Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

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].



Honestly I can tell that you dont have bad intentions and you aren't trying to spread misinformation or anything so nothing against you. Miscommunication is happening here, most of the claims you think are being made
are made by a tiny minority that is loud. And the ancient haplogroup ancestors of albanian haplogroups that have been found were found in territories that were illyrian. Dyrrachium/Durres is attested in ancient times as being taulanti, etc.

JGpVQiM.png
 
And its important to not mix the borders of Illyricum, which were coordinates in a roman map, with where Illyrian tribes were documented to be residing in different times in history. Illyricum comes later on.

7Zy73dl.png
 
Honestly I can tell that you dont have bad intentions and you aren't trying to spread misinformation or anything so nothing against you. Miscommunication is happening here, most of the claims you think are being made
are made by a tiny minority that is loud. And the ancient haplogroup ancestors of albanian haplogroups that have been found were found in territories that were illyrian. Dyrrachium/Durres is attested in ancient times as being taulanti, etc.

I'm glad you understand my intentions. I think the main misunderstanding here is that in fact I'm not denying that Albanians descend from Illyrian tribes. Not at all, I'm just saying that Illyria and Illyrians were terms that referred to many other populations and lands - it was a broader term -, and that not everything that Romans wrote about Illyrians, especially specific things like the problem with widespread piracy in the Adriatic Sea, had necessaeily to do with those same Illyrian tribes that lived in Albania and/or those that became the main sources of modern Albanian ancestry. For example, the linguistic and cultural resistance of Albanians and their expansion seem to indicate a people that was originally more concentrated in the highland interior of the country, and not to an intensely seafaring people. And it is just a fact that the most feared pirates from Illyria, the Liburnians, were in fact quite to the north of Albania. Certainly, after so many conquests, not all Illyrian tribes preserved their ethnic/linguistic identity, quite to the contrary, Albanians are probably just a more resisting branch amogn many that went extinct.

None of that negates the Illyrian origins of the language/culture of Albanians, obviously more or less mixed since then with others. It's just to say that, about the former comment about the Greek influence in (present-day) Albanian settlemments, we can't say for sure that it was mainly due to piracy on Hellenic cities, and not just due to natural trade contacts and mutual connections between the two neighboring cultures.
 
And its important to not mix the borders of Illyricum, which were coordinates in a roman map, with where Illyrian tribes were documented to be residing in different times in history. Illyricum comes later on.

7Zy73dl.png
I would suggest you to avoid the use of this kind of maps that are not designed by serious scholars but by unknown people. This map and others like this, are products of Greek chauvinism and have as their purpose to justify, from the "historical" point of view, the invasion of part of the Albanian territory, the physical extermination and assimilation of the Albanian population, native in this territory and the territorial ambitions of Greece for the remaining part of the Epirus which today is part of Albania. Never heard about Megali idea? The map that you have posted is a product of this criminal ideology.
 
I said they are SHIFTED TO AFFINITIES WITH NORTHERN EUROPEANS, not that they are CLOSER to Northern Europeans (e.g. if a people was 5% like Northern Europeans in the past, and now their affinity with them is 15%,


Yes compared to their ancient ancestors Mycanaeans for the Mainland and Minoans in the Aegean but this is almost trivial.

About 70% of modern Greeks ancestry is still Mycanaean like.
You can read about here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ave-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

You can find the original study upon which this article is based at nature.com i think.
But i'm not sure if the access is free or one has to pay something.

So in your own words their Northern affinity is about 10% more compared to their ancient ancestors.
This is about the same as the Mycanaeans of the Bronze Age in Mainland Greece were more Northern like than the
Minoans who were a wave of Mycanaeans who migrated earlier to Crete and the Islands and thus didn't recieved the
additional Northern admixtures.
 
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?


Yet we still found the traces.
and many times the traditional remains,
so yes modern Tuscans are not Etruscans, but still have a % of them
Modern Greeks are not the ancient, but still have a % of them
Aromani people are Romans, but most of them might not descent from Rome.


And the dangerous with Genetics to be open far wide
is what happened to a nearby country,
when genetic tests proved that he had different origin
they remove him from his public job, and send him to prison,
 
Guys pay more attention to my post before you respond back.
 
I was about to respond back but I have already a feeling it would fall to deaf ears.
 
I would suggest you to avoid the use of this kind of maps that are not designed by serious scholars but by unknown people. This map and others like this, are products of Greek chauvinism and have as their purpose to justify, from the "historical" point of view, the invasion of part of the Albanian territory, the physical extermination and assimilation of the Albanian population, native in this territory and the territorial ambitions of Greece for the remaining part of the Epirus which today is part of Albania. Never heard about Megali idea? The map that you have posted is a product of this criminal ideology.

Thats possible, but I was only sharing it as a counter to the map of Illyricum which reflected borders in a Roman map of their province at one point in time, not where tribes are living.

I could have also posted this image as a counter:

Prefecture_of_Illyricum_map.png


But yes its possible there are ommissions and manipulations in the map, but i haven't been able to find any other maps which pinpoint illyrian tribes and where they live so its all I have at the moment. If you have
a map of where illyrian tribes were living that is more reliable i would appreciate you sending it in my inbox, thanks.
 
