Again, you’re really missing my point here completely. I didn’t post that extract from the TSK website as any kind of genetic Exhibit A. I posted this for a reason, which I will explain further down the thread.

As for the Seljuks and the Seleucids…well, to be honest I don’t know how the Seleucids entered the fray in the 11th century apart from sharing a name that begins with the same letter. But what I am sure of is there was a reason after Manzikert they came to be the Seljuks of Rum ie Romania aka the East Roman Empire.

Also afaik the Seljuk conquest of the interior of Asia Minor was actually accidental. Alpy had no intention of invading the Byzantine Empire. He was marching against the Egyptian Fatimids when the Byzantine emperor, Romanos, assembled a large army against him, who didn’t really like the idea of the Seljuks conquering Armenia and all that. Even after his crushing victory, Alpy was willing to maintain the territorial status quo until the infamous Byzantine politics played their wretched part. At the end, the Seljuks found a massive land that wasn’t left undefended and they said, “all right, come to papa babeaaa”.

[QUOTE=Raven,January 19, 2008 07:58 am] I showed a genetic -*test*-('") confirming this
[/QUOTE]

My actual argument is not if you’re indeed from Mongolia. I’m just disputing your claim that the Asia Minor Greeks are actually “Hellenized Anatolian aboriginals” and thus bear no relations with Greeks proper physically, culturally and linguistically. In short, what you’re stating is false, have not provided any evidence to support it and which has much to do with your own Gonzo nationalism.

But you’re still going on about that genetic -*test*-('") even though I’ve already posted another genetic study proving a common link between the mainland and Asia Minor Greeks, which you have conveniently neglected to give an opinion.

As for your genetic -*test*-('"), the example which you’ve over exhausted ffs, what does it confirm exactly?

[QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

The obvious.

The geographic position of Asia Minor, literally at the crossroads of east and west, as well as an Ottoman empire that stretched from Iraq to the Danube, such a finding is not surprising. But how you’ve come to interpret it as proving without doubt that modern Turks, may they be from Edirne, Trabzon, Sivas or Urfa, as well the Asia Minor Greeks, somehow possess common indigenous Anatolian genes really beats the hell out of me.

Now I’m guessing you consider yourself an “Anadolid” whose ancestors fought against the Greeks at Troy, sat next to Homer as he recited the Iliad and the Odyssey, challenged Alexander to cut the Gordion Knot and was on the losing side at the Battle of Manzikert. But I’m sure there are many Turks who cannot claim such a pure Anatolian pedigree.

So what about the Turks from the Balkans/Europe (Greek, Slav, Albanian or Jewish background) or southern Russia/Caucasus (Laz, Circassion, Armenian), and what of those from the near East (Assyrian, Persian and Kurd, as well as the Turcomen), who make up a significant proportion of modern Turks?? How do you exactly cluster them with your Anatolian aboriginal thesis?

[QUOTE]Actually the cultural differences which exist in Northern/southern Italy are so strong that many northerners and southerners view each other as completely different nationalities. It even goes into politics. You have the Lega Nord who want to cut Italy in half and create a separate Northern state and you have the Lega Sud who want to create an independent southern state[/QUOTE]

The Liga Nord ‘s platform has always been that of devolution. Bossi’s half-arsed declaration of independence for “Padania” was most likely a ploy to force the issue of federation, which obviously didn’t work. But when that didn’t pan out he still would have had some upper hand in the wheeling-and-dealing re minor parties when forming coalitions in that crazy world of Italian politics. Anyway, the day he declared independence he got 10,000 supporters at his rally. The same day 80,000 Milanese (northerners fyi) marched for unity.

And as for this Lega Sud, haven’t really heard of them and couldn’t find anything on Google so I assume they’re a minor movement of no real political importance. Like many other things in this thread you inflate/misconstrue its importance.

