say based on several years of research...

As I've said far too many times, of course Hellines are not a "pure race", but the available data does demonstrate that any potential introgression into the Hellinic gene pool were minor and did not replace the indigenous people. Hence, Fallmerayer's thesis has been disproved.

I'm not refering to Fallmerayer's deluted theory that the 'modern' day Hellines are not the righful heirs of the ancient Hellinic culture, but to the part of his drivel that suggested that the ancient Hellines underwent a natural extermination by consecutive waves of nomadic peoples and that what has come to be present-day Hellas, is totally inhabited by Slavs, Albanians, and Hellinic-speaking Byzantine populations that have moved here from Anatolia..

As for Turks, why speak of nationalism when your very own scholars agree with the assimilation 'theory' that has been mentioned in previous posts??

(From a similar topic in this fora (see Etruscans)

Let's see what Turkish scholars have to say about this.

"The gene of Turks, who moved to Anatolia from Central Asia along with Seljuks, was not widely spread in this region, officer of National Geographic Spencer Wells considers.

This statement was not a surprise for Turkish scholars, as most of them have a similar point of view, reported the Yerkir newspaper. Professor of Faculty of Molecular Biology and Genetics of Istanbul Bogazici University Aslihan Tolun reported that research heald 5-6 years ago along with foreign scholars showed Turks were �multi-elemental�.
In Tolun's words, �in genetic respect Turks are very much like the Balkan peoples, Caucasians, Armenians and Arabs, however they have peculiarities.�
�We never stayed at the same place and easily became close with local populations, preserving our language and our culture. Thus, it is natural there is not Turkish gene in pure form,� said professor of Medical University of Ankara Khakan Shataroghlu."

The most interesting part of this study, is that Spencer Wells, Aslihan Tolun and Khakan Shataroghlu all mention SELJUKS nothing "older" NOT even Goturks.

For your convenience the article from Milliyet news:
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2005/05/17/guncel/agun.html

What region?

Kotumeyil, we can, we are son of great  warriors(Turks), and son of first civilization builders(Hitits and so on)

so we are perfect mixing

just joking.

 

I think that it's the best way to brush some specimen from buccal mucasa and to send it to genealogy laboratories to be analysed. So one may learn her mtDNA group for her mother lineage or his mtDNA for mother lineage and his Y chromosome for paternal lineage. There are many laboratories around the world.

I hope that genealogy will help the peace in the world. There are many nations in the world and they make wars and kill each other. Why? But now genealogy talks about the seven daughters of Eve or about Y chromosome hallotypes.  With  genetic analyse; a woman who lives in England may learn her mothers African origin/ geomother: http://www.geogene.com/highres/geomother/wallchart.php

As a person living in Turkey I want to say that I like Greeks. Because my mother's grandfather (a villager from western Black Sea Region of Turkey) told us that we were a mixture of Rum (Greek speaking people of Anotolia) and Oghuz and K�pchak. My family and I present ourselves as Turks, we are citizens of Turkish Republic. My family and I speak Turkish but we know that we are a mixture both genetically and culturaly. This point of view gives me "love of peace" and "love of mult�culturalism".

There are many articles about genealogy on web pages. Many people in USA tries to learn their roots and they have their own surname web pages.  One had learned his grandfather's origin was from a part in Germany and his genetic Y Ch. lineage had showed similarity with Huns. Is it terrible for a man living in USA with Amarican culture to learn his genetically Asian origin?! No... I think it is a new way to invent a new world in peace, to love everyone/everyculture around the world.

So why is it difficult to face our genes in Anotolia?

This Sykes is a little too demagogic and not very scientific.

First, the famous "7 daughters of Eve" are actually only the 7 (actually 8) female (Mithocondrial) lineages of Europe, not all Earth. Second, it doesn't mean that other females didn't have continuous descendance just that at some point all that survived to reproduction in those lineages were males, so the purely female lineage shown in MtDNA is not found.

Finally, how does Sykes know that such Chromosome is Gengis' and not of some other less famous but reproductively more succesful guy? It could be from Gengis' brother, you know. Impossible to say. In fact they could all be from different guys all belonging to Gengis' or other clan, all descendant from the same forgotten patriarch.

Making sensationalist claims is not very scientifical, though it may help to catch public attention.


Edited by Maju

genetic tests are based on the skull shapes and basic features, not considering if he has light skin or his mRNA from mother

Sorry, but that is totally inaccurate. GENETIC results derive from the GENETIC ANALYSIS while ANTHROPOLOGISTS conduct their research on scull shapes.. and I think you mean mtDNA a.k.a 'mitochondrial DNA'



Anyway, what the " the superior race of Greko-Romans" is, I honestly have no idea, but since the question turned to Hellinic presence in Adana, Konya and Ankara... wikipedia has a very interesting little article on this:

Based on French census files of 1915 the total population of Asia Minor (not including Eastern Thrace, the vilayets of the orient & the city of Constantinople) was 10,372,411 persons of all nationalities and religions.

