Byzantine Empire

I guess I wasn't clear enough; if you have a screen shot of this conversation with the STAFF at these testing companies with their names on it, or if you can even just provide me with their names, I'll be happy to read it and/or to contact them. I'm not interested in anyone's unverifiable "results" when they so obviously make no sense. I've told Sickelliot that over and over again, on 23andme , and here. I'm not any more receptive when someone else tries to do it. A half Palestinian/half northwest European could post scores saying he or she is sourthern Italian, as has been done, by the way. The insanity that reigns on some anthrofora is mind boggling.

Even if something nefarious isn't going on, I'm afraid I've learned not to put too much credence in people's hearsay testimony of what they think they heard. No offense, of course, in that case, it's just the way our memories work.

I repeat: these numbers make no sense. A half Tuscan/half Basilicata person scores 37%? REALLY? Do the math, for goodness sakes! For that to be correct, given that the Tuscan half of her ancestry would undoubtedly score 4, her Basilicata parent would have to score 70% for her to get a score of 37! It's absurd. Either you're remembering it incorrectly, or someone is lying.

There's no where near that kind of spread in Italy on 23andme for "Middle East", which is basically the same ancestry.

If I find out that this is just some typical anthrofora game I'm going to get really ****** that you wasted my time.

Fix your flag while you're at it. Your IP is Montreal.

In fact, I would suggest you quit while you're ahead.
 
Angela I just sent you proof of what I was talking about, I sent it in private messages
 
Azzuro, listen to what I'm saying. Those conversations you sent me are not screen shots. Do you understand? You could have typed them up fifteen minutes ago. I hate to put it that way, but I've been burned by supposedly legit "evidence" before on these kinds of boards. Plus, I have no idea whether this person is, as she says she is, half Tuscan and half from Basilicata. You're aware that people can say anything they want about their ancestry, yes? (Don't go buying any bridges, ok?) Her scores make no sense if they are Nat Geo scores, based on the listed score for Tuscans.

Plus, this was supposed to be about Nat Geo, not FTDNA. Have you succeeded in confusing me?

Look, this is off topic for this thread. Continue this conversation with me by PM. Or, if people want to be involved, let me know, and I'll transfer these posts to a new thread.

Again, fix your flag. You're a Canadian, posting from Quebec. The flag should reflect that.
 
Why is it fiction?

That is a new plan which looks old and author hasn't given any source. But still look nice :heart:
 
Now the map of Boreas has a point at Balkans
where Diocletianos with codex defined Romania and Romylia (Latin alphabet, Greek Alphabet)
also in Minor Asia has correct,
but excludes Galatia, Ceasaria and Cappadokia which should be Greek also until the times of Seljuks, and till Majikert battle,
Majicert battle change enough the population demographics in minor Asia, considering language, religion, nationality, even ethnicity.
that is why we find Greeks that did know a word Greek at 1920, as also Christians who speak Turkish at balkans.

Flawed data as Galatians and Cappadocians are not more here; there were locals speaking indigenous languages, you can check up the Pontic region per example, taken by the Turks late: there the Greeks were city dwellers and the Lazi were living in the countryside.
 
I favor the Greco-Aryan hypothesis,used in tandem with the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan
To me at least the Greek language sound most similar to Indo-Iranian and most cognates are to be found among them,then the Greek i believe come in closeness with poorly attested Thracian/Phrygian.
As such will be very suitable to be used in Eastern Mediteranean as lingua franca since ancient times.
So i think that the migration to Greece came from Anatolia,if this speakers will be associated with R1b,it will be with this subclade,but i doubt that they weren't admixed with other haplogroups.
Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png

your linguistic arguments may be correct or may not be

even so, you can't conclude that early Greeks came from Anatolia
IMO they came from Catacomb culture and spread from the Pontic steppe to the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan
archeology shows war charriots and swords arrived like that in the Carpathian Basin and in Mycenia shortly after (ca 1650 BC)
during or after the era of the Sea Peoples, 12 th - 10 th cent BC there were incursions into Anatolia, cfr the Mushki who fought the Assyrians alongside the Hurrites
IMO these intruders were the forfathers of the Phrygians and Armenians
Urartu was a multi-ethnic and multilingual federation ; at first the ruling elite spoke Hurrite, but later this Hurrite dynasty was replaced by an Armenian speaking dynasty
 
Flawed data as Galatians and Cappadocians are not more here; there were locals speaking indigenous languages, you can check up the Pontic region per example, taken by the Turks late: there the Greeks were city dwellers and the Lazi were living in the countryside.