[QUOTE]The cultural differences go hand in hand with genetics. Northern Italians genetically cluster strongly with the French and central Europeans whilst Southern Italians cluster strongly with Greeks and Near Easterners.[/QUOTE]

This is where you get caught out again. Like you did with the Greeks in Greece, even though both people developed on smaller peninsulas than Asia Minor, you argue the Greeks and Italians “vary from region to region” but yet insist of a
common heritage and genetics for Turks. You insist of Anatolian “aboriginals” and yet dismiss the notion of Italian or Greek “aboriginals”.

[QUOTE]before the Risorgimento there no such thing as Italy. It was a forced union of different peoples who had little in common with one another and these differences may well one day lead to its dissolution in the future so the point you were trying to make through using it as an example is void.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of your narrow interpretations on everything, north or south they all consider themselves Italians and their culture and language collectively is still Italian. If you scroll above, my point of using Italy as an example was to counter your claim that different dialects and customs signifies a different people/culture, especially when you tried to use the pretty lame example of the Pontian kementzes as proof.

And I wouldn’t refer to it Italy as a forced union, rather than an inevitable one during the 19th century and the emergence of nation states. And 140 years later they’re still together.

[QUOTE]Turkish Cypriots speak Ottoman Turkish therefore making it difficult to understand for mainlanders where the language evolved over time.

btw i am a TC myself but was born in Izmir so i can speak both "dialects" and the differences arent that great.[/QUOTE]

And TC’s are Anadolids whilst the GC’s Armenoids, the former being related to the mainland Turks the latter unrelated to the mainland Greeks, right?

This would explain this remark when I mentioned Greeks in London:

[QUOTE]most of them are from Cyprus, not the real deal
http://greekturkish.18.forumer.com/index.p...indpost&p=73077[/QUOTE]

So Turks today are all the same regardless of the obvious differences and yet we Greeks become a different people with each region. And much of this has got more to do with your own political views then anything factual.

@ bukefalos, hence the use of the term Yunan for mainland Greeks and Rum for polites and Cypriots.

[QUOTE]I am in London now, north London to be exact which is teeming with Greeks and I say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

This is the point I should stop taking this thread seriously and not bother anymore.

As a Greek as opposed to you a Turk, I’ve shown you that I have relatives and friends from all over Greece, btw have recently traveled through the country from north and south (a Peloponesian who stayed with relatives in Thessaloniki and Serres) , and yet you who live in London, a city mainly “teething” with Greek Cypriots, says otherwise.

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person who can see how ridicules you sound.

[QUOTE]You contradict yourself here

"so hence why I can dismiss your claim that “Greeks vary greatly from region to region”

in order for all Greeks to have the exact same phenotypes irregardless of where they come from a certain degree of "purity" is required isnt it?[/QUOTE]

I certainly didn’t contradict myself. I readily admitted there are different physical types, giving first hand personal examples and even quoting Britannica. Seriously, how many times must I say I’ve never promoted a pure Greek race? We were never overwhelmed (a la Fallmeter) though we did absorb other people.

So if anyone is contradicting themselves it is you, matey. You readily admitted above southern Italians “cluster strongly” with Greeks across the Ionian Sea and yet is quick to dismiss a similar “strong cluster” in reference to the same Greeks just across the Aegean. You insist on the different phenotypes in the Greek and Italian peninsulas but yet assert a common one for all Turks today regardless of origins and regions.

[QUOTE]It’s you who are applying Nazi generic theories, stating because every modern Greek doesn’t resemble something similar to the Children of the Corn therefore we can’t claim any affinity with out ancestors of antiquity or our own who came as refugees from Asia Minor.

I never said this.[/QUOTE]

That is what you seem to be implying. And haven’t you been regurgitating ad nauseam that the Asia Minor Greeks are “Hellenized Anatolians” more related to modern Turks than Greeks, and applying the same theory to the Cypriots.

