Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data
from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et
al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et
al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33%
and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range
from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%.

That's quite high and may be indicative of a Central Asian migration ...

Haplogroup G2-P15 is the
most frequent (9%) G sub-clade in Turkey. G2-P15 lineages
have been observed throughout the Middle East
with a maximum of 19% in the Druze (Hammer et al.
2000) and an average of 5% in Italy and Greece (Di
Giacomo et al. 2003).

5% is not significant in this context.

[Oracle]

Thank you zmx for that little diversion, but the article is old (2003) and they used an incredibly low sample population.

Regardless, your assessments were way off .....

[zmx]

Thesis : How elites of the new Turkish Republic in 1920s and 1930s tried to shape the society with “usable past” in order to shift the society from religious one to a secular one and while it was trying to create unity, “us” feeling, how this usable past formed the opposite concept “them-other.”


Fall of the Ottoman Empire & Rise of the New Turkish Republic
-The new Turkish state was militaristic and diplomatic success yet there was hardly a cultural unity.
-Society was a religious one (ümmet) more than a national one (millet).
-In order to succeed the shift from religious community to a western type secular nation, state has begun series of cultural policies which were aimed to erase the Ottoman and Islamic past of Turkey

Modernization movements of the Turkish Republic was influenced by Europe. One of the main aims of the republic – to reach the “stage of the modern civilizations”- which was European civilization

To answer these claims “Main Features of Turkish History” was prepared by Society for the Study of Turkish History in 1928. For the first time this book presented “Turkish History Thesis” which give shape the new Turkish history writing

The Turks of 10000 BC lived around a great inland sea, which occupied much of Central Asia between the Caspian, the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas. Here, they developed metalworking, domesticated animals and discovered techniques of settled agriculture. At the end of the Ice Age, however, the land started to dry up; lakes and swamps replaced the sea, north winds brought masses of sand and conditions became intolerable for the settled millions. Fortunately, the change in climate opened up routes out of the homeland and Turks emigrated in all directions.”

Claims of the Thesis :
-Turks as the contributor of great civilizations – Aztecs, Incan, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, Hittities
-Turks are not from yellow race, rather white race.
-In an interesting way, together with the boast of “we created the civilization”, the message of “we are also white like you! Don’t think of us as yellow’” is being sent to Europe. Thus reason of replying European theories was both to get rid of the inferiority feeling in order form self-confidence citizens, but at the same time in order to be a part of European civilization.

-To adapt western values such as secularism Kemalist ideology did not hesitate to loosen the ties between Ottoman Legacy, Islamic Past and new Turkish Republic.
-In order to secularize today, Thesis tried to create secular Turkish past by focusing on Central Asian and so-called Anatolian past rather than the Ottoman and Islamic past.

School book from the period :
-“Turks were a great nation even before they had converted to Islamic religion. After Turks had converted to this religion, this religion had no effect in terms of making Arabs, Iranians from the same religion and others like that to create a nation uniting with Turks. Conversely, it loosened Turkish nation’s national bonds, it numbs its national feeling, national excitement. This was natural because the ideology of the religion that Muhammed established was to create a religious community above and including all of the nations”


Turkish Hittities

-Showing Hittities as the descendant of Turks in Anatolia and making them as “us” was a total “invention tradition” which helped to accomplish several goals :
-Formation of feeling of Turkish continuity in Anatolia.
-Hittities as the pre-islamic secular past of the Turks.
-Hittities’ influences over Greek civilization.
-The statement that Hittities had been living in Anatolia long before the Greeks who had claimed a right on Western Anatolia and Armenians on east, suggested an idea of “the one who comes first has the right”

Turkish History Thesis – failure or success ?

Turkish History Thesis and Sun-Language Theory were weakened after the death of Mustafa Kemal and they were abandoned in 1940s. Failure in rural areas, more succesful in urban areas.

Starting from 1950s (two party regime was adapted), Ottoman and Islamic past put under the sphere of “us” once again. Even today, traces of Turkish History Thesis can be seen in popular literature and official history books which are supplemented with similar maps and similar claims about the greatness of Turkishness.

While the sun theory is a load of absolute garbage, the idea that the present day Anatolian Turks are descended from the Hittites and other aboriginal Anatolian peoples is true.

