Cyprus-Forum.com

[kimon07]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

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

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people is also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs)......

According to the study of your link above:

Many ethnically and linguistically distinct populations inhabit this region, three of which (Burusho, Kalash and the Pathan) claim to be descendents of Greek soldiers who invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Most Turkish Cypriots, even if they know that they are descended from linopambakoi, "CLAIM" to be and believe they are Turkish.
What do you think Stud? Are they or are they not?

And please note. The presence of the Greeks there was not instantaneous (just a short term military invsasion). It lasted from about 330 BC to about 100 AD (including the Indo-Greek and the Bactrian Kingdoms era).

[Me Ed]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

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

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people is also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs)......

According to the study of your link above:

Many ethnically and linguistically distinct populations inhabit this region, three of which (Burusho, Kalash and the Pathan) claim to be descendents of Greek soldiers who invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Most Turkish Cypriots, even if they know that they are descended from linopambakoi, "CLAIM" to be and believe they are Turkish.
What do you think Stud? Are they or are they not?

And please note. The presence of the Greeks there was not instantaneous (just a short term military invsasion). It lasted from about 330 BC to about 100 AD (including the Indo-Greek and the Bactrian Kingdoms era).

Why ask the Turkish Cypriots when you can answer the question yourself.

Surely centuries of Ottoman rule must have intoduced Turkish DNA into the Greek gene pool, did it not?

[kimon07]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

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

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people is also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs)......

According to the study of your link above:

Many ethnically and linguistically distinct populations inhabit this region, three of which (Burusho, Kalash and the Pathan) claim to be descendents of Greek soldiers who invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Most Turkish Cypriots, even if they know that they are descended from linopambakoi, "CLAIM" to be and believe they are Turkish.
What do you think Stud? Are they or are they not?

And please note. The presence of the Greeks there was not instantaneous (just a short term military invsasion). It lasted from about 330 BC to about 100 AD (including the Indo-Greek and the Bactrian Kingdoms era).

Why ask the Turkish Cypriots when you can answer the question yourself.

Surely centuries of Ottoman rule must have intoduced Turkish DNA into the Greek gene pool, did it not?

For a while I was worried you would not jump in to derail the topic. Glad I was wrong.

[kimon07]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

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

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people is also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs)......

According to the study of your link above:

Many ethnically and linguistically distinct populations inhabit this region, three of which (Burusho, Kalash and the Pathan) claim to be descendents of Greek soldiers who invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Most Turkish Cypriots, even if they know that they are descended from linopambakoi, "CLAIM" to be and believe they are Turkish.
What do you think Stud? Are they or are they not?

And please note. The presence of the Greeks there was not instantaneous (just a short term military invsasion). It lasted from about 330 BC to about 100 AD (including the Indo-Greek and the Bactrian Kingdoms era).

Why ask the Turkish Cypriots when you can answer the question yourself.

Surely centuries of Ottoman rule must have intoduced Turkish DNA into the Greek gene pool, did it not?

For a while I was worried you would not jump in to derail the topic. Glad I was wrong.

Oh yes and onother thing. If that is true for the mainland Greeks, its equally true for the Cypriots, YOU INCLUDED. Is it not?
(IF you ARE indeed a Cypriot, that is).

[kurupetos]

Discovering your Pakistani roots eh…

While I was searching...I found your mum!

[kurupetos]

The first Indo-Greek kingdom appeared circa 190 BC may when the Greco-Bactrian king or (general for his father) Demetrios was busy in India, when his Indian possessions were divided between several kings, probably firstly in order to better govern them but then due to civil war. The term “Indo-Greek” is generally used because these kingdoms were almost always separated from Bactria and thus differed politically from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. These kingdoms, in which there were already some Greek settlers called Yonas, took more and more Indian characteristics, becoming truly unique political entities with a mix of Greek and Indian culture, at least for the ruling elites.

More: http://www.ancient.eu.com/Indo-Greek/

So why don't they speak a word of Greek?

How about starting a thread, when Greece was Turkish?

Hence the past tense.

[kurupetos]

So why don't they speak a word of Greek?

I read on a trustworthy Greek site that Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Lakshmi, Durga, and Ganesha were all Greeks who colonized India!

No?

No.

[kimon07]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

From the study of your link:

Principal component analysis of Y haplogroup frequencies incorporating published data from European20 and West Asian21, 22 populations (Figure 2) revealed that the Pakistani populations cluster together, separately from the Europeans, consistent with the previous conclusion that none of the Pakistani populations had a large male contribution from Greece, and demonstrating that this conclusion was not an artifact of the low phylogenetic resolution used before.

How consistent do you think above conclusion is with the photos below?
How Pakistani or Oriental for that matter, do the people below look to you?

Kalash 6.jpg

kalash 3.jpg

burusho 7.jpg

Burusho 5.jpg

See more Photos of Burusho/Pathan/Kalasha

http://www.google.gr/search?q=Burusho&h ... 88&bih=474

[supporttheunderdog]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

1. The article is about the Greek gene input not that of other neighboring ethnicities.

2. Although Greek input is indeed traced, I will neither accept nor dispute the findings of the study as I am not a specialist and I don't intend to get involved in genetics.

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people are also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs).

And in any case, my answers to your post about the ancient irrigation etc of India were about who is to be blamed most that their sanitary and, sewage and irrigation systems have not kept up with their past and not who influenced their genes the most or the less.

the thread is generally about Ancient Indian-Greek Links and the comment about the genetics of tribes in the area who claim Greek Ancestry was in line with that and not in specific regard to Indian plumbing or lack there of ancient and modern.

[supporttheunderdog]

recent studies suggest that more claims of Greek Ancestry do not stand up to Scrutiny

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/full/5201726a.html

very limited input by a few randy invaders.

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

3. The ethnic identity of groups of people is also influenced by cultural elements and influences, not just genes (just look at the TCs)......

According to the study of your link above:

Many ethnically and linguistically distinct populations inhabit this region, three of which (Burusho, Kalash and the Pathan) claim to be descendents of Greek soldiers who invaded the Indian subcontinent.

Most Turkish Cypriots, even if they know that they are descended from linopambakoi, "CLAIM" to be and believe they are Turkish.
What do you think Stud? Are they or are they not?

And please note. The presence of the Greeks there was not instantaneous (just a short term military invsasion). It lasted from about 330 BC to about 100 AD (including the Indo-Greek and the Bactrian Kingdoms era).

This is not about Turkish Speaking`for that matter Greek Speaking Cypriots and what they might believe about their Genos. Ethnos is however normally wholly artificial construct which can be imposed or even invented.

The only observation I would make on the Greco- Indian kingdoms is that now little trace of a legacy seems to exist.