Thats possible, but I was only sharing it as a counter to the map of Illyricum which reflected borders in a Roman map of their province at one point in time, not where tribes are living.

I could have also posted this image as a counter:

Prefecture_of_Illyricum_map.png


But yes its possible there are ommissions and manipulations in the map, but i haven't been able to find any other maps which pinpoint illyrian tribes and where they live so its all I have at the moment. If you have
a map of where illyrian tribes were living that is more reliable i would appreciate you sending it in my inbox, thanks.
My intervention in this discussion was because i noticed (and i was not the only one who noticed this) the use of these maps that first of all are without an author and second that come from, certain addresses that are not a perfect example of credibility.
 
My intervention in this discussion was because i noticed (and i was not the only one who noticed this) the use of these maps that first of all are without an author and second that come from, certain addresses that are not a perfect example of credibility.



Fantastic map, :cool-v:

I see Epirus (y)
I see Makedonia (y)
But I do not see Illyria :LOL:


:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

The author did that on Purpose, :mad:
He is enemy :mad:

Nice joke
 
This is not going to devolve into another Albanian war, gentlemen. Am I cear? THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALBANIA. Get on topic.
 
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

No one here cares who Albanians ancestors are.

This thread is not about Albanians

What is so difficult to understand about it.
 
No one here cares who Albanians ancestors are.

This thread is not about Albanians

What is so difficult to understand about it.

The first person to mention Albanians in this thread was a half turk half Albanian guy.

The thread is titled "Are Turks Anatolians Under the Hood?"

If they are not then it's relevant to the thread, correct? If a big percentage of today's turks are georgians, armenians, greeks, albanians, bulgarians, bosnians, etc then these are all relevant to the thread.

If there are many other ethnicities other than Anatolian Greeks that make up todays turks, then this is the truth.

Its too convenient for Greek nationalist ambitions to claim all western turkey as simply assimilated Greeks or no?


It is true however that the thread was veering off too much into illyrian specific stuff that is unrelated to this thread.
 
Turks have considerabele non-anatolian ancestry. There is little need to hypothesize, we actually have DNA material of Bronze Age Anatolians:
screenshot-2017-08-02-16-26-53.png


The Bronze Age Anatolians cluster very close to the Mycenean Greeks. Compared to the modern peoples they are most closely related to the Greeks in general (also to South Italians and Albanians), but most of all to modern Cypriots.

The modern Turks in the above graph cluster somewhere between Armenians and Iranians (in the Caucasus Iran circle). So it is quite remarkable that modern people who do not live in Anatolia are more related to the Bronze Age Anatolians than the modern people who actually live in Anatolia.

There has certainly been a genetic shift in Anatolia. The modern population of Anatolia (Turks) drifted apart considerably from the original Bronze Age Anatolians. There must have been considerable recent admixture. This is true because in particular Cypriots and some other islanders practically overlap with Bronze Age Anatolians (who where highly similar to Mycenaeans).

I suspect that Turks still must have cosiderable Anatolian admixture, but the argument that they are simply Turcofied Anatolians seems to be false.

This also says something about the Armenians. They also deviate from the Bronze Age Anatolians. But let's not forget that Armenians originally inhabited the Caucasus area rather than Anatolia. Somewhere between Iran and Anatolia. So Armenians may have al lot Iranic admixture.
 
On these plots Anatolian Turks deviate a lot because of their atypical Central Asian Turkic admixture (about %10) Rest of their ancestry must be very close to the Ancient Anatolians. (with some Balkan / Caucasus admixture added in)
 
On these plots Anatolian Turks deviate a lot because of their atypical Central Asian Turkic admixture (about %10) Rest of their ancestry must be very close to the Ancient Anatolians. (with some Balkan / Caucasus admixture added in)

I think they may have considerable Iranic/Caucasus admixture as well.
 
Turks have considerabele non-anatolian ancestry.
With that perspective, the only people who have european ancestry, are Neandertals.
About Turks and Bronze Age Anatolians, Using Early Farmer Anatolian or Bronze Age Anatolian figures and trying to use to understand relationship between Modern Turkish and Early Anatolian is not rational. Becuase those cultures were just in West Anatolia, farming spreaded to Greece before many place in Anatolia.



Also even current big city populations in Western Turkey are from Blacksea and East Central Anatolia. Example: Istanbul

Add modern Bulgarian and Romanian population to Modern Greeks and then see how close you are to Myceneans

haberturk.jpg
 

Attachments

  • urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20170515105921892-0558_9781316550328_14740fig5_1.jpg
    urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20170515105921892-0558_9781316550328_14740fig5_1.jpg
    41.3 KB · Views: 87
I think they may have considerable Iranic/Caucasus admixture as well.
BA "Anatolia" was rather genetically diverse place. Also it is hard to call it Anatolia or locals Anatolians before Iron Age.
 

This thread has been viewed 75896 times.

Back
Top