There is this interesting article from this greek website regarding the inhabitatns of Asia Minor. I will post some parts from this article:
http://www.freeinquiry.gr/pro.php?id=2793&PHPSESSID=1a2502900037c680062f04c9715f5254

The formal education of the current Greek state presents a warped image of Asia Minor, in which the region everything was supposedly Greek and those who were/are "barbarians" invaded it, and were sooner or later 'inoculated with the Greek culture' and Hellenized.

So, in the current residents of Greece of Asiatic origin (Pontians) has created the illusion that they are genuine descendants of the ancient Greeks. Present inhabitants of Greece from Asia Minor, however, originate from a medley of Asian tribes who lived in region over the centuries. The connecting links which unite them with the other inhabitants of Greece (eg. Vlachs, Albanians, Slavs), is the common Orthodox Christian faith and the use of Romaika language (Modern Greek), which were imposed during the Byzantine period several times by force. The refugees from Asia Minor to Greece and particularly to Macedonia, have no racial connection to the ancient Greek colonists (eg. ancient Greek colonists created Marseille, but today there are no claims that Marseille is Greek), but are a population medley of Georgians, Armenians, Seljuk, especially Laz, mixed with innumerable other natives.

Multinational Asia Minor in antiquity

The mixing of peoples and cultures, which has been in Asia Minor, the biggest crossroads of peoples on Earth, not the likes you have seen anywhere in the world. Nobody can say (with certainty) what peoples, what nations inhabited today's Asia Minor. Ancient peoples who lived in the area: Hittites, Phrygians, Mysians, Cimmerians, Bithynians, Cappadocians, Lydians, Pisidians, Lycaonians, Isaurians, Leleges, Carians, Lycians, Ionians, Aeolians, Galatians (divided into three tribes: Tectosages, Tolistobogii, Trocmi) etc.. dividing Ancient Greeks in Asia Minor (not called so at the time, this name appeared after the fourth to fifth century AD) in 15 countries, bringing mostly the names of the people who lived in them, which was to the north: Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, west: Mysia, Lydia, Caria to the south: Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphilia, Cilicia and middle: Phrygian Isauria, Lycaonia, Galatia and Cappadocia. Galatia, for example, was a country already in the third century BC, which was inhabited by Celtic tribes. Later became a Roman province. The residents were addressed in the "letter to the Galatians" of the Apostle Paul.

Multinational Asia Minor
and the Byzantine and Ottoman period


Something similar happened during the later Byzantine period, when the territories of Asia Minor were organized into: East, Armeniakon Thrakesion, Opsikion, Optimatou, Boukellarion, Paphlagonia, Chaldia, Koloneia, Sebasteia, Lykandou, Seleukeia, Kibyrrhaiotai, Cyprus, Samos (included and Smyrna) and Aegean (islands). Backed by professional military forces, composed of Armenians, Syrians, etc. locals. At plateau, the origin of the inhabitants were Armenian, Syrian or mixed. Following the 7th century. A.D. appeared Arabs, who came up and Istanbul, while, as we will examine in more detail below, were too extensive Slavic settlements to meet population gaps due to wars and plagues. During the 11th century invaded Mongolia, which prevailed under the leadership of Selcuk. After the decline of the rule of Selcuk, Ottoman Turks appeared (osmanli), who in 1453 conquered Constantinople. Later, Anatolia was divided into vilayets of the Ottoman Empire.

Here I must make a note: The name Turks is derived from Turany, who lived in Central Asia. Kemal Ataturk was the one that imposed by law, the common name for all Turkish residents of the country in which they live hundreds of different tribes. To say that today's Turkey, they are "pure Turkish" is a phenomenon that is related to our claim that we are "pure Greeks". The more bastard you are, the more insistently seeks blood purity. In this article, the term "Turkish" is used conventionally with more geographical, ethnological despite complexion. then invaded Asia Minor, found established various peoples of Turkish origin, such as Turkmen, who had come from Central Asia. Different ethnos are Laz... Other Asia Minor, but non-Turkish races are Circassians or Circassians, the Iberians (Georgians), Kurds, Roma, Armenians, Jews and others.

w-299.jpg

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Asia Minor[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in the 12th century.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A.D.
[/FONT]

The Multinational Seacoast

For many indigenous peoples provide information Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus and others.

Persian kingdom of Pontus

The Kingdom of Pontus (northern coastal part of the Asia Minor peninsula), which the Greeks 'claim', is actually the kingdom of the Persian king Mithridates, which was abolished by the Romans. Had nothing to do with Greeks. The population was in the majority of non-Greek origin. Composed of different tribes, speaking 22 languages. The Romans succeeded in breaking it after long struggles and turned it into a province of the Roman Empire. Gradually, all parts of Pontus were annexed to the Roman Empire. The Christianization of the people started in the 3rd century.

