Classification

[tahir0010]

TahiritisnotcaseofKemal,alsoismentionedMohame
damn this posts,
I have problem with space bar every first line,

Tahir, he is correct,
the stories about Kemal Mohamet B Barbarossa etc, are saying about a Greek-Rum Mother,
there is also the father case like the case of Imbrahim Pargali (Greek father), who ended as Turk married Suleiman's sister.
even today is strangely tabboo, cause you change not only language, not only religion, but even friends, social circles, and most of times your homeland,
At Ottoman empire the priviledge citizen was the Turk, so to mary a Greek girl, or a Greek man,Ment by force or choice to baptise Muslim and Turk,
To understand this, the pre-Con/polis fall like Sebasteia(Sivas) Magnisia-Philadelpheia (Manissa) dilemma language or religion, gave results for Ottoman empire but not in big% until 1923,
the existance and exchange of Turkophonoi shows clearly the clear limit and division of society to the 2 cells the old Greek-Rum and the new Ottoman-Turkish,
major assimilations happened at 1923, and the dilemma-choice, leave or stay,
Today is different, today they follow the man's nationality language and religion, but not at that times,
(sorry for the sufragettes, that is the way it is done)
as there are plenty of cases of famous Turks that have a Greek ancestor,
Same way there are plenty of runaways who ended to live at exile, or comitted suicide to avoid married a 'different'

Sorry who is correct me or Hercules. So you are saying at the time of the Ottomans there was mixing among the Greeks, and Turks. Now obviously it is not as common. I know that now Turks and Greeks do not get along there is no denying that. Even I had a friend in school who was a Cypriot and his mother hated me for no other reason than I am a Turk. Obviously the younger generation cares less about the Greek, Turk rivalry. Also the village of Şahin or Echinos in Greece is a mainly Turkish village is it not? I am sure if you traced there ancestry back there were probably greeks who converted to Islam.

 

[Guivre]

Sorry who is correct me or Hercules. So you are saying at the time of the Ottomans there was mixing among the Greeks, and Turks. Now obviously it is not as common. I know that now Turks and Greeks do not get along there is no denying that. Even I had a friend in school who was a Cypriot and his mother hated me for no other reason than I am a Turk. Obviously the younger generation cares less about the Greek, Turk rivalry. Also the village of Şahin or Echinos in Greece is a mainly Turkish village is it not? I am sure if you traced there ancestry back there were probably greeks who converted to Islam.

I do not know the exact situation in Greece, but I know what happened in Bulgaria. It is as Yetos described, when there was mixing the result ended up with the Turkish. Under Turkish rule my dad's village was called "Bulgarian Ovajik" nearby there was a village called "Turkish Ovajik", where the Turks lived. People lived separately. Bulgarian converts to Muhammadism (what it is called in Bulgaria, not an affectation on my part) were classified differently than Turks.

 

[Yetos]

Sorry who is correct me or Hercules. So you are saying at the time of the Ottomans there was mixing among the Greeks, and Turks. Now obviously it is not as common. I know that now Turks and Greeks do not get along there is no denying that. Even I had a friend in school who was a Cypriot and his mother hated me for no other reason than I am a Turk. Obviously the younger generation cares less about the Greek, Turk rivalry. Also the village of Şahin or Echinos in Greece is a mainly Turkish village is it not? I am sure if you traced there ancestry back there were probably greeks who converted to Islam.

First,
yes I say that there was no general mixing among Greeks and Turks,
and the limited one (by force or choice) ended to Turks, like the cases of Barbarossa, Imbrahim Pargali, Mohamet.
Not to Greeks,
If there is a mix in East Greek populations it is in Pontos and Cappadokia Greeks with Laz Iranian and local Anatolia population (Mithridates)
and in minor Asia with Phrygian and Galates
and through a social procces of 1400 years and common religion

