Frankly Optimatom I dont know where to begin.

I disagree

Actually Optimatom there is. I dont know if you are into anthropology but I am.
Greeks vary greatly from region to region. In regions like Epirus for example subraces such as Alpinids and Dinarids are quite common, while in for example in the Aegean islands and Cyprus Armenids are quite common. The refugees who came from Asia Minor were even more diverse and some belonged to subraces such as Anadolids which are native to Anatolia but not to Greece.

Those are just some examples, there are many more.

Your theory of a uniform Greek "race" is flawed on so many levels its not even funny.

and before you try it, no I am not claiming there is a uniform Turkish "race" either.

Yes that is true and genetics backs this up.

No not really.

Obviously you missed this post of mine the first time so i'll post it for you the second time:

Abstract 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.

The Seljuks were a Central Asian tribe. the low frequency of Central Asian haplogroups amongst the modern day population of Turkey would suggest there was little Seljuk settlement but the cultural impact was large (as can be seen by the language spoken). Similar events occurred in Hungary where the Magyars settled in small numbers but had a large cultural impact.

I never made such a claim.

to give some sources about hellenes (greeks,yunan or rum in anatolia and elsewhere):

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of Anatolia (Ionia) settled by the mainly island dwelling Ionian tribes.The Ionians were one of the four main ancient Greek phyla or tribes, linked by their use of the Ionic dialect of the Greek language whose settlements were located principally on the Islands between Greece and Anatolia—but whose peoples settled on both coasts as well (giving rise to the eponymously named region of Ionia), which migrations includes only the southern areas of the Greek mainland including Athens.

The other three language/cultural groups were the Achaeans, the Dorians and the Aeolians. They were known collectively as Hellenes. The Athenians, in the peninsula of Attica, were the only Ionians on the Greek mainland. The Greeks of the Aegean islands, however, were almost entirely Ionian, the main exception being the Aeolians of Lesbos and the Dorians of Rhodes and the islands among the Dorian Hexapolis. The northern shores of the Aegean Sea, in Thrace, were also home to Greek colonists of Ionian descent and the French city of Marseille was founded by Ionians from Phocaea in Ionia.

The middle section of the Greek-speaking western coast of Asia Minor was actually called "Ionian" and its inhabitants so outshone the other Asian Greeks, the southern Dorians and northern Aeolians, that Asians used the term "Ionian" (Assyrian "Yamanni") to refer to all Greeks. This is still the case - Greece/Greek is Hunastan/Huyn in Armenian, Yūnān/Yūnāniyy in Arabic, Yāwān/Yəwānī in Hebrew (appearing in the English Bible as Javan, and Yavana in Sanskrit).

According to semi-historical Greek legend, Ionia was colonised by refugees from mainland Greece expelled by the invading Dorians in the Heroic Age, leaving Attica as the only European outpost of the Ionian race. According to myth, the Ionians were descended from the hero Ion, son of Xuthus, son of Hellen (the mythical progenitor of all the Hellenes, whose other two sons were Aeolus and Dorus).

During the 6th century BC, Ionian coastal towns such as Miletus and Ephesus became the focus of a revolution in approaches to traditional thinking about Nature. Instead of explaining natural phenomena by recourse to traditional religion/myth, the cultural climate was such that men began to form hypotheses about the natural world based on ideas gained from both personal experience and deep reflection. These men - Thales and his successors - were called physiologoi, those who discoursed on Nature. They were sceptical of religious explanations for natural phenomena and instead sought purely mechanical and physical explanations. They are credited as being of critical importance to the development of the 'scientific attitude' towards the study of Nature. (see Ionian school)

The etymology of the word is uncertain. Its Mycenaean Greek reconstruction is Iawones, a name that seems to have been in general use; that is, "Athenians," "Chians," "Chalcidians" and so on, are more local names adopted by the original Iawones. Most derivations postulate that it evolved into Greek from some preceding name, either Indo-European or Pelasgian (pre-Greek).

Aeolis (Ancient Greek Αιολίς Aiolís) or Aeolia (IPA: /iːˈoʊlɪə/) (Ancient Greek Αιολία Aiolía) was an area that comprised the west and northwestern region of Asia Minor, mostly along the coast, and also several offshore islands (particularly Lesbos), where the Aeolian Greek city-states were located. Aeolis incorporated the southern parts of Mysia which bounded it to the north, Ionia to the south, and Lydia to the east. In early times, the Aeolians' twelve most important cities were independent, and formed a league: Cyme (also called Phriconis), Larissae, Neonteichos, Temnus, Cilla, Notium, Aegiroessa, Pitane, Aegae, Myrina, Gryneia, and Smyrna.[1]

According to Homer's description, Odysseus, after his stay with the Cyclopes, reached the island of Aeolus, who provided him with the west wind Zephyr.

