|
Post by yahadj on Jan 1, 2008 21:52:55 GMT -5
How Turkish or Greek are Adam and Eve? 100%. End of discussion...
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 2, 2008 3:13:54 GMT -5
This is a good discussion and I don't want to ruin it. I just want to say that I got nothing against people who are partially Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jan 2, 2008 3:46:03 GMT -5
Yep ... those Anatolians were all sorts of things including Greek - and the Asiatic / Turkic component was pretty small. Even Turkish scholars say so ... (Thanks to Dienekes site dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html ). American Journal of Physical Anthropology (online early) 10.1002/ajpa.20772 Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans Ceren Caner Berkman et al. In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations. Scientifically speaking, there is no Turkish (or Turkic) gene to track down, and any comment violating the boundaries of scientific data appears to be non-conclusive. I several times presented a study on the Cumans buried in Hungary in the 13th Century. The study on Cuman DNAs did not reveal different outcome compared to the ones you present as evidence for your funny claims. The Cumanians were originally Asian pastoral nomads who in the 13th century migrated to Hungary. We have examined mitochondrial DNA from members of the earliest Cumanian population in Hungary from two archeologically well-documented excavations and from 74 modern Hungarians from different rural locations in Hungary. Haplogroups were defined based on HVS I sequences and examinations of haplogroup-associated polymorphic sites of the protein coding region and of HVS II. To exclude contamination, some ancient DNA samples were cloned. A database was created from previously published mtDNA HVS I sequences (representing 2,615 individuals from different Asian and European populations) and 74 modem Hungarian sequences from the present study. This database was used to determine the relationships between the ancient Cumanians, modern Hungarians, and Eurasian populations and to estimate the genetic distances between these populations. We attempted to deduce the genetic trace of the migration of Cumanians. This study is the first ancient DNA characterization of an eastern pastoral nomad population that migrated into Europe. The results indicate that, while still possessing a Central Asian steppe culture, the Cumanians received a large admixture of maternal genes from more westerly populations before arriving in Hungary. A similar dilution of genetic, but not cultural, factors may have accompanied the settlement of other Asian nomads in Europe.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16596944&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum Let us also examine the Chuvash people: The Chuvash are believed to have originated from Turkic-Altaic Bulgar tribes who migrated in the 4th century A.D. from Central Asia together with the Huns to the western region of the Volga River. The ancestors of the Chuvash were also found as seminomadic tribes of ancient Bulgars who lived in the North Caucasus steppes in the 5th to 8th centuries. In the 7th to 8th centuries a portion of the Bulgars left for the Balkans, while another subdivision moved to the mid-Volga region and made up the ethnic base of the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars.
HLA alleles have been determined for the first time in individuals from the Chuvashian population by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, and -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have also been determined, and the results compared to those for Central Europeans, Siberians and other Asians, Caucasians, Middle Easterners, and Mediterranean peoples. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms, and correspondence analysis have been performed. Present-day Chuvash speak an Altaic-Turkic language and are genetically related to Caucasians (Georgians), Mediterraneans, and Middle Easterners, and not only to Central or Northern Europeans; Chuvash contain little indications of Central Asian-Altaic gene flow. Thus, present-day Chuvash who speak an Altaic-Turkic language are probably more closely related to ancient Mesopotamian-Hittites and northern European populations than to central Asia-Altaic people.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200306/ai_n9288054One explanation, said Dr Wells, could be that the incomers were so successful that the original inhabitants of the region began to adopt the newcomers' language.
Modern Central Asia's diverse genetic mix is explained by the migrations that came much later, when the Silk Road carried wealth and trade goods from China to Europe and back.
These migrations are reflected in the DNA, too, and it is clear that despite the majority of modern Central Asians speaking Turkic languages, they derive much of their genetic heritage from the conquering Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1502189.stmSo, I really wonder as whether you have any scientific data concluding that the Turkic tribes invading Anatolia and Balkans (such as the Cuman, Pecheneg, Bulgar and Oghuz) had quite different racial make up compared to the present day Turks or not? Nevertheless, I do not really appreciate the idea of envisaging imaginary continental borders, cultural and racial differences to create a sphere of influence. Frankly speaking, I have to say that I really despise such mainstream European/Western efforts aiming to manipulate science for such primitive political reasonings.
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 2, 2008 5:40:40 GMT -5
You're not getting it. The articles you quote and the one by the Turkish scientist I posted both indicate that the original bearers of the Turkish/ Altaic cultures had relatively little genetic impact in the areas into which that culture expanded.
The primitive political reasoning here is yours, in that you seem to equate culture/language with genetic lineages. Go back far enough and it's unclear how much the Greeks replaced the original inhabitants of Hellas or merged into them after having achieved elite dominance.