Echinos is another story, At West Thrace live Greeks, Turks and Pomakoi
Geneticks have prove their existance more than 2000 ago at the area, stronlgy endogamous, (HBO's results)
Pomaks might come from ancient Thracians or more East from Meditterean , their old language needs to be researched,
Pomaks are not Turks neither Greeks nether Bulgarians,
their older linguistic idiom is closer to Bulgarian due to their own Satem language (they assimilated Slavic easily due to satem, than Greek Centum)
The terminaton Pomaks is given by Ottoman's in area to all thosewho converted to Islam,
But they are not all Pomaks, Pomaks have nothing to do with these Pomakoi,
But Politics and religion is giving them either Bulgarian, either Turks, either Greeks,
Officially they are Greek Muslims by international treaty,
They are Smart, once they had 2-3 passports, Greek German Turkish Bulgarian
Today only 2 one from Eu and one Turkish

But Turkish policy wants them Turks, cause they are Muslims
there was a possibility to exile them at 1952-5 When turkish progrom Greeks of Con/polis,
But no Need, 80% of Pomaks do not have Turkish concious, only their priests,
it is another case the Turks of W Thrace and another the Pomakoi,
for you officially they are all Turks,
For me offcially they are all Greeks,
for a Bulgarian they are Bulgarians
but for them they are Pomakoi neither Greeks neither Turks neither Bulgarians.


there is astrange kind ofEndogamy in Greeks especially at villages from Antique,
and not only with foreigners but sometimes even among Greeks due to origin,
that code broke one time from Roman empire due to christianity,
after that at least she should Christian,
and at modern times especially the last 40 years,

in ancient Greeks the primary marriage was designed by parents,
not by love,
even today that code exists, but major marriages are by love, with parents agreement,
due to convert to christianity,
BUT still it is a curse not to have the parents agreement,
it might drive you out of family conectivity.
Although you can steal your wife, and marry her, but if parents do not agree,
then exile was the way, well not so strong today, but still is tabboo,

generally Greek are not endogamous, but they had a strange code,
the last 50 years, it is open, so open that I am afraid, the future scientists will say about a raid in Greece by the results comparing the pre-1860 and after 2017,

 

[LABERIA]

Of course there was mixing. What's the point now? Ottoman Empire was good and Sultan was the chief of Helsinki Humans Right Watch?
BTW, this story of Barbarossa, Imbrahim Pargali, being greeks was something new for me. Everyday we learn new things.

 

[tahir0010]

First,
yes I say that there was no general mixing among Greeks and Turks,
and the limited one (by force or choice) ended to Turks, like the cases of Barbarossa, Imbrahim Pargali, Mohamet.
Not to Greeks,
If there is a mix in East Greek populations it is in Pontos and Cappadokia Greeks with Laz Iranian and local Anatolia population (Mithridates)
and in minor Asia with Phrygian and Galates
and through a social procces of 1400 years and common religion

Echinos is another story, At West Thrace live Greeks, Turks and Pomakoi
Geneticks have prove their existance more than 2000 ago at the area, stronlgy endogamous, (HBO's results)
Pomaks might come from ancient Thracians or more East from Meditterean , their old language needs to be researched,
Pomaks are not Turks neither Greeks nether Bulgarians,
their older linguistic idiom is closer to Bulgarian due to their own Satem language (they assimilated Slavic easily due to satem, than Greek Centum)
The terminaton Pomaks is given by Ottoman's in area to all thosewho converted to Islam,
But they are not all Pomaks, Pomaks have nothing to do with these Pomakoi,
But Politics and religion is giving them either Bulgarian, either Turks, either Greeks,
Officially they are Greek Muslims by international treaty,
They are Smart, once they had 2-3 passports, Greek German Turkish Bulgarian
Today only 2 one from Eu and one Turkish

But Turkish policy wants them Turks, cause they are Muslims
there was a possibility to exile them at 1952-5 When turkish progrom Greeks of Con/polis,
But no Need, 80% of Pomaks do not have Turkish concious, only their priests,
it is another case the Turks of W Thrace and another the Pomakoi,
for you officially they are all Turks,
For me offcially they are all Greeks,
for a Bulgarian they are Bulgarians
but for them they are Pomakoi neither Greeks neither Turks neither Bulgarians

I am laz but I have never heard of Laz Iranians do they share the same phenotypes us laz in Turkey?