Aeolis was an ancient district on the western coast of Asia Minor. It extended along the Aegean Sea from the entrance of the Hellespont (now the Dardanelles) south to the Hermus River (now the Gediz River). It was named for the Aeolians, some of whom migrated there from Greece before 1000 BC. Aeolis was, however, an ethnological and linguistic enclave rather than a geographical unit. The district often was considered part of the larger northwest region of Mysia.

By the 8th century BC, twelve of the southern Aeolian city-states were grouped together in a league. The most celebrated of the cities was Smyrna (modern Izmir, Turkey), but in 699 BC, Smyrna became part of an Ionian confederacy. The remaining cities were conquered by Croesus, king of Lydia (reigned 560-546 BC). Later they were held successively by the Persians, Macedonians, Seleucids, and Pergamenes. Attalus III, the last king of Pergamum, bequeathed Aeolis to Rome in 133 BC. Shortly afterward, it was made part of the Roman province of Asia. At the partition of the Roman Empire (395 AD), Aeolis was assigned to the East Roman (Byzantine) empire and remained under Byzantine rule until the early 1400s, when the Ottoman Turks occupied the area.

Byzantium (Greek: Βυζάντιον) was an ancient Greek city, which, according to legend, was founded by Greek colonists from Megara in 667 BC and named after their king Byzas or Byzantas (Βύζας or Βύζαντας in Greek). The name "Byzantium" is a Latinization of the original name Byzantion. The city is what later evolved to be the center of the Byzantine Empire, (the Greek-speaking Roman Empire of late Antiquity and the Middle Ages) with the name Constantinople. After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire, the city became known as Istanbul to the Ottoman Turks, but that didn't become the official name of the city until 1930.

Pontus is the most northeasterly district of Asia Minor, along the southern coast of the Euxine, east of the river Halys, having originally no specific name, was spoken of as the country en Pontôi, “on the Pontus” (Euxinus), and hence acquired the name of Pontus, which is first found in Xenophon's Anabasis.

Pontus was a mountainous country--wild and barren in the east, where the great chains approach the Euxine; but in the west watered by the great rivers Halys and Iris, and their tributaries, the valleys of which, [p. 1301] as well as the land along the coast, are extremely fertile. The eastern part was rich in minerals, and contained the celebrated iron mines of the Chalybes.

The inhabitants of Pontus were called generically Leucosyri (q.v.). [2].

The term did get a definite connotation of being a separate state after the establishment of "The kingdom of Pontus", beyond the Halys River (Kızıl river). The Persian dynasty which was to found this kingdom had during the fourth century B.C. ruled the Greek city of Cius (or Kios) in Mysia, with its first known member being Ariobarzanes I of Cius and the last ruler based in being Mithridates II of Cius. Mithridates II's son, also called Mithridates, would become Mithradates I Ktistes of Pontus ("Ktistes" meaning "The Founder").

During the troubled period following the death of Alexander the Great, Mithradates Ktistes was for a time in the service of Antigonus, one of Alexander's successors, and successfully maneuvering in this unsettled time managed, shortly after 302 BC, to create the Kingdom of Pontus which would be ruled by his descendants mostly bearing the same name, till 64 BC. Thus, this Persian dynasty managed to survive and prosper in the Hellenistic world while the main Persian Empire had fallen.

As the greater part of this kingdom lay within the immense region of Cappadocia, which in early ages extended from the borders of Cilicia to the Euxine (Black Sea), the kingdom as a whole was at first called "Cappadocia towards the Pontus", but afterwards simply "Pontus," the name Cappadocia being henceforth restricted to the southern half of the region previously included under that title.

This kingdom reached its grea-*test*-('") height under Mithridates VI or Mithradates Eupator, commonly called the Great, who for many years carried on war with the Romans. Under him, the realm of Pontus included not only Pontic Cappadocia but also the seaboard from the Bithynian frontier to Colchis, part of inland Paphlagonia, and Lesser Armenia.