It is also true that the Hittites greatly influenced the ancient Greeks.

Are you for real? Are you a Turk perchance?

Did I say something wrong?

I am a bit confused!! Are you saying that when Alparslan defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert/Malazgirt in 1071, the Turks were already in Anatolia? Where were the Armenians and the Greeks when 1071 happened?
Please correct my history.
It reminds me of Nasreddin Hodja's story of the cat which allegedly ate the 2 okes/okka of liver which he had brought home for his wife to cook. Instead the wife cooked the liver and shared it with her neighbors. When the Hodja arrived home in the evening for his supper, the wife said, "sorry but the cat ate it". The Hodja caught the cat and weighrd it. Exactly 2 okes/okka. The hodja asks his wife, " well if this is the liver, what have you done with the cat"?

Where were the Greeks and Armenians in 1071?...add the Kurds as well, while we are at it?

After the battle of Malazgirt the Alparslan's Turkic warriors conquered the rest of Asia Minor, and went onto become the ruling class of the region.

What followed was the Islamization and subsequent Turkification of Anatolia's natives (Greeks, Armenians etc). The process is reffered to as "Elite dominance language replacement". The same process occurred when the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula conquered the Levant, North Africa etc and Arabized the local peoples. Nationalities like Syrians, Lebanese etc havent got very little real Arab ancestry but are primarily descended from the pre-Arab populations of those regions who were Arabized, the same applies to Anatolian Turks in regards to Turkic ancestry.

the Turkics themselves were relatively small in number when they entered Anatolia.

As can be seen in this genetic study the central Asian/Turkic influence amongst Anatolian Turks is very minor:

Analysis of 89 biallelic polymorphisms in 523
Turkish Y chromosomes revealed 52 distinct haplotypes
with considerable haplogroup substructure, as exemplified
by their respective levels of accumulated diversity at
ten short tandem repeat (STR) loci. The major components
(haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%)
are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern
populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups
related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian
(H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity.

source:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/H ... 27-148.pdf

Anatolian Turks by in large are descended from native Anatolians primarily (this includes the Hittites) and Balkanians with influences from the surrounding regions i.e. the Caucasus, Mesopatamia etc.

as for your question regarding Greeks, Armenians and Kurds they were all present in Anatolia in 1071.

Apart from the fact they use less than 6 samples for each region which effectively disqualifies all conclusions .... I could find no data which backed up yours assertions to any significant level.

Where they hazard a conclusion, it points to the opposite of what you are trying to suggest ... they state:


(1). While none of the major haplogroups (E, G, J, R) showed significant
micro-geographic structure, additional binary and STR
haplotype resolution analysis revealed some distinct phy-
logeographic patterns.

(2). Y chromosome haplogroups and associated diversity Haplogroup J is defined by the overarching DYS11/12f2
human endogenous retroviral polymorphism (Sun et al.
2000; Rosser et al. 2000). This polymorphism is widely
distributed in Eurasia, Middle East and in North Africa
(Hammer et al. 2001; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001).

(3). Such a large pre-existing
Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by
the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı
groups from Central Asia.

(4)
The higher frequency of R1a1-M17 lineages in eastern
Turkey is consistent with an entry into Anatolia via the
Iranian plateau where the associated variance is appreciably
higher

(5). Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-
M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors
first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic,
we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia
via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward
direction.

(6)Our results demonstrate
Anatolia’s role as a buffer between culturally and
genetically distinct populations,

None of those 6 points suggest anything contradictory to what I have said, in fact point 3 reafirms what I said that a large Anatolian population reduced the impact the Turkic conquerors had.

[yialousa1971]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

[Get Real!]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

Haven’t you read the scientific report you foolish man? Greeks and Turks are the same people with the Slavs at the very core of their origins! Henceforth, we can refer to them as the OttoHells…

[YFred]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

Haven’t you read the scientific report you foolish man? Greeks and Turks are the same people with the Slavs at the very core of their origins! Henceforth, we can refer to them as the OttoHells…

GR are you a religous man? Do you mean that we are all going automatically to hell?

[Get Real!]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

Haven’t you read the scientific report you foolish man? Greeks and Turks are the same people with the Slavs at the very core of their origins! Henceforth, we can refer to them as the OttoHells…

GR are you a religous man? Do you mean that we are all going automatically to hell?