 

[Yetos]

I am laz but I have never heard of Laz Iranians do they share the same phenotypes us laz in Turkey?

sorry I do not understand you?

 

[tahir0010]

sorry I do not understand you?

Pontos and Cappadokia Greeks with Laz Iranian and local Anatolia population. You said this, and I was saying that there are laz people in Iran as a question.. My family comes from Trabzon, and we are laz, but I have never heard of iranian laz.

 

[Yetos]

to other forum

 

[Blanco]

Actually, the genetic signature of the Early Anatolian farmers is far more present in Southern Europe, where it can be 50-60% of the genome, than in the Near East, where it may only be 20-30% of the genome.

Clearly you haven't read any of the papers about the difference between the Anatolian Neolithic and the Iranian Neolithic, and the gradual movement of the Iranian Neolithic into Anatolia and the Levant, not to mention further movements into Arabia and the Levant from North Africa and Africa itself.

You know, just because some people have made apricity and biodiversity and all those other sites completely ridiculous, if they weren't so before, with all their unscientific *****ing doesn't mean people can come here and try to do the same thing.

Please catch up on your reading.

Start with:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27502179

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

Btw, to even suggest that 90% of Southern Europeans would "fit" in the Levant is so ridiculous that it doesn't really merit a response.

The Early Neolithic Farmer related genome is the most dominant in both Southern Europe and most parts of the Near East, we can call it "Anatolian Farmer, Iranian Neolithic or Natufian" most of these components have a shared origin and don't differ as dramatically as some tests would suggest it.
Just to make it clear here's the most common autosomal component:

Early Neolithic Farmer/"Near Eastern" related ancestral component is one of the most dominant autosomal admixture in good parts of Europe and the whole West Eurasian region. Fertile Descent is the homeland of the Western civillization and it seems most likely it was the home of the first Early Neolithic farmers who conquered most parts of Europe and pushed the Mesolithic/Paleolithic related people to Northern areas such as modern day Finns and Saamis.

On the subject what percent of Southern Europeans and Caucasians can fit in the Fertile descent the 90% figure may sound ludicrous, but if we take consider what the relatively unmixed native Levantine stock people such as Druzes and Christian minorities look like then it may be more reasonable.

Maronite Lebanese don't look very different from most Cypriots and Greeks as well as from other Southern European groups.

 

[binx]

Maronite Lebanese don't look very different from most Cypriots and Greeks as well as from other Southern European groups.

Lebanese people

 

[Angela]

The Early Neolithic Farmer related genome is the most dominant in both Southern Europe and most parts of the Near East, we can call it "Anatolian Farmer, Iranian Neolithic or Natufian" most of these components have a shared origin and don't differ as dramatically as some tests would suggest it.
Just to make it clear here's the most common autosomal component:

Early Neolithic Farmer/"Near Eastern" related ancestral component is one of the most dominant autosomal admixture in good parts of Europe and the whole West Eurasian region. Fertile Descent is the homeland of the Western civillization and it seems most likely it was the home of the first Early Neolithic farmers who conquered most parts of Europe and pushed the Mesolithic/Paleolithic related people to Northern areas such as modern day Finns and Saamis.

On the subject what percent of Southern Europeans and Caucasians can fit in the Fertile descent the 90% figure may sound ludicrous, but if we take consider what the relatively unmixed native Levantine stock people such as Druzes and Christian minorities look like then it may be more reasonable.

Maronite Lebanese don't look very different from most Cypriots and Greeks as well as from other Southern European groups.

Outdated analyses and maps based on them won't help you understand population genetics.

Did you read the papers I linked? You probably didn't, or you wouldn't remain so confused about these basic distinctions. I'm not going to do your work for you and post all the relevant quotes from those papers and the first Lazaridis paper and the Haak paper. Every regular poster here already knows these things. I'm also not going to do a search here for you to find all the discussions, particularly those which contain d-stats for the different types of Neolithic ancestry. Do it yourself both here and on anthrogenica.