[QUOTE]What about the non-Greek Anatolian Lycians and Trojans? they lived on the coastlines where the Greeks settled. How can you completely rule out large numbers of them becoming Hellenized and assimilating into the Greek populations?[/QUOTE]

Quite simple. Non-Greeks were absorbed. Besides, Lycians and Phrygians settled Asia Minor from the Balkans and the Aegean, spoke an Indo-European and language and were probably physically identical to the Greeks. And nor did we enter Asia Minor as masters, like the Seljuks, and imposed our culture, language etc. We came as settlers and eventually absorbed others. So what does it matter anyway, after a time span of almost two millenniums they became Greek. After 1071 there was movement of people after the Seljuk invasion and, just like large areas of mainland Greece, and especially the Aegean Islands, there remained distinctively Greek so did areas of Asia Minor and Pontus. So whilst some areas became Hellenized and others had always been Greek. And I did show you a genetic -*test*-('") that shows the mainland and Asia Minor Greeks are related.

You, on the other hand, like to think the Greek genes were completely outbred at one point of time. However, borrowing your own line, “genetic -*test*-('")s prove otherwise”. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Another interesting genetic -*test*-('"):

[QUOTE]The new study shows that among the Pakistani populations, only the Pathans seem to be closer to the Greeks, and not the pagan Kalash and the Burusho. Unfortunately, claims about the Hellenicity of the Kalash seem to persist despite the genetic evidence that has accumulated over the years.

Moreover, the similarity between the Pathans and the Greeks is not accidental. An argument for the real contribution of Greeks to the Pathan population is the discovery of specific haplotypes within haplogroup E3b1 that seem to be of Greek-Balkan origin and which are found only in the Pathans among the Pakistani populations.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/10/greek...ns-but-not.html[/QUOTE]

But I can't vouch on its merits, since I am not expert like you.

Anyway, so who are the Anatolian aboriginals anyway? The Hittites? The Lydians? The Lycians? Or is it the Persians, Phrygians or Medes? Well, none of them really since they all came from outside Asia Minor.

And would you consider Homer an Ancient Turk or Ancient Greek? Is Ataturk, despite being born Thessaloniki, one of these Anatolia aboriginals? It is not impossible, right? But does that genetic -*test*-('") prove that? Yes? But how?

[QUOTE]why do you dismiss the theory of Greek settlers mixing en masse with the Aboriginal Anatolians so easily? Give me some REASONS for once![/QUOTE]
Re-read my previous posts in this thread. I gave you ample of “some REASONS”.

If you choose to pretend that I didn’t then SHOUT at your reflection in the mirror.


[QUOTE]There is no such thing as an "unique" Anatolian gene. looking at the different subraces usually makes more sense than reading genetic studies at times.[/QUOTE]

But in essence that’s what you’re saying. According to you, Italians and Greeks per region vary genetically, culturally and linguistically, and thus are different people with no relations to each other none whatsoever. And yet in Turkey you all share common phenotypes despite the plethora of origins over an area that is twice the size of the Italian and Greek peninsulas.

[quote] I showed a genetic -*test*-('") confirming this [unquote]


[QUOTE]I brought genetics into this thread initialy to counter one of your posts. You know the one when you dismissed my claim of the Seljuks making a minor demegraphic impact in Anatolia as "silly".[/QUOTE]

Which post is that? My first one? You got to be kidding me…


Actually you’re not.

In that post (it has to be it because I didn’t post anything prior to you “countering” it) I was disputing Binder’s 40,000 year gene claim.

And in another post to you this is what I wrote:

[QUOTE]It’s all about keeping one’s heritage believable. When you try to talk about a 40,000 gene, direct decadency with the Hittites, such is the flaw your claims can easily be taken to so many different directions and not end up to the same conclusion.[/QUOTE]

To which you replied:

[QUOTE]You are confusing yakamoz's posts as mine[/QUOTE]

And now you’re saying you were out to prove me wrong.

Matey, make up your mind. Before you start accusing me of being ignorant and contradictory you need to have a look at your own posts. You’re contradicting yourself not with each paragraph but with each corresponding sentence.


[QUOTE]2 good examples of Anadolids (a subrace which is native largely to Anatolia)

Aristotle Onassis:
Stelios Kazantzidis:

and guess what, they are both Anatolian Rum!

