Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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.

No where in the research does it say there was a "strong" influence from Central Asia.

[Oracle]

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…

We are all the same people GR! .... but our migrations are different and this meagre paper indicates a Central Asian origin for Turks .... and little similarity to Greeks.

If you compare environmental genes, than all the Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners would be more similar.

But you should not base conclusions on just one study ...

[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.

No where in the research does it say there was a "strong" influence from Central Asia.

I put "strong" in quotes because there is nothing strong about this paper and I am surprised you bothered trying to draw conclusions from it.

But, if you wish to go over some of the highlighted points in red on previous pages, you can eek out a pathway from Central Asia as the most likely route for these 500 people (out of 70 Million ).

[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.

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.

No where in the research does it say there was a "strong" influence from Central Asia.

I put "strong" in quotes because there is nothing strong about this paper and I am surprised you bothered trying to draw conclusions from it.

But, if you wish to go over some of the highlighted points in red on previous pages, you can eek out a pathway from Central Asia as the most likely route for these 500 people (out of 70 Million ).

The first highlighted point came from a different and older study. Funny how you mocked the study I gave a link to due to it being carried out in 2003 and then you go on to post a study from 2001

never the less since it was an different study it is irrelevant.

The second higlighted point discusses the existance of a variation of haplogroup G amongst a segment of the Turkish population.

the origins of haplogroup G is from the Near East, and is mostly found amongst the peoples of the Near East (including Turks) so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

[Oracle]

The first highlighted point came from a different and older study. Funny how you mocked the study I gave a link to due to it being carried out in 2003 and then you go on to post a study from 2001

It was included for their data analysis so it was pertinent. But as I said, even 2003 is too old considering what is being carried out now.

never the less since it was an different study it is irrelevant.

Not true ... if they chose to discuss it here, it is relevant. Scientific papers have to cross-reference if they are to be at all meaningful.

The second higlighted point discusses the existance of a variation of haplogroup G amongst a segment of the Turkish population.

the origins of haplogroup G is from the Near East, and is mostly found amongst the peoples of the Near East (including Turks) so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

You also have to look at the differences with other neighbours.

But overall, this paper is not worth the fuss you are making because the sample population was so small and they didn't in fact come to any conclusions themselves ... I was just surprised you made such a rush statement based on so little/nothing!

[zmx]

[quote=Oracle]You also have to look at the differences with other neighbours.[/quote]

There will always be some differences between neighboring populatians, as this map of Y haplogroups of Europe shows:



the biggest difference between Greeks and Turks seems to be the high level of Haplogroup G which is found amongst Turks (and equally amongst Georgians and to a much lesser degree Syrians) which doesnt seem to be found amongst Greeks.

so as can be seen the differences Turks may have with their neighbors arent due to the Seljuk/Ottoman conquerors as is your claim.

[quote=Oracle]But overall, this paper is not worth the fuss you are making because the sample population was so small and they didn't in fact come to any conclusions themselves ... I was just surprised you made such a rush statement based on so little/nothing![/quote]

the conclusion can be drawn that Turks from Anatolia are primarily descended from the indigenous folk of the area and its surrounding regions.

[denizaksulu]

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.

Thanks for the above. No need to recount the civilisations that appeared after the Hittites, so the Anatolians are NOT Turks but a conglomeration of the multitude of the ancient peoples of Asia minor with the slightest touch of Turkishness. Iteresting. That means Turkish Cypriots are even 'less Turkish', much much less Turkish than we ever thought. Are you saying that the 'Ergenekon Destani' is pure myth. The Grey Wolf story never happened? and the few specks of Turkics spreadtheir own language all over Asia Minor? Perhaps like Helenic culture it was the Turkic culture that spread.

History has really changed since I studied at the Lise in Nicosia.

[YFred]

You see Deniz, you can't beat a decent education. I had mine in Lurucina.

[denizaksulu]

I think we need CRB checks on history book writers.

Perhaps our friend can enlighten us on whether any studies have been carried out to prove that Turk = Mongolian. Damn it, everytime I look in a mirror, I am trying to see this 'Mongolian'. Even the mirror has cracked up on me - obviously lost its patience.