Being an OttoHell is hell! Ask Oracle!

[YFred]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

Haven’t you read the scientific report you foolish man? Greeks and Turks are the same people with the Slavs at the very core of their origins! Henceforth, we can refer to them as the OttoHells…

GR are you a religous man? Do you mean that we are all going automatically to hell?

Being an OttoHell is hell! Ask Oracle!

Do you think it's worth asking? would she divulge?

[yialousa1971]

Turks are Mongolians, get over it Turco's! You stole DNA from mainly Europeans (Armenians, Greeks and Serbs etc) to change your look but your still Mongols.

Haven’t you read the scientific report you foolish man? Greeks and Turks are the same people with the Slavs at the very core of their origins! Henceforth, we can refer to them as the OttoHells…

I don't need to read any of this nonsense fool.

I'll start calling you a Ottoman if you don't quit your nonsense.

[Oracle]

Thesis : How elites of the new Turkish Republic in 1920s and 1930s tried to shape the society with “usable past” in order to shift the society from religious one to a secular one and while it was trying to create unity, “us” feeling, how this usable past formed the opposite concept “them-other.”


Fall of the Ottoman Empire & Rise of the New Turkish Republic
-The new Turkish state was militaristic and diplomatic success yet there was hardly a cultural unity.
-Society was a religious one (ümmet) more than a national one (millet).
-In order to succeed the shift from religious community to a western type secular nation, state has begun series of cultural policies which were aimed to erase the Ottoman and Islamic past of Turkey

Modernization movements of the Turkish Republic was influenced by Europe. One of the main aims of the republic – to reach the “stage of the modern civilizations”- which was European civilization

To answer these claims “Main Features of Turkish History” was prepared by Society for the Study of Turkish History in 1928. For the first time this book presented “Turkish History Thesis” which give shape the new Turkish history writing

The Turks of 10000 BC lived around a great inland sea, which occupied much of Central Asia between the Caspian, the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas. Here, they developed metalworking, domesticated animals and discovered techniques of settled agriculture. At the end of the Ice Age, however, the land started to dry up; lakes and swamps replaced the sea, north winds brought masses of sand and conditions became intolerable for the settled millions. Fortunately, the change in climate opened up routes out of the homeland and Turks emigrated in all directions.”

Claims of the Thesis :
-Turks as the contributor of great civilizations – Aztecs, Incan, Maya, Egypt, Sumer, Hittities
-Turks are not from yellow race, rather white race.
-In an interesting way, together with the boast of “we created the civilization”, the message of “we are also white like you! Don’t think of us as yellow’” is being sent to Europe. Thus reason of replying European theories was both to get rid of the inferiority feeling in order form self-confidence citizens, but at the same time in order to be a part of European civilization.

-To adapt western values such as secularism Kemalist ideology did not hesitate to loosen the ties between Ottoman Legacy, Islamic Past and new Turkish Republic.
-In order to secularize today, Thesis tried to create secular Turkish past by focusing on Central Asian and so-called Anatolian past rather than the Ottoman and Islamic past.

School book from the period :
-“Turks were a great nation even before they had converted to Islamic religion. After Turks had converted to this religion, this religion had no effect in terms of making Arabs, Iranians from the same religion and others like that to create a nation uniting with Turks. Conversely, it loosened Turkish nation’s national bonds, it numbs its national feeling, national excitement. This was natural because the ideology of the religion that Muhammed established was to create a religious community above and including all of the nations”


Turkish Hittities

-Showing Hittities as the descendant of Turks in Anatolia and making them as “us” was a total “invention tradition” which helped to accomplish several goals :
-Formation of feeling of Turkish continuity in Anatolia.
-Hittities as the pre-islamic secular past of the Turks.
-Hittities’ influences over Greek civilization.
-The statement that Hittities had been living in Anatolia long before the Greeks who had claimed a right on Western Anatolia and Armenians on east, suggested an idea of “the one who comes first has the right”

Turkish History Thesis – failure or success ?

Turkish History Thesis and Sun-Language Theory were weakened after the death of Mustafa Kemal and they were abandoned in 1940s. Failure in rural areas, more succesful in urban areas.