The Turkish actress Berguzar Korel is also a good example despite being partially Mediterranid:[/QUOTE]

Nice one. You pick two Greeks who can pass as Arabs and one Turkish hottie who is “partially Mediterranid”.

These three selective photos prove n-o-t-h-i-n-g and do not a-n-s-w-e-r my initial question. I asked you to e-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-e and what the d-i-s-t-i-n-c-t physical features are. You have not. You do no elaborate apart from repeating yourself with: “Genetic -*test*-('")s prove me right”.

You picked two Greeks and stated: here, anadolids-- full stop.

[QUOTE]if i were to go into the distinct physical characteristics i have a feeling I will get a "we're not trying to split the atom" kind of response from you.[/QUOTE]

Don’t cower away by saying you “have a feeling”. What’s the only response I get from you: “genetic -*test*-('")s prove it— full stop” The reason why I said that was to entice a bloody debate and not make into a thread of tit-for-tat postings of genetic studies, hence my “split the atom” remark.


And btw the reason why I asked you what an Anadolid/Anatolid is because I did a google search and all I got was hits on software, geographic plates and a handful of hits for biogenetic forums where that term only got a mentioning.

btw, have any of you checked out those biogenetic forums? Freaky stuff with all those nose measurements.

Take this chap from central Turkey for example



They were arguing if he is a Taurid or an Eastern Meditarannid Capadoccid.

What would you classify him as, Raven? Me, personally, I say he’s a Rhinonid.


[QUOTE]As for Kurds, a minority of them are Anadolid but the vast majority of them are subracially Iranid/Irano-Afghan indicating their Iranic background.[/QUOTE]

From what I understand, Kurds aren’t even restricted to the south-east. There are large communities around Ankara and Istanbul. From the top of my head, two notable Anatolian aboriginals with Kurdish backgrounds: Inonu and Ozel. So there would have been significant Kurdish intrusions in your modern Anatolian gene pool.

I wrote

[QUOTE]They don’t claim they are indigenous to the region, whom can claim a 40,000 year lineage and just adopted the Hungarian language and custom.[/QUOTE]

And you posted

[QUOTE]any Hungarian who isnt a Pan-Turanist wacko will tell you exactly that as that is what happened.
I would post a genetic -*test*-('") confirming this but....you know.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

[QUOTE]And will you also be the first to say of pre-Turkish Asia Minor, “But back then we used to speak Greek and adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith?”

[QUOTE]Yes i would say that[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Fine, we finally find agreement that the whole of Asia Minor was once a Greek region before it became a Turkish region.

[QUOTE]Actually it is you who lacks consistency. In this exact same post of yours you said:

"And what does this show anyway? It’s obvious that most of today Turks are not directly related to the central Asiatic Turkmen (Caucasoid opposed to Mongoloid; a big difference)."

If the Seljuks had a major impact on the demographics of Anatolia than modern day Turks would be genetically similar to the Turkmen of Central Asia, since they're not it would suggest the Seljuk invasion had a minimal impact on the population.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, you said any central Asiatic features found in modern Turks was due to Tartars settling in Asia Minor. Obviously this is false as other Turcomen nomads did come in the wake of the Seljuks. What impact they had is debatable anyway. In some Turks it’s more obvious (ie that football player you cited) and others it’s less obvious (eg Ciller). I can also give another example of your closest relatives, the Ajeris and Iraqi Turkomen, whom don’t seem to resemble central Asians.

