Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

Those are Pontic, Cappodocian, Greeks etc from Asia minor they won't cluster with Peloponnesian Greeks. They are closer to the original Anatolians/Hittites .

There is no such thing as ''Anatolian Greeks'', but rather Pontian Greeks who inhabit Anatolia.

Many of these Greeks especially in the Alevi/Alawite population were forced to convert during the Ottoman rule especially before during and after the genocide , people also confuse this by saying by ''Turks'' in the racial sense. Most Turks have a average of 10 to 14 percent Central Asian ancestry.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/thriskies/Islam/lost_christians_asia_minor.htm


You are wrong. Anatolian Greeks do exist and before the population exchange of 1923 they were very numerous, reaching as much as 20% in some Aegean regions of Turkey. Anatolian Greeks are not the same as Pontian Greeks, who have much more "Caucasian/Kartvelian-like" genetics, they are mainly the Hellenic population that preceded the Turks in Western Anatolia, not in the Black Sea north coast of Turkey.

However, you are riht that Turks as a whole, but especially so Anatolian and Caucasian Turks, cannot be described as a discrete population in genetic terms, far less as a race. Turkification seems to have happened with really massive assimilation of pre-Turkic populations. Only that can explain the huge genetic diversity of all Turkic-speaking peoples nowadays in everything, mitochondrial haplogroups, Y haplogroups, autosomal admixtures and so on. Even the Central Asian Turkic input in Anatolia was itself the result of previous Turkic-Iranic admixture in Central Asia, not contribution from Early Turkic people themselves.
 
You are wrong. Anatolian Greeks do exist and before the population exchange of 1923 they were very numerous, reaching as much as 20% in some Aegean regions of Turkey. Anatolian Greeks are not the same as Pontian Greeks, who have much more "Caucasian/Kartvelian-like" genetics, they are mainly the Hellenic population that preceded the Turks in Western Anatolia, not in the Black Sea north coast of Turkey.

However, you are riht that Turks as a whole, but especially so Anatolian and Caucasian Turks, cannot be described as a discrete population in genetic terms, far less as a race. Turkification seems to have happened with really massive assimilation of pre-Turkic populations. Only that can explain the huge genetic diversity of all Turkic-speaking peoples nowadays in everything, mitochondrial haplogroups, Y haplogroups, autosomal admixtures and so on. Even the Central Asian Turkic input in Anatolia was itself the result of previous Turkic-Iranic admixture in Central Asia, not contribution from Early Turkic people themselves.
No I was comparing Pontian Greeks to Anatolian Hittites not general Greeks who inhabit Western Anatolia. There is descriptions about their comparisons online Pontian Greeks compared to Hittites remember that guy who I sent you in military uniform my Grandmothers Father and who you say he resembles to you, it's those type of people/ancestry . Go back to our private messaging if you want.For the other Greek ethnic background people who inhabit Anatolia I don't know much about.

I just know Pontian Greeks are close to Hittites and others. But they are also not racially Turks and other comparisons that people try to imply
 
Yes I know Turks are a mixture of Balkan ancestry, pre Slavic ancestry, Greek ancestry Central Asian ancestry Circassian all sorts the list goes on and all. Sometimes multiple mixture of these sometimes and that Central Asian, sometimes without etc etc.
 
I"m a Peloponnesian Greek and typically overlap with Albanians, Thessalians, Tuscans, and/or to a lesser degree Abruzzo Italians. I've seen at least 50 plus mainland Greek results and none are remotely close to Islanders let alone Anatolian Greeks.
 
I"m Peloponnesian Greek (100 %) and typically cluster with NW Greeks, Thessalians, Albanians, Tuscans and/or Central Italians. I have not seen any mainland results anywhere near Anatolia let alone the Greek Islands. In my own results I don't get Islanders in my top 20 so how is it possible to compare Anatolian Greeks to mainlanders?
 
A comparison between Pontic, Cappodocian, Asia minor and Peloponnesian Greeks.
iAQBKSd.png

I've seen literally 100's of mainland Greek results (which are pretty uniform) and most mainland Greeks cluster with other mainlanders; i.e., :peloponnesians (like myself) with Thessalians, NW Greeks, Macedonians as well as Albanians and Central Italians. This is a grossly inaccurate PCA.
 
I've seen literally 100's of mainland Greek results (which are pretty uniform) and most mainland Greeks cluster with other mainlanders; i.e., :peloponnesians (like myself) with Thessalians, NW Greeks, Macedonians as well as Albanians and Central Italians. This is a grossly inaccurate PCA.
Pontos ones should be next to Asia Minor.

All the culture and history came from Anatolia West I wouldn't be that grossed out or insulted.
 
A lot of people place their absolute confidence in the amateur calculators of people like Eurogenes and others of his ilk. Imo, that's not a good idea.

Stick with the academics, who have all the pertinent samples and know how to use the damn programs they themselves created.

Just take a look at the latest paper on Crete. Peloponnesians overlap with Sicilians, and some overlap with the people of Crete, and I'm sure if they included a few samples not from Cappadocians but from far western Turkey on the coast there would be a little overlap too.

What's the big issue here?
 
The issue is that academics who have advanced degrees and who have done their hard time in the research lab aren't nearly as qualified or as intelligent as the racist bloggers bc well....uhhh..durrrrr.....they're..uuuuurrr..."politically correct" or uh somethin like a dat..yeah dats about it.

Sadly no matter how educated or qualified you really are, you will never convince anyone with the simplest explanations you can muster
 
The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands.


The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066.
In 1671, according to the first Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands
 
What the hell does this have to do with the topic, even if it's true?
 