With the subjection of this kingdom by Pompey in 64 BC, in which little changed in the structuring of life, neither for the oligarchies that controlled the cities nor for the common people in city or hinterland, the meaning of the name Pontus underwent a change. Part of the kingdom was now annexed to the Roman Empire, being united with Bithynia in a double province called Pontus and Bithynia: this part included only the seaboard between Heraclea (Ereğli) and Amisus (Samsun), the ora Pontica.


I would find it hard to believe that all of these sources would be fake !

Anyway : Happy new year to you all.

Actually, no. I just made a general observation. I also want to say this: We must not connect science with politics. No, i dont believe that this kind of studies can produce any kind of friendship between people simply because differences among nations have different sources. Dont forget that wars among people who feel like brothers (e.g civil wars are generally more violent than wars between nations)

Anyway, its very difficult to trace a "Hettitic" ancestry to modern Greeks or Turks and rather impossible to trace neolithic "genes" ..Genetic studies need more time for that kind of tasks imo

Not really. Haplogroup J2 is associated with Neolithic settlers and is found mostly in the Near East and the Balkans

Actually, Haplogroup J2 is believed to be associated with Neolithic settlers. Thats why i said we need more studies and more time....

Why mustn’t we connect science with politics? If science will help us get rid of some harmful political ideas or change the way we see each other, then I am definitely for such cooperation and there is nothing that says we cannot connect those two.

About the Hittite ancestry, let me first say that if we were having this exchange in Turkish then I might have written “Türkiyeli”, but since there is no such a term in English, I believe we have been confusing each other by not defining the term Turk. Perhaps the Anatolian Turk would be a better term as the term “Türkiyeli” would include everyone who lives in Turkey. Once this is clarified, the first question should be whether or not there is a connection between the Anatolian Turks (or perhaps I should say the Turks of Turkey; I suppose the modern Turks is a better term) and the so-called ancient or medieval Asian Turks. We can approach this question both genetically and culturally.

Genetically we know that the majority of the genes in today’s Turkey are not Asian, but Anatolian, Near Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean. Also looking at the age of haplotypes we know that these majority genes are not recent, but very old. Whether or not the J2 can be associated with the Neolithic settlers is irrelevant here, because in either case we are talking about the period 10.000 years ago or more. You seem to be obsessed with the Hittite connection. Why, I do not know. Nobody is really saying that the modern Turks are Hittites, but there are a lot of modern Turks whose ancestry go back at least as far as the Hittite period. This is what the genetic studies have so far shown. If you want to refute this then you need to refute these studies. Unless you can do that, you simply have to accept that the majority of the modern Turks have been in this area as long as their neighbors. Let me say one more time that I am not saying there is a direct connection between the Hittites and the modern Turks (there may or may not), but we now know that the ancestry of the good portion of the modern Turks cover this period. The Hittites is not the same thing as the Hittite period. The Hittites may have been a very small addition at the time. There were many others who were already in Anatolia at the same time.

About the cultural angle, nobody should really assume that there was a big cultural movement into Anatolia from the Central Asia at the time of the arrival of the Oghuz tribes. We really do not know the answer to this question. On the contrary, the modern Turks are culturally very similar to their neighbors today. It doesn’t make sense to assume that a group of pastoralists could have such a big impact on agriculturalists who were, according to the estimations by scholars in this area, were ten time more populous (five times is big too) than they were. Speaking Turkish doesn’t really show anything. People can change their language without changing their culture.

Are you serious? Do you need genetics to understand that people are not to be treated bad or that people regardless their ancestry, religion, ethnicity have the right to exist and to be equal according to human rights? One of the most dangerous tasks is to use science for politics.

Excuse my ignorance but i don't know the term "Turkiyeli" since i am not a Turk. And our case here isnt not whether the "majority" of the genes in today’s Turkey are not Asian or Anatolian (Anatolian is a term that needs an explanation) but if someone wihtout any doubt can trace "Hettitic" genes the same way we today can trace "asian or anatolian" genes in modern Turks...And how you managed to discover my "Hettitic obsession" i dont get it...

Also your conclusion there are a lot of modern Turks whose ancestry go back at least as far as the Hittite period i think is not a scientific fact. Not to mention that leaves a grey zone of interpretation. Please elaborate....

You also wrote: This is what the genetic studies have so far shown. If you want to refute this then you need to refute these studies. Unless you can do that, you simply have to accept that the majority of the modern Turks have been in this area as long as their neighbors.