But again, I really couldn’t give a monkey’s arse if you really are from Central Asia. I’m not going to lose sleep over it. My initial input into this thread was a re Binder’s claim, and I would have left it at that until you began with your rubbish about Anatolia Rum. So that is an argument you really need to take to your own fellow countrymen who say otherwise.

eg
Genetic link between Xiong-Nu and modern Turkshttp://greekturkish.18.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=3783&hl=

[QUOTE]The native population of Asia Minor became Turkicized after the battle of Manzikert.[/QUOTE]

Historically inaccurate. 1071 only marks the beginning of central Asia Minor’s Turkish period. The western quarter and the north and south coasts were only gradually conquered by Turks over the next three centuries, with the last area, Pontos, finally succumbing to the Ottomans c. 1470. Full Turkification was not achieved until after 1923. In that time Greeks and Armenians, the ones who didn’t convert to Islam, remained as the distinct ancient communities.

[QUOTE]The generals are blinded by Pan-Turanist infulenced nationalism. their symptoms are similar to yours. You are 2 sides of the same coin.[/QUOTE]

I need to pull out that word your obviously allergic to: elaborate. So please elaborate as to what symptoms I share with your generals…and in that case Ataturk as well. He seems to have been really keen on the idea of Turks coming from Central Asia, even commissioning the Turkish History Thesis on that basis.

So like your generals, Ataturk was talking shit?

And btw, matey, you’re the one expressing a Goebalist nationalism not me. My argument is based on the historical development whereas you keep quoting that one Turkish genetic study, which how many times do I stress does not prove anything you claim that most/majority of Turks are related to Anatolian aboriginals

Btw, you wrote: The generals are blinded

Oh boy

Article 301

[QUOTE]2 A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.

3 In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.[/QUOTE]

You’re in big trouble, mister. But I won’t tell.

[QUOTE]If I’m correct, it’s widely believed that Ataturk’s family is directly descendent from the Ozguk tribe. Will you be the first to renounce this as a fallacy?

[QUOTE]It is not for me to say. It is not impossible that he was.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Not for you to say?! Your whole posts have been to refute such a notion. And I knew I would catch you out with this.

And your pretty confident in having “to say” your opinion just about on everyone else in the region. You need to keep your argument consistent and next time omit the “not” before you accuse anyone of contradicting themselves.


[QUOTE]Yes I do. The Serbs, Macedons/Skops and Bulgars are largely descended from native Thracians and Illyrians who were Slavicized hence they are phenotypically largely Dinarid and Mediterranid as opposed to Nordid/Baltid which the true Slavs, the Russians, Poles etc are. Ironically the Serbs are closer to their arch nemisis the Albanians then they are to their Russian "brothers"[/QUOTE]

But Slavs and Avars did settle in the Balkans. The former even reached parts of western Greece and Peloponese before most of them were evacuated en mass to Bithynia by the Byzantines. (And do you remember who replaced them?) If they mixed with the ancient populations, including Greeks, they still formed three different people/nations.

It wasn't as you claimed, basically overlords came into the regions as conquerors rather then settler-conquerors, and imposed their culture and language on the indigenous populations, a somewhat bizarre and improvable extension of Darwinsm it seems.

[QUOTE]When you dismiss this theory with facts and statistics rather than wishful thinking I will stop making this claim[/QUOTE]

You show an obvious pattern. The points you’re confident that you can counter you reply to. The ones you can’t you ignore or simply dismiss without elaborating.

[QUOTE]You interpretational skills are poor to say the least[/QUOTE]

Please refer to my comment directly above.

[QUOTE]Your ignorance of histroy is astonishing but not surprising. I suggest you read bukefalos' post.[/QUOTE]

Yep…


What you are is a Gonzo nationalist (a la Gonzo journalism, style that tends to blend factual and fictional elements to emphasize an underlying message)

As for the Russians, they are pretty much a mix bunch and the remnants of centuries of Mongolian occupation certainly shows up now and again. Just look at Boris Yeltsin and Yul Bryner.