The Byzantine Seacoast

The period of Roman occupation and the prevalence of Christianity marked the loss of the name "Greek (Hellene)" -which, moreover, in some cases, had acquired religious significance stating the Pagan-and while prevalence of the name "Roman" survives to this day. During the Byzantine period principal people of the region were the Laz, who belong to the same race of Iberian Caucasus. The Laz were Christianized by Justinian (6th century)., like the tribes of Colchians, and Tzanata. Population decimation and Significant losses due to epidemics, such as p, x, the great plague of 541/542. Syklonisan pestilence empire and other times, as in 558, the 560/1, the 585, the 602, 746-747 etc.. According to calculations, the loss rate of the famine reaches 40% in Asia Minor.


Important ethnographic changes
during the Byzantine period


The largest ethnographic changes suffered Byzantium was after the sixth century, when it became a massive installation of the Balkan Slavs. At the same time, the Arabs made ​​frequent attacks in Asia Minor and not a couple of times, but almost every year for about two hundred years. Several raids reached as the Black Sea, the Aegean, and even Konstantinopol. Whenever ​​invasion was made, killing, looting and taking captives into slavery followed, while the Byzantines/Romans were burning their crops, to deprive the enemy of supplies. Many cities of Asia Minor were entirely destroyed, depopulated, and abandoned. The same applies to the Aegean. Many islands had already been ravaged/depopulated by the middle of the seventh century, when Arab fleet began to dominate the eastern Mediterranean (the conquest of Crete (823-828)).

It is not difficult to imagine the consequences of this long process: a large part of Asia Minor had been destroyed and had reduced the population irreparably. He had created a huge demographic gap. Reduced populations indicates the settlement policy of the emperors. Various populations and tribes are used on a large scale for the implementation of this policy (Armenians, Syrians, Slavs, Bulgarians, etc). Farmers and soldiers were urgently needed . The Constans II (7th century). Slavs moved to Asia Minor in LARGE numbers. Justinian II moved a big number of Slavs to Bithynia. First was unlucky, because most of them deserted to the enemy, causing the emperor to impose harsh reprisals to their families. (Epiphany: "Diary", ed C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 365). However, we learn that 208,000 Slavs migrated to Bithynia at will during the decade of 760. (Nikephoros Patriarch: "Short History", ed C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1880, pp. 68-9). In the 8th century Syrians settled in Thrace.

Among the new settlers, the most important were the Armenians; flow into the empire lasted many centuries. Many settled in Cappadocia and in other parts of eastern Asia Minor, many in Thrace, others in the region of Pergamon. In 578, 10,000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).

Multilingualism in Asia Minor

There were two official languages spoken in the eastern and western Roman empire: Greek and Latin. The boundaries of each spread is not always clear. In general, however, with the exception of the Balkans, where there was a lot of language mixing, the western part of the empire used exclusively Latin and eastern exclusively Greek, MEANING that these were the languages of administration and educated people. Almost all educated in the West spoke Latin, but a large part of ordinary people do not even speak one or the other language. Constantinople, founded as Latin center in the East, like all capitals, was a melting pot of disparate elements. Among its inhabitants were Illyrians, Italians, Africans, whose native language was Latin, eg even of the Emperor Justinian. Any provincials had settled there and shuttled to commercial or government affairs. Among the many slaves were barbarians. Included many foreign and military units, from the 6th century consisted of either Germans or Huns and others from some of the most hardened provinces, as were the Isaurians, the Illyrians and Thracians. Syrians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians monks, who spoke little or no Greek, flocked to the capital impressing the locals with strange feats of asceticism. The ubiquitous Jews earn their living as craftsmen or merchants.

The common Alexandrian, that a simplified form of ancient Greek language at all levels (phonetics / pronunciation, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), was built by the scholars of Alexandria for the bureaucratic needs of non-Greek sages and scholars. Was then introduced lowercase letters and multitone to pronounce and emphasize each word correctly and facilitate to non-Greeks. Christians found ready this International language, 'English' of the time, and made ​​it their own. Note, that the common Alexandrian not spoken by mainly Greek but non Greek-speaking peoples (Jews, Syrians, Persians, etc.). Evolution of the language adopted and used in territory of Greece (that is by Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs etc.). The current Greek, Romeiko, to be precise, is a variation of the Alexandrian (the language of the Gospels, the Fathers of the Church, the hymnology) and not of the primarily Greek of ancient Greeks.
 