[Oracle]

You also have to look at the differences with other neighbours.

There will always be some differences between neighboring populatians, as this map of Y haplogroups of Europe shows:

That's exactly why I said you have to look at the bigger picture and see that characteristics are a fusion of the (large) populations distributed in different regions.

There are differences and similarities depending on the differences and similarities in the environment and how much gene flow has occurred in the past.

If you look at the whole world map, you can see for example how Haplogroup A spread across the northern regions of the globe:

the biggest difference between Greeks and Turks seems to be the high level of Haplogroup G which is found amongst Turks (and equally amongst Georgians and to a much lesser degree Syrians) which doesnt seem to be found amongst Greeks.
so as can be seen the differences Turks may have with their neighbors arent due to the Seljuk/Ottoman conquerors as is your claim.

I didn't make any claims, I was refuting your rush and unsubstantiated conclusion.

That there is a recent newcomer in Anatolian regions will probably be borne out by the types of studies being carried out now by the Genealogical project.

I constantly warn people against using one gene/haplotype/marker to fulfil their national/political ambitions and claims. You cannot re-interpret history with small isolated genetic studies.

So conclusions such as this:

the conclusion can be drawn that Turks from Anatolia are primarily descended from the indigenous folk of the area and its surrounding regions.

... is wish-fulfillment because that paper you base it on did not validate such a conclusion.

To take ~6 people from such regions and then pool with other 90 vast regions (of just ~6 people each) say there is a big inflow and outflow of genetic characteristics (which was the concluding remark by the authors) is nonsense as that applies to anywhere except a few very isolated tribes (see Finns). This has been an area of, historically, great gene flow as it's one of the main paths taken once man left Africa. There are still millions of Kurds and Armenians etc who have been in "Turkey" for thousands of years. Their genetic contribution will be invaluable and comparisons could be made between haplotypes in Turkic tribes and Kurds/Iranians etc to get a more meaningful picture of the legacy of the Seljuk's.

For example, here is a very recent paper where direct comparisons between two related (geographically) tribes were made:



Culture creates genetic structure in the Caucasus: autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal variation in Daghestan.

Marchani EE, Watkins WS, Bulayeva K, Harpending HC, Jorde LB.
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. [email protected]

BMC Genet. 2008 Jul 17;9:47.

BACKGROUND: Near the junction of three major continents, the Caucasus region has been an important thoroughfare for human migration. While the Caucasus Mountains have diverted human traffic to the few lowland regions that provide a gateway from north to south between the Caspian and Black Seas, highland populations have been isolated by their remote geographic location and their practice of patrilocal endogamy. We investigate how these cultural and historical differences between highland and lowland populations have affected patterns of genetic diversity. We test 1) whether the highland practice of patrilocal endogamy has generated sex-specific population relationships, and 2) whether the history of migration and military conquest associated with the lowland populations has left Central Asian genes in the Caucasus, by comparing genetic diversity and pairwise population relationships between Daghestani populations and reference populations throughout Europe and Asia for autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal markers. RESULTS: We found that the highland Daghestani populations had contrasting histories for the mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data sets. Y-chromosomal haplogroup diversity was reduced among highland Daghestani populations when compared to other populations and to highland Daghestani mitochondrial DNA haplogroup diversity. Lowland Daghestani populations showed Turkish and Central Asian affinities for both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal data sets. Autosomal population histories are strongly correlated to the pattern observed for the mitochondrial DNA data set, while the correlation between the mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome distance matrices was weak and not significant. CONCLUSION: The reduced Y-chromosomal diversity exhibited by highland Daghestani populations is consistent with genetic drift caused by patrilocal endogamy. Mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal phylogeographic comparisons indicate a common Near Eastern origin of highland populations. Lowland Daghestani populations show varying influence from Near Eastern and Central Asian populations.

.............................................................................................

Many such studies and pooled data should be used ... not isolated cases. Demographic patterns leave an imprint within their regions and environments so results from gene mapping studies should parallel detailed historical records of population movements.