I never said that Asia Minor Greeks have absolutely no similarities to mainland Greeks

I havent. initially i posted that genetic -*test*-('") as support for the theory that there was little Central Asian settlement in Anatolia , that was my one and only intention

well no i cant say that i am as I was classified as East-Mediterranid on a anthropoligical website i post on. Anadolids arent the only subrace that can be found in Anatolia, its just a subrace which is native to the region and is found in considerably high numbers but not the only one.

please please please show me where I have said that ALL TURKS are descended from Anatolian aboriginals? i said the BULK of the population is descended from Anatolian aboriginals or has some aboriginal ancestry. ofcourse millions of people have ancestry from outside Anatolia e.g. the Balkans, Caucasus etc.

unlike you i have never said there is a uniform Turkish "race"

whether or not they are major/minor movements is irrelevent. the fact that they exist at all proves the point i was making

oh lord give me strength (your nonsense could drive an Atheist into becoming a religious fundamentalist) where have I ever said that all Turks have a common heritage and genetics? For the record Turks are just as diverse (if not more) as Greeks and Italians. Turks also vary from region to region, maybe I should said that earlier.

and where have I ever dismissed the notion of Italian or Greek aboriginals? all I have said is that the Greeks arent the aboriginals of Anatolia, is this true or is it false?

yes you are correct silly me. its not like German is spoken in the Tyrol mountains or Griko is spoken in parts of the south of the country or that every region has its own distinct dialect e.g. Napolitean, Sicilian etc yes its all in my mind.

there are TC's who are Anadolid and there are many that arent since Turks arent a homogenous group it isnt possible to generalize. some TC's also have GC and Venecian ancestry (shock horror what am i saying).
that one statement alone flushes your theory of me being a "Gonzo" nationalist down the crapper. Checkmate matey!!!!

I made a mistake when i said that Armenoids are common amongst GC's as Armenoids can only be found in their purest form amongst Armenians and eastern Anatolians, i should have said Anadolids.

GC's have some ancestry from the mainlanders but they also have considerable Levantine ancestry which cant be ignored.

that was a joke.

I dont if you have noticed but you have a tendency of repeating the same old boring untrue lines over and over and over again.

Considering the geographical distance between Southern Italy and Greece it is no surprise the 2 regions cluster strongly together. in fact all the populations of eastern mediterranean cluster strongly together irregardless of ethnicity.

at last you admit it. finally we are getting somewhere

they were the first civilizations/settlemnt there thus making them indigenous

yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. for the billionth time i have never said that!!!!!!!!

ugh ok the best way to describe Anadolids is a Dinaricized Mediterranid type local to Anatolia. the physical features include a relatively large fleshy nose, occasionally thick eyebrows, brunet to white skin tone usually with dark brown or black hair

i am a member of a good biogenetic forum. it is a little freaky i guess to someone who isnt interested in that kinda stuff

thats not very nice Opti

anyway Taurids and Anadolids are the same thing and i would agree with the Taurid classification and btw he is from the NE of Turkey, not the centre

thats due to immigration. they arent local/native to those regions

Asia Minor was a Greek speaking region yes.

I didnt say it was exclusively due to Tatar settlement. i said the majority of people who have Asiatic features are of Tatar descent or in some cases Nogai/Uyghur/Turkmen etc descent which is the truth.

many Central Asians settled in Turkey from the Soviet union

Ciller doesnt show any Central Asian features (she is partially Bosniak btw). i would say she is an Alpinid . the Azeris are largely descendants of Turkicized Persians.

so? the study i posted also showed that some people in Turkey have Central Asian heritage even if its a very small amount. that study doesnt disprove anything i have said

lol do you really need to ask?

i never posted that study for that purpose

ok if you want my honest opinion he wasnt

thats exactly what happened

while there are Russians who show Mongolid admixture the dominant subraces indicate their Slavic roots. this isnt the case with the Serbs etc

both. Because a great part, especially those living on the west coast of anatolia, indeed are.

the ones that lived on the west coast were descended from Greek colonizers who mixed with local peoples

I have been busy lately. My apologies.

Razordur why are you getting so excited? Let me first start by fixing one of my sentences in my previous post. It has been a long time since I wrote in English. When I wrote “Every time I say something you go to internet and try to come up with something that supports your argument”, I obviously didn’t mean what you thought I had meant. Why should it bother me that you come up with counter-arguments to support your case? However, if you do this in a way that gives the impression that you grab the first thing that comes in your way then that bothers me a bit. First you brought an article that was ridiculed nearly by everyone and then you showed me an article that was already used in the original Central Asian article printed in this Turkish monthly called Virgül.

