Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

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

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

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

Sent from my Robin using Tapatalk
While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Here are some additional specific literary historical testimonies and sources which certify us of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual character of Cyprus through the centuries.

0) The Jews lived well in Cyprus during the Roman rule. During this period, Christianity was preached in Cyprus among the Jews at an early date, St Paul being the first, and Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, the second. They attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity under the ideas of Jesus. Under the leadership of Artemion, the Cypriot Jews participated in the great rebellion against the Romans ruled by Trajan in 117 AD. and they are reported by Dio Cassius to have massacred 240,000 Greeks.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4825-cyprus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Jews_in_Cyprus

1) In 578 AD, 10000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization purposes, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).

"Thus", says Evagrius, "land, which had been previously untilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them that fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, on account of the easy rate at which slaves were procured". (Quote from P. Charanis)

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

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

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

Page 11 of the same book: "Emperor John II Comnenus moved the entire population of the Armenian city of Tell Hamdun to Cyprus. When Isaac Comnenus was self-declared 'Emperor of Cyprus' in 1185 and married the daughter of the Armenian prince Thoros II, he brought with him Armenian nobles and warriors...".

Futhermore, on page 12 of this book we read: "...about 30000 Armenian refugees found shelter in Cyprus.." and "A new wave of Armenians arrived in 1335 and 1346 to escape the Mamluk attack." Additionally, on the same page 12: "In 1403, 30000 Armenians fled to Cyprus, while in 1421 the entire population of the Sehoun region was transferred here. In 1441 the authorities of Famagusta encouraged Armenians and Syrians from Cilicia and Syria to settle here."

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

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

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

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

Evidence of Indian presence in Cyprus?

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Also I would say Greeks have a close genetic and cultural affinity with Levant. Their music, food, etc...

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

ncomms4513-f1.jpg
 
While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Pontian Greeks J2a1d7
Cretans J2a1d4 (autochthonus)

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

I AM EXPECTING MYCENEANS TO BE J2a1D-?
 
While Pontian Greeks often cluster close with Armenians and Assyrians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. These Pontian exiles in Greece and especially in Macedonia do not have the slightest genealogical relationship with the Ionian settlers of the Black Sea. They are population-medley of Armenians, Seljuks, Georgians and mainly Lazes, mixed with the innumerable native peoples of the area. Armenian presence was particularly strong. According to Ronald C. Jennings at the beginning of 16th c. the Armenians of Trebizond constituted 13% of the population.
 
Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area.

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

a_MagnaGrecia650.jpg
 
Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area.

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

a_MagnaGrecia650.jpg

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

I recall seeing Pontic Greek results on anthrogenica and they do score significant Italian or Balkan
 
Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area.

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

a_MagnaGrecia650.jpg
This map is misleading at least for the Albanian coast. Not all artifacts with antique Greek origin mean there was a Greek settlement there. Many artifacts came to Albanian coast through trade. Don't forget that the reason Rome attacked Illyria (modern Albania) was piracy. That meant that Illyrian boats were some of the fastest one for the time, which means other Balkan people were aware of Greek products, and had the boats to go and pick them up. It means that Greek sculptors were hired and payed to do certain job and leave back to your country, contrary to Rome who settled them in the area.
 
@ ihype02

At least read the History of Pontus correct.

as also search their genetics correct.

and most of all study their dialect,
it has more primitive forms than Homer.

Anyway, good effort to express your hate against Greeks.

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

For better info read Xenophon the 10 000 descent.

Besides there is 3rd major ethnic group there, except Rum and Laz and Turks
Do you know them,

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

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

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

Russo-Turkish of war divided all population there THE 19TH CENTURY
Τhat is why exist the terminations Helleno-Pontioi and Roso-Pontioi
and and another group, guess who.
 
This map is misleading at least for the Albanian coast. Not all artifacts with antique Greek origin mean there was a Greek settlement there. Many artifacts came to Albanian coast through trade. Don't forget that the reason Rome attacked Illyria (modern Albania) was piracy. That meant that Illyrian boats were some of the fastest one for the time, which means other Balkan people were aware of Greek products, and had the boats to go and pick them up. It means that Greek sculptors were hired and payed to do certain job and leave back to your country, contrary to Rome who settled them in the area.