More specifically the distribution of differerent ethnic groups as per Vilayet and Sanjak is as follows;

• Sanjak of Uskudar:

Greeks: 74,457 -Turks: 124,281 -Armen.: 35,560 -Rest: (All: 258,490)

• Mutersaflik of Izmit:

Greeks: 73,134 -Turks: 116,949 -Armen.: 48,635 -Rest: (All: 242,333)

• Vilayet of the Dardanelles:

Greeks: 32,830 -Turks: 138,902 -Armen.: 2,336 -Rest: (All: 177,894)

• Vilayet of Izmir:

1) Sanjak of Izmir;

Greeks: 449,044 -Turks: 219,494 -Armen.: 11,395 -Rest: (All: 754,046)

2) Sanjak of Manisa;

Greeks: 83,625 -Turks: 247,778 -Armen.: 3,960 -Rest: (All: 337,925)

3) Sanjak of Aydin;

Greeks: 54,633 -Turks: 162,554 -Armen.: 634 -Rest: (All: 219,959)

4) Sanjak of Mentese;

Greeks: 27,798 -Turks: 197,317 -Armen.: 430 -Rest: (All: 205,457)

5) Sanjak of Denizli;

Greeks: 7,710 -Turks: 113,700 -Armen.: 0 -Rest: (All: 142,142)

• Vilayet of Bursa:

1) Sanjak of Bursa;

Greeks: 82,503 -Turks: 215,492 -Armen.: 50,809 -Rest: (All: 353,976)

2) Sanjak of Balikesir;

Greeks: 150,946 -Turks: 194,391 -Armen.: 17,882 -Rest: (All: 239,236)

3) Sanjak of Kutahya;

Greeks: 16,800 -Turks: 244,698 -Armen.: 5,040 -Rest: (All: 250,938)

4) Sanjak of Afyon;

Greeks: 1,200 -Turks: 291,317 -Armen.: 8,800 -Rest: (All: 317,017)

5) Sanjak of Erdogrul(Bilecig);

Greeks: 26,970 -Turks: 246,851 -Armen.: 7,495 -Rest: (All: 408,957)

• Vilayet of Konya:

1) Sanjak of Konya;

Greeks: 8,589 -Turks: 294,191 -Armen.: 6,900 -Rest: (All: 325,180)

2) Sanjak of Atalya;

Greeks: 10,253 -Turks: 196,087 -Armen.: 489 -Rest: (All: 207,258)

3) Sanjak of Burdur;

Greeks: 2,565 -Turks: 149,968 -Armen.: 987 -Rest: (All: 153,565)

4) Sanjak of Nigde;

Greeks: 55,518 -Turks: 174,140 -Armen.: 753 -Rest: (All: 230,490)

5) Sanjak of Hamid Abad(Isparta);

Greeks: 10,096 -Turks: 174,337 -Armen.: 600 -Rest: (All: 185,056)

• Vilayet of Ankara:

1) Sanjak of Ankara;

Greeks: 3,154 -Turks: 265,283 -Armen.: 14,019 -Rest: (All: 283,043)

2) Sanjak of Kirsehir;

Greeks: 717 -Turks: 116,999 -Armen.: 346 -Rest: (All: 118,062)

3) Sanjak of Kayseri;

Greeks: 23,201 -Turks: 157,331 -Armen.: 44,985 -Rest: (All: 226,912)

4) Sanjak of Yozgat;

Greeks: 18,801 -Turks: 128,787 -Armen.: 39,448 -Rest: (All: 194,281)

• Vilayet of Kastamonu:

1) Sanjak of Kastamonu;

Greeks: 10,783 -Turks: 334,337 -Armen.: 1,424 -Rest: (All: 346,552)

2) Sanjak of Sinop;

Greeks: 7,986 -Turks: 319,224 -Armen.: 507 -Rest: (All: 324,738)

3) Sanjak of Kankiri;

Greeks: 1,143 -Turks: 165,407 -Armen.: 960 -Rest: (All: 167,510)

4) Sanjak of Bolu;

Greeks: 5,007 -Turks: 119,467 -Armen.: 314 -Rest: (All: 129,846)

• Vilayet of Sivas:

1) Sanjak of Sivas;

Greeks: 7,702 -Turks: 451,214 -Armen.: 64,070 -Rest: (All: 522,986)

2) Sanjak of Amasya;

Greeks: 36,739 -Turks: 198,000 -Armen.: 50,600 -Rest: (All: 285,339)