The point, in brief, is this:

The farmers who went to Europe and brought the Neolithic along with them were not Iranian Neolithic people. They were from Anatolia, some from the border region between southeastern Anatolia and the northern Levant. The EEF people, or Early European Farmers, whose ancestry is all over Europe but particularly so in the south, were extremely similar to them, picking up at most a few percent of WHG in Europe. The best information we have so far is that they had only a very small minority of Iranian Neolithic ancestry. The people of western Anatolia and nearby regions, and the people of the Zagros Neolithic were quite genetically distinct. Do you understand? The Iranian Neolithic ancestry drastically increased in time and place as they moved south and west across the entire Near East, into India, Central Asia etc.

D stat and other formal statistical analysis shows that EEF like/Anatolian like farmer ancestry is vastly more frequent in Europe than it is in the modern Near East/Middle East, whatever you want to call it.

You have to stop relying on calculators based on modern populations. Now that we have formal statistical methods, we know how misleading they can be, particularly in the hands of people who don't even understand how they work.

As to your photo, cherry picking much? Anyone who has ever looked at a picture in a magazine or turned on the television news, or followed world affairs knows that picture is not representative of the entire population. It would be like watching a Bollywood movie and thinking all Indians look like that.

 

[Heracles]

As always, your answer couldnt be better

 

[Blanco]

Outdated analyses and maps based on them won't help you understand population genetics.

Did you read the papers I linked? You probably didn't, or you wouldn't remain so confused about these basic distinctions. I'm not going to do your work for you and post all the relevant quotes from those papers and the first Lazaridis paper and the Haak paper. Every regular poster here already knows these things. I'm also not going to do a search here for you to find all the discussions, particularly those which contain d-stats for the different types of Neolithic ancestry. Do it yourself both here and on anthrogenica.

The point, in brief, is this:

The farmers who went to Europe and brought the Neolithic along with them were not Iranian Neolithic people. They were from Anatolia, some from the border region between southeastern Anatolia and the northern Levant. The EEF people, or Early European Farmers, whose ancestry is all over Europe but particularly so in the south, were extremely similar to them, picking up at most a few percent of WHG in Europe. The best information we have so far is that they had only a very small minority of Iranian Neolithic ancestry. The people of western Anatolia and nearby regions, and the people of the Zagros Neolithic were quite genetically distinct. Do you understand? The Iranian Neolithic ancestry drastically increased in time and place as they moved south and west across the entire Near East, into India, Central Asia etc.

D stat and other formal statistical analysis shows that EEF like/Anatolian like farmer ancestry is vastly more frequent in Europe than it is in the modern Near East/Middle East, whatever you want to call it.

You have to stop relying on calculators based on modern populations. Now that we have formal statistical methods, we know how misleading they can be, particularly in the hands of people who don't even understand how they work.

As to your photo, cherry picking much? Anyone who has ever looked at a picture in a magazine or turned on the television news, or followed world affairs knows that picture is not representative of the entire population. It would be like watching a Bollywood movie and thinking all Indians look like that.

D stat and other formal statistical analysis shows that EEF like/Anatolian like farmer ancestry is vastly more frequent in Europe than it is in the modern Near East/Middle East, whatever you want to call it.

Early European Farmer admixture is ENF (Early Neolithic Farmer) which peaks in Bedouins and Samaritans + some WHG (Mesolithic Iberian admixture). This component itself peaks in Southernmost Europe, in Western Jewish groups and parts of the Near East.
This component was based on genomes from Stuttgart, Oetzi and has genetic relatedness to Anatolian farmers and Levant Neolithic with WHG admixture which is already a Mesolithic European component.

The farmers who went to Europe and brought the Neolithic along with them were not Iranian Neolithic people. They were from Anatolia, some from the border region between southeastern Anatolia and the northern Levant. The EEF people

You didn't understand what i said. Iran Neolithic peaks in modern day Iran and further West Asia but this genetic component has ancestral links towards other Anatolian related genetic components. It's closely related to CHG which is an existent component in all Europeans.