Genetic studies have a long road ahead of them and by no means they have discovered to solve problems of this kind. I will give you an example of a problem similar to ours here. This is something i found.

You also wrote:

Again, what do you mean ancestry of the good portion...covers this period?

Well, it looks like we are about to start a very different discussion. First of all, I said science and you are saying genetics. Make up your mind. But if the topic is the connection between science and politics, then scientific research offers in each of those subjects you mentioned, that is, ancestry, religion and ethnicity, very valuable insights. The way I see it, it is the politicians who should stay away from using these subjects in their agendas.

Also, I did not say anything about some people not getting treated equally. You may believe in this principle - and as far as I can see a lot of people believe in it as well – but when it is time to practice what they preach, suddenly we have the ethnic minds taking over everything. Perhaps it is time to start questioning these issues. I don’t mind people having and loving their own speical ethnic identities, but I don’t want to live among time-bombs either. What kind of freedom is it, when almost in every nation-state there is one dominant ethnic group/potential bully who may lose control anytime things go wrong or don’t go the way it wants and hurt others in every possible way.

Simply because you keep coming back to the Hittite connection. Bu I am talking about a period. So, I should probably write this instead: there are many modern Turks whose ancestry go back to at least the 1800’s BC and more. Some of them do trace their ancestry back to the neolithic or BC 8000. Well, hopefully we have gotten rid of the Hittites.

It is a scientific fact. Even a simple reseacrh in internet will present many studies on this topic. The person who wrote that article in Virgül supplied four or five scientific studies on this topic. Give up. It is very scientific. You may choose not to believe it, I don’t care, but this won’t change the fact that these are scientific investigations.

And this is what you have found! There are many in Turkey who say things like this and you want me to take each one of them seriously? I will repeat my argument again. I am not trying to come up with some kind of cultural connection with anyone or any group and I do not expect anyone to become brothers and sisters just because the genetic studies show that they were in the same group or close to each other some 80 or 160 or 320 generations ago. This would be absurd. All I am saying that the argument that the modern Turks came from Central Asia is not supportable according to the genetic studies. So, all those ethnic and nationalistic arguments and attacks need to be reconsidered and probably not taken seriously.

TBH i doubt they are taken seriously now...

I think we are making circles now. I just disagreed with your argument that we should connect science (imho genetics isnt science?) with politics. Because simply i believe that politics and science not only are two different things but also history has proven that this "connection" can lead to dangerous acts. Do you need me to remind you how darvinism became a social theory and where this led the western world? Anyway, this a matter of "philosophica" perspective, this is my prespective, yours is different, i respect that.
Now, regarding the rest, i dont disagree but still i cannot see how science is gonna help you/me not to live among time-bombs. As you said it is a matter of principle and every person chooses to follow this principle no matter the "scientific" data or something like that. And be sure that social abrest, wars, genocides etc have their roots not in lack of knowledge but in the social stracture, the economic interests, the balance of power etc. All these are ideological phenomena.

I keep coming back to Hettites? I just made a comment- a comment that is similar to domestos comment about the Hettites- (i thought i had the right to comment on anything i like without being labeled as obssesed pesron) for something i think its not correct. You replied back and thats all. Anyway, lets get rid of Hettites as you said. Now, regarding the rest of your comments. I see that you a man who trust science. Good. I do the same. I also believe that science can provides us with answers to many problems. But you dont have any doubt about the infallacy of these studies. I too believe that genetically modern Turks are much closer to turkic tribes in central asia, i too believe that turks from asia didnt take over anatolia and make all the other people who lived there for thousand yrs disappear but shouldnt we be more careful? You actually dont have any doubt, you actually dont need more studies on this issue? For example there are some genetic studies concerning "turkish genes" in modern Turkey.

Here is the pdf file for this paper. http://web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Gior...es/ajpa2001.pdf
They talk about a sustantial immigration from central asia. I am not saying that these papers are contradicting the paper that was presented here but if you are interested in these kind of things, then you should probably know that we are far from saying the last word regarding these kind of things. Not to mention that there are also problems with the correct association between haplogroups and geographical areas or groups of people.

So, i dont choose to believe or not to believe, i just dont wave in my hand four studies and say that this issue is SOLVED. Again, the way we interpret scientific data is also a questionable matter.