3) Sanjak of Karahisar-Sarki

Greeks: 27,761 -Turks: 38,500 -Armen.: 18,046 -Rest: (All: 84,307)

4) Sanjak of Tokat;

Greeks: 27,174 -Turks: 151,800 -Armen.: 37,919 -Rest: (All: 216,893)

• Vilayet of Trebzon:

1) Sanjak of Trabzon;

Greeks: 154,774 -Turks: 404,656 -Armen.: 26,321 -Rest: (All: 583,751)

2) Sanjak of Samsun(Djanik);

Greeks: 136,087 -Turks: 233,454 -Armen.: 22,585 -Rest: (All: 392,126)

3) Sanjak of Lazistan;

Greeks: 2,924 -Turks: 231,885 -Armen.: 0 -Rest: (All: 234,809)

4) Sanjak of Argiropolis(Gumus-Haneh);

Greeks: 59,748 -Turks: 87,871 -Armen.: 1,718 -Rest: (All: 149,337)

---

Of course, this cencus is dated 1915..but there was obviously presence prior to this..


Now, since Ibn Battuta is mentioned, let's note that there is absolutely NO account of Turks in tents in his trip 'part 5' which is about Anatolia but in 'part 6' while refering to the 'land of the Golden Hord'

See the map for the difference between the two areas:



Here are links to both trips 5 and 6 :

Trip Five

Trip Six

Note that the intermixing of the Hellinic and Turk/Mongol population is recorded in his 6th trip where we see the following info about the Khan's child : (1332-1333)

"When they reached Astrakhan, Ibn Battuta learned that the third wife of the Khan was pregnant. The Khan gave her permission to go back to her father - the King of the Byzantine Empire - to have her baby in Constantinople."

But 4-5 million or 12 million its millions to just tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands Turk inmigrants at the time

Not hundreds of thousands. I'd say more than million. Of course not all with the Seljuks. The heaviest Turkmen immigrations came with the Mongolian invasions after the Seljuks and with Timur. It was kind of a pushing effect similar to the nations massive immigrations after the Huns, shaping the modern European ethnicities.

The Akkoyunlu State which was a Turkmen state of Eastern Anatolia Turkecized the region after the Seljuks. During the Battle of Otlukbeli, more than 150 thousand Turkmens were massacred by Ottomans. And it was just the western army of the Akkoyunlu. Ottomans have placed Turkmens to the new conquered Balkans with the "iskan" policy. And then, after the Balkan wars, those Turkmens great great sons have returned to motherlands. Of course they were mixed there. But they were Turkmens in origin.

info about the Khan's child

Of course they mixed. But always the ruler class. For example Suleyman Pasha, fighting against the Byzanthine Empire, was the grandson of the emperor. Orhan Begy had a Greek wife, so as his sons. In fact the Ottoman ruler class and Byzanthine ruler class were so mixed that Fatih gave all titles of Konstantiniye to the old Byzanthine authorities. He was noone but a Muslim Basileos for them.

But I am not talking about the high elite class, Ottoman Istanbul or Konstantiniye or whatever. I am talking about original Anatolia, and Turks. Ottoman Empire was always referred as Turks by the Europeans, altough they called Turks as Etrak-i bi-idrak (Turks disable of understanding). They were definately referring to Anatolian Turk, the original one, not the devshirme pashazades of Konstantiniyye.

Originally posted by strategos In the eyes of the Greeks, anyone who converted to Islam was no longer a Greek, and now a Turk. This is why there is a large genetic similarity between Greeks and Turks.

what about muslim greeks,rums in anatolia, why are they still greek
so
converting is not so easy, no group of people can be converded in only 400-500 years
this claim is totally nonsense
there are so many Selcuk old-texts about movements of foreigners to Greece and outer anatolia


and why do only we look like to you??
why the converted people are only us?

you greeks ideas about this theme is not about nationalism or racism
, its totally about ignorance and nonsense

do you believe that youre 100%greek

what about invasion of Persians to Greece
what about invasion of Turks to Greece
what about invansion of others to Greece

so what about you, do u still believe being with hard dark hair is related with being madetarrian,

i see many greeks on tv, they also look like persian

no group of people can be converded in only 400-500 years

History has good examples of the opposite:

• Iberians were speaking Iberian in 100 BCE and they were speaking Latin in 400 CE and considered themselves totally Romans, the same can be said of Gauls and others.
• Most of Hispano-America has been transformed into Spanish nations, still most of their blood is native. Spanish presence was only of three centuries.
  

Also, Turk presence in Anatolia has much more than 500 years. If I don't recall badly, when the crusaders arrived in 12th century there were already Turks in large parts of Anatolia. Add to that the "ethnic exchange" done in the 1920s with Greece and... voil�!