Anatolian Neolithic for example has around 40% Iran Neolithic related genomes, while the rest is Levant Neolithic and WHG related components.

As to your photo, cherry picking much? Anyone who has ever looked at a picture in a magazine or turned on the television news, or followed world affairs knows that picture is not representative of the entire population. It would be like watching a Bollywood movie and thinking all Indians look like that.

I don't need to cherry pick to show that certain Near Eastern populations remained relatively unmixed and show greater affinity towards some Mediterranean groups.
With proper lighting this is what most look like, other than you barely find light haired individuals the average looks seem not so far off compared to what you can find in Greece, Spain and Southern Italy. OP can easily fit among these better than in North Italy, France, Austria.

 

[Heracles]

With the only people i share some similarity, are the third photo. All the other, are very different from me, and all the Greeks i have seen. No Greek looks like those people. Yo are mistaken.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Outdated analyses and maps based on them won't help you understand population genetics.

That map was made by one of the Apricity's admins. From where Blanco comes from.

 

[Yetos]

yet I can still recognise a Greek a Cypriot from a Lebanese ,
when I see the photos Had the Feeling that are not Greeks,

 

[Yetos]

@ Hercules,

Are you from around Eleytheroupoli?
I 've seen such characteristics around there

 

[Heracles]

Alexandroupolis Both my parents

 

[Angela]

Early European Farmer admixture is ENF (Early Neolithic Farmer) which peaks in Bedouins and Samaritans + some WHG (Mesolithic Iberian admixture). This component itself peaks in Southernmost Europe, in Western Jewish groups and parts of the Near East.
This component was based on genomes from Stuttgart, Oetzi and has genetic relatedness to Anatolian farmers and Levant Neolithic with WHG admixture which is already a Mesolithic European component.

You didn't understand what i said. Iran Neolithic peaks in modern day Iran and further West Asia but this genetic component has ancestral links towards other Anatolian related genetic components. It's closely related to CHG which is an existent component in all Europeans.



Anatolian Neolithic for example has around 40% Iran Neolithic related genomes, while the rest is Levant Neolithic and WHG related components.

I don't need to cherry pick to show that certain Near Eastern populations remained relatively unmixed and show greater affinity towards some Mediterranean groups.
With proper lighting this is what most look like, other than you barely find light haired individuals the average looks seem not so far off compared to what you can find in Greece, Spain and Southern Italy. OP can easily fit among these better than in North Italy, France, Austria.

This is not what you said in your post upthread. This is is what you said upthread:

Blanco:The Early Neolithic Farmer related genome is the most dominant in both Southern Europe and most parts of the Near East, we can call it "Anatolian Farmer, Iranian Neolithic or Natufian" most of these components have a shared origin and don't differ as dramatically as some tests would suggest it.

That is completely and utterly incorrect. There are no academic papers which state that the Anatolian Farmers and the Iranian Neolithic Farmers have a shared origin, and academic analysis from the best genetics labs in the world state exactly the opposite and point out that they are genetically distinct. To jumble it all together and state that the names don't matter and can be applied interchangeably shows that you don't really understand the findings of modern genetics.

What precisely are your qualifications, and where is your proof that they don't differ dramatically? Some amateurish analysis of gedmatch calculators based on modern populations? Save it, that's nonsense.


The Natufians were hunter-gatherers, so again you're completely confused.

When your errors were pointed out to you, instead of admitting that you were wrong you've come up with a new post with a substantially different analysis, and pretend that's what you meant all along.

Plus, you're still wrong. EEF like/Anatolian farmer like ancestry peaks in southern Europe, reaching levels of 50-60%. It's at much lower levels in the Near East. You keep referring to bits of outdated analysis you picked up along the way. Time to move on. You could check the d-stats and other formal statistical analysis on some threads in Anthrogenica. Oh wait, I forgot. You're banned there.