Starting from 1950s (two party regime was adapted), Ottoman and Islamic past put under the sphere of “us” once again. Even today, traces of Turkish History Thesis can be seen in popular literature and official history books which are supplemented with similar maps and similar claims about the greatness of Turkishness.

While the sun theory is a load of absolute garbage, the idea that the present day Anatolian Turks are descended from the Hittites and other aboriginal Anatolian peoples is true.

It is also true that the Hittites greatly influenced the ancient Greeks.

Are you for real? Are you a Turk perchance?

Did I say something wrong?

I am a bit confused!! Are you saying that when Alparslan defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert/Malazgirt in 1071, the Turks were already in Anatolia? Where were the Armenians and the Greeks when 1071 happened?
Please correct my history.
It reminds me of Nasreddin Hodja's story of the cat which allegedly ate the 2 okes/okka of liver which he had brought home for his wife to cook. Instead the wife cooked the liver and shared it with her neighbors. When the Hodja arrived home in the evening for his supper, the wife said, "sorry but the cat ate it". The Hodja caught the cat and weighrd it. Exactly 2 okes/okka. The hodja asks his wife, " well if this is the liver, what have you done with the cat"?

Where were the Greeks and Armenians in 1071?...add the Kurds as well, while we are at it?

After the battle of Malazgirt the Alparslan's Turkic warriors conquered the rest of Asia Minor, and went onto become the ruling class of the region.

What followed was the Islamization and subsequent Turkification of Anatolia's natives (Greeks, Armenians etc). The process is reffered to as "Elite dominance language replacement". The same process occurred when the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula conquered the Levant, North Africa etc and Arabized the local peoples. Nationalities like Syrians, Lebanese etc havent got very little real Arab ancestry but are primarily descended from the pre-Arab populations of those regions who were Arabized, the same applies to Anatolian Turks in regards to Turkic ancestry.

the Turkics themselves were relatively small in number when they entered Anatolia.

As can be seen in this genetic study the central Asian/Turkic influence amongst Anatolian Turks is very minor:

Analysis of 89 biallelic polymorphisms in 523
Turkish Y chromosomes revealed 52 distinct haplotypes
with considerable haplogroup substructure, as exemplified
by their respective levels of accumulated diversity at
ten short tandem repeat (STR) loci. The major components
(haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%)
are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern
populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups
related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian
(H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity.

source:
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/H ... 27-148.pdf

Anatolian Turks by in large are descended from native Anatolians primarily (this includes the Hittites) and Balkanians with influences from the surrounding regions i.e. the Caucasus, Mesopatamia etc.

as for your question regarding Greeks, Armenians and Kurds they were all present in Anatolia in 1071.

Apart from the fact they use less than 6 samples for each region which effectively disqualifies all conclusions .... I could find no data which backed up yours assertions to any significant level.

Where they hazard a conclusion, it points to the opposite of what you are trying to suggest ... they state:


(1). While none of the major haplogroups (E, G, J, R) showed significant
micro-geographic structure, additional binary and STR
haplotype resolution analysis revealed some distinct phy-
logeographic patterns.

(2). Y chromosome haplogroups and associated diversity Haplogroup J is defined by the overarching DYS11/12f2
human endogenous retroviral polymorphism (Sun et al.
2000; Rosser et al. 2000). This polymorphism is widely
distributed in Eurasia, Middle East and in North Africa
(Hammer et al. 2001; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001).

(3). Such a large pre-existing
Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by
the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı
groups from Central Asia.

(4)
The higher frequency of R1a1-M17 lineages in eastern
Turkey is consistent with an entry into Anatolia via the
Iranian plateau where the associated variance is appreciably
higher

(5). Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-
M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors
first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic,
we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia
via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward
direction.

(6)Our results demonstrate
Anatolia’s role as a buffer between culturally and
genetically distinct populations,

None of those 6 points suggest anything contradictory to what I have said, in fact point 3 reafirms what I said that a large Anatolian population reduced the impact the Turkic conquerors had.

It suggests it would have reduced what is seen. So, on the contrary, the meagre results went on to show a "strong" influence from Central Asia which is indicative of greater influence if this dilution effect had not occurred.