Anyway, i posted the rediculous "paper" about the "belgian turks" not to diminish the turkish academic world or to take a cheap shot or even to take this seriously but to show something you seem to forget. Unless you are an expert on molecular biology or genetics, you should read carefully the scientific data and leave enough space for doubts and more studies. At least for me, this is the correct path. If it is not for you, it is your right. So, your last comment: All I am saying that the argument that the modern Turks came from Central Asia is not supportable according to the genetic studies. is more absolute and final than it should be.


As for the nationalist rhetoric, i assure you that nationalists dont give a shit for science.

Raven,

I am not sure if I have understood your sentence correctly, but if you are saying that people do not take ethnic and nationalistic arguments seriously then I strongly disagree. They are very strong in Turkey and from the limited information I have (maybe not so limited) the situation is not very different in Greece either. Especially the theme of the migration from Central Asia is very strong in Turkey and rather in both countries. I have had many occasions to -*test*-('") this personally.

[QUOTE=yakamoz,January 10, 2008 08:29 pm]
I am not sure if I have understood your sentence correctly, but if you are saying that people do not take ethnic and nationalistic arguments seriously then I strongly disagree. They are very strong in Turkey and from the limited information I have (maybe not so limited) the situation is not very different in Greece either. Especially the theme of the migration from Central Asia is very strong in Turkey and rather in both countries. I have had many occasions to -*test*-('") this personally.

i meant in the field of science. anyone interested in anthropology can see its a load of nonsense.

You cannot really compare Greek nationalism with the Turkish. If you are climbing up a mountain and it is 10,000 feet verically, and you are already at 5,000 feet you cannot say you want up 10,000 feet vertically. Greeks and Turks are not climbing from the same place or even the same mountain.

"Turkish" intellectuals in the second half of the 1800s discovered Turkism through European Turcologists like J. de Guignes, Arthur Lumley David, Leon Cahun.
Source:
Heyd, Uriel. Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teaching of Ziya Gokalp. (London: The Harvill Press, 1950) p. 105.

With Greek Nationalist ideologist, Korais, it was the opposite. Korais and his knowledge of ancient Greek and Greek antiquity was praised by American contemporaries:

John Pickering(contemporary American linguist from Boston)
Edward Everett
Thomas Jefferson

Source:
Founded on Freedom and Virtue: Documents Illustrating American Support of the Greek War of Independence, 1821-1829 edited by Constantine G. Hatzidimitriou. (Caratzas, NY, 2002) pp. 1-38.

Also it was said that European classicists highly regarded his knowledge as well. I am shocked to see how stupid, infantile and incorrect what Gokalp wrote was. The worst thing is alot of what he wrote for example is repeated in sources like The Origins of the Ottoman Empire. To give one example both Fuad Koprulu and Gokalp say to attribute high value to Turkic literature when examining Turkish history. Even worst is that the official Kemalist ideology is immortalizing alot of Gokalp's claptrap except that it is atributed as orginal ideas of Ataturk.

Agreed Raven, but unfortunately they are very few. I am not sure whether or not the discipline of history can be seen as a scientific field, but there are many historians in Turkey who do accept the ethnic and nationalistic arguments. Also, what bothers me the most is that most people do speak ethnically without really knowing where they are coming from (I don't care where someone comes from, but most people base their identities on knowing for sure where they are coming from and they actually don't know). The way I see it, if I do not have the means to say I am this or that by referring to where my ancestors are from then I shouldn't. I understand that people may choose to see themselves as part of this or that group, but in that case, they should formulate this in non-ethnic terms, without referring to some blood ties. To me such an act of identification is acceptable only when it is made in connection with admitting how mixed we are as individuals as well. Genetics show that we (the present day Turkish citizens) are mixed and/or quite many of us do not have Central Asian ancestry. In this case, if we are still saying that our ancestors came from Central Asia, as most people in Turkey, whether intellectuals or not, do unconsciously, then we are really taking these ethnic and nationalistic arguments seriously, knowingy or not. To me not taking ethnic and nationalistic arguments seriously means that one refuses to have an ethnic mind and does not define him or herself in these terms. This can be done and and this is where really the solution to the ethnic problems lies.

I wasn't really saying they are the same. Nor am I saying that one is a better form of nationalism than the other. All I was saying that the nationalistic and ethnic arguments are still very strong and important both in Greece and Turkey and both of them use this theme of the Central Asian migration in formulating their arguments. However, if I was to state my view on the matter of nationalisms in general, I would say that I see no good nationalism. To me, regardless of their content and history, every nationalism is unacceptable and a threat to the basic human rights.