I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.
800px-Illyricum_SPQR.png
 
I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.
800px-Illyricum_SPQR.png

Illyricum and Illyria are not the same and shouldn't be confused
 
I don't think we should equate Illyria simply with Albania. Actually to Romans Illyria went pretty much from Croatia/Slovenia to Albania, and some of the most famous or infamous pirates, like the Liburnians, lived hundreds of kilometers to the north of Albania. I'm not even sure, in fact, that the Illyria that Romans talked so much about was very related with the peoples that lived in Albania, even though they could actually be also Illyrians in language and culture. The province of Illyricum didn't even extend over most of Albania. Much of Albania, except for the northernmost region, was a part of Epirus Nova and was sometimes called "Illyria Graeca" exactly because it wasn't THAT "barbarian" to Roman eyes due to extensive Greek influence and arguably a more "familiar" culture.
800px-Illyricum_SPQR.png
In 168BC the romans took modern montenegro from the illyrians and in the same year ended the third macedonian war ..........the third macedonian war was fought between Roman .v. macedonians and their allies molossians ( epirote people )who ruled over modern northern albania
The outcome was disastrous for Epirus; Molossia fell to Rome in 167 BC and 150,000 of its inhabitants were enslaved.[1]
.
After this the Molossian area was governed by Romans permanently and its major port was Durres........the land became known as a roman protectorate ..........it remained like this until the last macedonian war in 146BC when it became known as Epirus Nova ( new Epirus ).
.
and montenegro became known as Praevalitana
.
The later Illyrian war of 4 years circa 6 AD was fought between romans and illyrians who came only from Dalmatia and Pannonia
 
Illyricum and Illyria are not the same and shouldn't be confused

I know that. I'm just saying that you can't just equate Illyrians with Albania, let alone assume that the pirates that annoyed Rome so much and were used a justification for war and conquest in Illyria aren't necessarily to be especially associated with the people who lived in Albania. Liburnians, for example, were some of the most famous, and we know they didn't live in the territory of Albania. Actually, as far as I know, the present territory of Albania was probably regarded as the most "civilized", due to Hellenistic and later Graeco-Roman influences since early on, and not like "Illyria barbara".
 
The Turks are suspected of originating the centum languages in Europe, that is to say, it turns out that we are witnessing the origin of European agriculture and possibly the origin of the much-indo-European Indo-European , the peninsula of Anatolia is important in the history of Europe.

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Affinity of modern population of the region, HarappaWorld run:

Greeks# of samplesS-IndianBalochCaucasianNE-EuroSE-AsianSiberianNE-AsianPapuanAmericanBeringianMediterraneanSW-AsianSanE-AfricanPygmyW-African
Greece, mainland150831250000002690000
Greece, Macedonia50831250000002590000
Greece, Peloponnese50931240000002690000
Other mainland50730260000002690000
Greece, Ionian209341800000026120000
Greek, Islands, East1309381500000023140000
Cyprus411044610000020170000
Cappadocia Greek, central turkey101146901000020130000
Turkey411544110430011190000
Armenia712052300000010130000
Georgia6021587010000560000
 
Holy crap, Greek peleponnese scores exactly like how I should score if I bothered doing a 23andme test and ran my results through Harappa world! lol
 
This is like saying you should not equate Brazil and Portugal.....no equation here, Illyrians are ancestors of Albanians.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

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

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

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

Unless, of course, this is all because the assumption is that all Illyrians were savage pirates, so those Illyrians that Romans talked about as pirates that needed to be fought against and thus used as a justification for their wars of conquest could only, necessarily, be ancient proto-Albanians living in Albanian territory, because all Illyrians lived the same way, and pirates could've been anywhere else [ironic, of course].
 
i doubt anyone can actually match ancients people with moderns people from same lands
all tuscans and not from original etruscans etc
all rome people are not all from ancient romans etc
all french are not all Gauls etc
if we cannot even find where etruscan came from even if we use modern tuscans , what is the minisule percentage of same ethnicity?
 

This thread has been viewed 75883 times.

Back
Top