Oh, and it is not Iranian Neolithic farmer which went into the steppe and from there into Europe with the steppe populations and perhaps also into Southern Europe in the Bronze Age. It is CHG, a related component, or we may find out it was that CHG and/or some Chalcolithic people from the area. Regardless, since that ancient genome was discovered, that ancestry is never included in the percentages for "farmer" data in Europe. It is always buried in the steppe population percentage or sometimes as CHG. So, someone who wanted to compute "southern" or "Near Eastern" ancestry could add up all the EEF or Anatolian Neolithic plus all the CHG in Europe. It would come out way over 50% everywhere in Europe except perhaps in the Baltics. However, that number would not be the Early Farmer percentage.

To add insult to injury you use exactly the same graphics which I gave to you when we last discussed this exact same issue on a different thread. Did you think I had forgotten?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss these issues with people, and particularly if I can learn from them, but I'm not willing to have discussions with dishonest people who play these kinds of games. Do not expect any serious, thoughtful responses from me in the future.

As for your picture spam, if I thought you truly believed those people are interchangeable with Southern Europeans I would say that you need glasses. I don't think you're serious, however. I think you're deliberately being provocative and disruptive, so I'm warning you that if you continue with these kinds of posts you'll get the infraction you so richly deserve.

 

[Blanco]

This is not what you said in your post upthread. This is is what you said upthread:



That is completely and utterly incorrect. There are no academic papers which state that the Anatolian Farmers and the Iranian Neolithic Farmers have a shared origin, and academic analysis from the best genetics labs in the world state exactly the opposite and point out that they are genetically distinct. To jumble it all together and state that the names don't matter and can be applied interchangeably shows that you don't really understand the findings of modern genetics.

What precisely are your qualifications, and where is your proof that they don't differ dramatically? Some amateurish analysis of gedmatch calculators based on modern populations? Save it, that's nonsense.


The Natufians were hunter-gatherers, so again you're completely confused.

When your errors were pointed out to you, instead of admitting that you were wrong you've come up with a new post with a substantially different analysis, and pretend that's what you meant all along.


Oh, and it is not Iranian Neolithic farmer which went into the steppe and from there into Europe with the steppe populations and perhaps also into Southern Europe in the Bronze Age. It is CHG, a related component, or we may find out it was that CHG and/or some Chalcolithic people from the area. Regardless, since that ancient genome was discovered, that ancestry is never included in the percentages for "farmer" data in Europe. It is always buried in the steppe population percentage or sometimes as CHG. So, someone who wanted to compute "southern" or "Near Eastern" ancestry could add up all the EEF or Anatolian Neolithic plus all the CHG in Europe. It would come out way over 50% everywhere in Europe except perhaps in the Baltics. However, that number would not be the Early Farmer percentage.

According to you if someone is a hunter gatherer and another one is a farmer then these individuals have to differ because of their supposed "job". Genetic doesn't work this way
It seems you completely don't understand autosomal components and have a 2 way thinking "It's European and the other component not" but in a nutshell i try to explain why this is nothing but a logical fallacy.

Anatolia Neolithic: (Used to peak in Asia Minor, nowadays it's distributed among the Mediterranean shores. As I've seen it peaks in Sardinia followed by North Africa and Southernmost Europe)

38.7% Iran Neolithic
33.9% Levant_Neolithic (mostly Natufian)
27.4% WHG

EEF (European Early Neolithic) - Basically the same as Anatolia Neolithic

92.9% Anatolia Neolithic
7.1% WHG

CHG (Caucasus Hunter Gatherer)

71.6% Iran_Neolithic
21.4% EHG (Eastern Hunter Gatherer)

As you can see both the Anatolian Neolithic and the CHG has major Iran Neolithic related genomes which is basically no different from Iran Neolithic because these components share the same with Iran Neolithic as well with Levant Neolithic and WHG/EHG. I don't care to explain furthermore wither you understand it or not.

Yes you're right about the spamming, but it's interesting how some people think all Europeans look the same and the Middle East is completely different, because in their book being European is something unique rather a dynasty which is about to downfall forever due to migrations, low birthrates and because of the same agenda which tries to throw any European nations under the bus.