Part II
http://www.freeinquiry.gr/pro.php?id=2165

Byzantinization, not Hellenization of 'foreigners'

Towards the end of the eighth century, the populations were reshuffled so much and so violently, that it is difficult to say which ethnic groups lived in what areas and in what numbers. Often stated that eliminating even painful, the main non-Greek language elements as the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Illyrians, the Byzantine Empire became more homogeneous. It is also argued that those who were not Greeks, Hellenized and gradually absorbed mainly through the Church and the Army, and how something like this happened mainly in the indigenous populations of Asia Minor and the Slavs in the Peloponnese and in other parts of Greece. (Read the " free inquiry ": What happened to so many Slavs? )

First of all, the very designation "Greek", which we use so freely, is completely absent from contemporary sources. Someone who lived south of Thessaly, could call themselves "Greek", even though they were Slavs, for example. This also applies to residents of other regions, whose names are derived from the name of the province, for example Paphlagonians or Thrakesion (from Thrakision Subject in Western Asia Minor). There was no concept of "Greekness".

This process was Byzantinization. Bithynia, for example, as mentioned above, Slavs settled in large numbers at the end of the seventh and towards the middle of the 8th century, some two hundred years later, the Byzantine Armada, assembled in 949 in an attempt to conquer Crete, included Slavs established in Opsikion (administrative name of Bithynia), who had their own leaders. [Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "Exhibition of Ceremonies (De cerimoniis)», CSHB, I, 666, 669].

During the next century, Anna Comnena mentions a town in Bithynia, " Sagoudaous , "apparently from the tribe of Sagoudaton, testified in Macedonia in the 7th century. (Anna Comnena: "Alex», xv. 2.4, ed B. Leib, iii, Paris, 1945, 192).

Shortly thereafter, the Slav element in Bithynia reinforced by Emperor John Komnino, who set up groups of Serb prisoners near in Nicomedia. (Nikitas Choniates "History", ed J.-L. van Dieten, Berlin, 1975, 16). Serbian villages out even in these places in the 13th century.
 
your linguistic arguments may be correct or may not be

even so, you can't conclude that early Greeks came from Anatolia
IMO they came from Catacomb culture and spread from the Pontic steppe to the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan
archeology shows war charriots and swords arrived like that in the Carpathian Basin and in Mycenia shortly after (ca 1650 BC)
during or after the era of the Sea Peoples, 12 th - 10 th cent BC there were incursions into Anatolia, cfr the Mushki who fought the Assyrians alongside the Hurrites
IMO these intruders were the forfathers of the Phrygians and Armenians
Urartu was a multi-ethnic and multilingual federation ; at first the ruling elite spoke Hurrite, but later this Hurrite dynasty was replaced by an Armenian speaking dynasty
That is what make more geographical sense to me,movement of people,language spread and historical sources as i believe to be true,including this subclade of R1b.At the end is irrelevant whether migration came from east or north,but they might have come from north of Caucasus into the Armenian teritory and that area around,but from there they moved in Greece already as different languages.The Greek-Armenian-Indo Iranian split i mention prior.Greek into West,whereas Armenian(middle) Indo Iranian in East migration,they most probably covered vast area of the steppes too with different haplogroups but same language group.
The Phrygian language have little to do with Armenian,Phrygian would plot something in between Greek-Thracian similarities with Balto-Slavic (languages alike) in my opinion.Noted by Gimbutas too.Which again make geographic sense.Although sometimes was written in hybrid Greek-Phrygian sentences.
Which in my opinion can be interpreted coming from the Balkans and that area north of it.
Although there might be confusion with the name Muski which have eastern and western Mushki.Phrygians is assumed to have entered/invaded Anatolia from west,Macedon territory most probably.Bythinian,Phrygian,Mysian presense is well recorded in Asia minor covering vast land.

Chariots weren't used much in warfare in Greece,chariots at that time were present in many different places than just the Carpathian basin,their development is obsecure,also that Mycenaean culture borrowed from previous Minoan.I haven't checked the sword types from that times in different areas.For the chariots i give no much relevance to them.
 
I thought you were claiming to be central Italian? There is no way a Central Italian would get 25-40% Asia Minor on National Geographic. How could you have gotten your Genographic results and not looked at the autosomal make up of Tuscans on it? They are 4% Asia Minor, lower than Greeks and Romanians, which makes sense from everything else we know about them, particularly in relationship to Greeks, where they plot north of even the more northern Greeks.
https://s22.postimg.io/y9x754ylb/Geno_2_0_South_Europe.jpg

The genetic projects like National Geographic or Family Tree DNA rely on
circumstances,without having a statistical basis.
This database from Family Tree DNA contains only the results of the Romanian Ashkenazi Jews.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/romania/dna-results


https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Romania?iframe=yresults
 
It is indeed possible too that Armenians and even Mushki entered through the Caucasus, but for Mycenians it seems very likely to me they came from the Pontic steppe just behind those who entered the Carpathian Basin.

Chariots were quite useless in Mycenian warfare. But the were present for status and ceremonial purpose.
 

This thread has been viewed 26758 times.

Back
Top