In the first case your supporting material was accompanied by these words: “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.” First of all, as far as I know, this paper has not been made available to the general public, so we really don’t know the content of his genetic research, his methodology, his data and etc. Without this information we cannot really say how reliable a genetic study it is, can we? Secondly, the connection that was made in this paper between the Belgians and the Oghuz of the Central Asia of the medieval period (according to this newspaper article) was not based on any genetic material, but the similarities between place names and the symbols between these two political entities. So, it is really not a good example, is it?

In the second case your material was followed by these words: “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.” The main problem that bothered me the most here was the part that started with “if you are interested in these kind of thing, then you should probably know…” You would have known that this paper was already incorporated in the Virgül article, if you had done your research. I understand that you may have not been able to read the Virgül article, since it is in Turkish, but you could at least try to ask around to see what sources were used in the preparation of this article. Had you done this, you would have known that I was already familiar with this paper and you would have (hopefully) refrained from using the words mentioned above.

Now, to sum it up, these two examples gave me the impression that you were just grabbing whatever you were finding in the web. Otherwise, your examples or your supporting material would have made some sense or been about the topic. Or you could have presented something that would show the problems related to the “correct association between haplogroups and geographical areas or groups of people” in this case. Just saying that there is such a problem doesn’t really mean much, unless you can show that the same kind of problem exists in this particular case as well. I approach your claim that “we are far from saying the last word” from a similar perspective. Every serious researcher in this area and in every scientific field knows that almost always we are far from saying the last word. Isn’t this what science is based upon after all? I know this too and that is why I have been careful not to give the impression that this was it (perhaps I was not as successful in this as I thought I was, but not failed terribly either I assume). I was simply trying to show the la-*test*-('") stage in this research and what can be said about the famous Central Asian migration theory or the myth, using the material available. As I said, whether or not you like it, this is what we have at the moment. This information may be improved upon or refuted completely in future, but right now this is what we have and according this information, the thesis that the modern Turks arrived from the Central Asia is in urgent need of revision or reconsideration. Your claim that we are far from saying the last word doesn’t really bring anything new to the discussion. You are just stating what every serious researcher in this area already knows. If the topic was about whether or not we should make use of the genetic studies in our history classrooms or in the field of history, perhaps your argument would have some merit, provided that it went into more detail. But in our case the topic seems to be where the genetic studies which make claims about the Turkish migration theory are taking us as far as the validity and the truth of this particular theory and its implications regarding the history of the Turkey and the whole region itself are concerned. This is why your argument does not have much use and this is why I meant to use the word “in vain” somewhere in that sentence but obviously forgot. Thanks for pointing to my mistake.

Sometimes I like to add oil to the fire
Here is an abstract to a very new study about Greek genetics. Peter Underhill is a well known geneticist and both Greek and Turkish geneticists took part. Please disregard the aim of the study (to support an assumed pattern of neolithic dispersal) as I do not think it proves anything even though the theory makes sense IMO. Just have a look at the genetic observations.
Sorry but I do not have access to the full text.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...09.2007.00414.x

I have found some maps for you from different sources, not terribly accurate but they give an idea.

J2a or M410 is very common in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent and Anatolia.



J2b or M12/M102 is considered "indigenous" in the Balkans and is centred close to the mythical birthplace of the Greek nation, Epirus.



E3b1a2 or V13 is another "Balkan" haplogroup particularly common amongst Albanians and Greeks.



So, who are the Greeks? The "Albanian like" northerners (mainlanders)? Or the "Turkish like" southerners (Cretans and I would dare say Cypriots, Dodecanesians etc)?

Just out of curiousity, are you the same Artemidoros who used to post in Dienekes' "Dodona" forums?

Yes.