The issue is that academics who have advanced degrees and who have done their hard time in the research lab aren't nearly as qualified or as intelligent as the racist bloggers bc well....uhhh..durrrrr.....they're..uuuuurrr..."politically correct" or uh somethin like a dat..yeah dats about it.


Sadly no matter how educated or qualified you really are, you will never convince anyone with the simplest explanations you can muster

They’re stubborn bc they tend to think they know more than they actually do!

I pay attention to the Scientists, and much less to the so call Citizen-Scientists.

The term “Citizen Scientist” is an oxymoron. imo

Being an amateur expert doesn't make anybody a Genius (besides you, me, and some others) Obviously :grin:
 
The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands.


The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066.
In 1671, according to the first Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands

Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)
 
Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)

I think the Italians of the time might have felt the same way about "The Gothic War". :)

Don't get me wrong; this was a different situation. I wish the Byzantines had won, but by the time they left Italy she was in even a worse condition than after the Goths. The Langobards were the coup de grace.

Btw, I would take all these figures with a whole truck load of salt. Some of the chronicles would have you believe there were no North Italians left, and the north was completely populated by Langobards. Now, I've always said perhaps they carried some variety of U-152, but if it really was just I1 and U-106, well, grossly exaggerated is putting it mildly.
 
The populace was not big from records from the medieval period, so I do not understand what is the issue here

when venetians took the island after 1204, they state only 110,000 was the cretan populace, they then placed 10000 venetian families on the island ( only place outside of italy and istria where venetian families where allowed to colonise ) , then the last venetian census says

in 1669, after an unsuccessful attempt to break the siege. Francesco Morosini, the Venetian commander, started negotiations with Fazil Ahmet Pacha, the Grand Vizier who was leading the Ottoman army in person. The 23 year war had strained the resources of both Venice and the Ottoman Empire, so an acceptable agreement was welcome by both parties. The Venetians were allowed to leave Candia without being attacked during this phase. With them most of the population left and many Cretan families settled on Corfu, Zante and Cefalonia, the largest Ionian Islands.


The last Venetian census, in 1644, showed a Cretan population of 257,066.
In 1671, according to the first Ottoman census, the total Christian population was 133,370;
by 1693 it had dropped to 91,230.
The Christian population of Crete certainly declined.Is this drop in Christian population the result of war and the departure of the Venetians, or is it the effect of Christian conversion to Islam? One traveler estimated that, within a few years of the conquest, 60% of the Cretan population had converted to Islam.

Another gave the population in1679 as 80,000: 50,000 Christians and 30,000 Muslims.

so from 1644 a populace of 257066 to war for 23 years, to cretans departure after 1669 to a populace of 133370 ..................thats 125000 cretans died and departed for the ionion islands

oops, placed in wrong thread........the issue if you try to use a mobile phone
sorry folks
 
Freaking Venetians, got the Cretans into a 23 year war, made them lose 100,000 people and then they left with their tails between their legs. WTF? ;)

How did they get the cretans in a war, it was venetian lands ............they tried to keep the muslims at bay
french and saxons, brunswickers also tried to help the venetians to hold off the turk

Did you want crete to be a muslim/arab land centuries before it was ?

your comments are ridiculous
 
What is ridiculous is your response to a rather light-hearted comment.

What's even more ridiculous is that you think, or pretend to think, or want us to think that Venice created its maritime and commercial empire, and, in fact, virtually made colonies of so much of the Greek eastern Mediterranean solely out of concern for the safety of other Christians from the Ottoman Muslims. They were protecting their commercial interests, their MONEY, as the Byzantines before them wanted to re-take Italy.

How much any of the Western Christian countries acted out of religious motives is unprovable, but they sometimes surely didn't act like it. You do remember the Sack of Constantinople, the wiping out of a CHRISTIAN city by Western Christians I take it, Venetians among the leaders? Did the family stories forget that fact?

Before you remind us, yes, Genova was no better, if less directly involved.

The French were much more direct. At times they just allied themselves with the Ottomans.

If you go by the principle that nations, like people, usually act for their own self-interest, you won't go far wrong.

My God, with some people is no objectivity possible about the actions of their ancestors???
 
What is ridiculous is your response to a rather light-hearted comment.

What's even more ridiculous is that you think, or pretend to think, or want us to think that Venice created its maritime and commercial empire, and, in fact, virtually made colonies of so much of the Greek eastern Mediterranean solely out of concern for the safety of other Christians from the Ottoman Muslims. They were protecting their commercial interests, their MONEY, as the Byzantines before them wanted to re-take Italy.

How much any of the Western Christian countries acted out of religious motives is unprovable, but they sometimes surely didn't act like it. You do remember the Sack of Constantinople, the wiping out of a CHRISTIAN city by Western Christians I take it, Venetians among the leaders? Did the family stories forget that fact?

Before you remind us, yes, Genova was no better, if less directly involved.

The French were much more direct. At times they just allied themselves with the Ottomans.

If you go by the principle that nations, like people, usually act for their own self-interest, you won't go far wrong.

My God, with some people is no objectivity possible about the actions of their ancestors???

the attack on constantinople was due to the franks unable to pay the venetian bill/invoice for the ships it built for the frankish army, the franks where broke.........after the sack, the government of constantinople was frankish it was not venetian

as for crete, if not venice it would be Genoese, like the bulk of the black sea ports.....if it was neither of them it would be ottoman by the 15th century instead of the 17th century.......its small populace, size of fertile lands and its position in the med would not have made it be left alone.

There was no religious motive in any land acquistion made by any european power at the time...........even spanish holdings in north africa where not religiously motivated

you are missing the point, either crete went to a christian country or it became moslem , there is no in between
 

This thread has been viewed 75889 times.

Back
Top