In the great historical migrations and conquests it is only occasionally (as in the case of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Celtic Britain) that the original inhabitants were displaced by the newcomers. Often (as in the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon Britain) the newcomers imposed their language and culture, destroyed the previous elite and then gradually merged into the surrounding majority population.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jan 2, 2008 6:20:03 GMT -5
You're not getting it. The articles you quote and the one by the Turkish scientist I posted both indicate that the original bearers of the Turkish/ Altaic cultures had relatively little genetic impact in the areas into which that culture expanded. I am clearly getting it, but you are not. The article (you posted) does not examine the cultural effects of Turkic migration, but the genetic markers that people have. Most importantly, the article does not reveal any racial structure of the Turkic migration to Anatolia like you (and some others) naively try to, but it rather concludes that the racial DNA components existing in central Asian populations are not significant in Turkey (as it is in Chuvashia and as it was in Cumania). I do not agree. I do not equate language and genetic links at all. Most importantly, I am not trying to build some hollow sphere like you do here. Nevertheless, I am not interested as whether ancient Greeks were some Gypsies, Slavs, Arabs or Persians since I do not have any tendency to question the identity of the Greeks, racially, ethnically, or linguistically. However, such tendency to alienate people as "others" is usually common in European/Western cultures. Thus, historically speaking, such (so called) scientific reasonings were the prime primitive methodologies (like the one you offered us here) utilized to exterminate, discriminate, or despise some targeted peoples. Do you have any scientific evidence supporting your views? Most importantly, were those (who migrated to Britain) nomadic people like the Turks, Huns and Scythians?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 2, 2008 12:22:38 GMT -5
I deleted unrelated responses in the thread. -------- "Quote: However, such tendency to alienate people as "others" is usually common in European/Western cultures. Thus, historically speaking, such (so called) scientific reasonings were the prime primitive methodologies (like the one you offered us here) utilized to exterminate, discriminate, or despise some targeted peoples." I fail to see how this thread deals with anything else but attempting to use genetics (at times, when needed, couped with physical and cultural anthropology) to determine whether a given population is or is not of given origin (which I believe is by far the most precise method available to come to such conclusion). The subject is not whether a given population is intellectually inferior versus another one, in such case such subject could be compared with the quote above. Therefore lets not try to address something fully unrelated to the subject at hand otherwise it will take a discussion in a undesired direction and one unrelated to the topic at hand. PS: This and similar threads in any given forum will move eventually to appropriate forum (such as genetics or anthropology forum in this case)
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jan 2, 2008 14:20:14 GMT -5
I deleted unrelated responses in the thread. I fail to see how this thread deals with anything else but attempting to use genetics (at times, when needed, couped with physical and cultural anthropology) to determine whether a given population is or is not of given origin (which I believe is by far the most precise method available to come to such conclusion). The subject is not whether a given population is intellectually inferior versus another one, in such case such subject could be compared with the quote above. Therefore lets not try to address something fully unrelated to the subject at hand otherwise it will take a discussion in a undesired direction and one unrelated to the topic at hand. PS: This and similar threads in any given forum will move eventually to appropriate forum (such as genetics or anthropology forum in this case) This forum is full of unrelated discussions, but I do not agree that such discussions should be deleted. The ideas raised by Hellboy, BibleRiot and their likes are not some concepts that I really appreciate. Let us examine why? BibleRiot:
Yep ... those Anatolians were all sorts of things including Greek - and the Asiatic / Turkic component was pretty small. Even Turkish scholars say so ... (Thanks to Dienekes site dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html ). In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations.
Is this some innocent approach to the subject? If there is scientific proof on the Mongoloid origins and racial features of the Turks (invading Anatolia), then it could have been deemed as innocent, but we all know well that there is no such prevailing evidence. Therefore, I do not agree with people who claim to present some conclusions based upon some non-conclusive assumptions. In fact, I think, such approach to the subject may be explained by the racist perceptions that had been invented and utilized by the Eurocentric circles.
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 3, 2008 6:45:57 GMT -5
Jan, you're right, I think I've misunderstood your perfectly legitimate objection. Am I right in saying that what you're questioning is the assumption that “( if) the Turkmen incomers were not too different from the modern Turkic speaking groups of Central Asia “ as Benedetto, Barbujani et al put it in their 2001 study ( web.unife.it/progetti/genetica/Giorgio/PDFfiles/ajpa2001.pdf) ? If so, you may have a point. The detectable incidence of Central Asian gene-flow in Anatolia does not preclude the possibility that the original bearers of Turkic language/culture into the region may have been Chuvash-like in their lack of Mongoloid markers. All I can say is that the evidence from the portraits of early Turkish lords does suggest a Mongoloid element. One could however argue that this was essentialy a matter of style and artistic convention; when they were painted by Westerners, they were depicted as Caucasians. Or one might even suggest that some confederation of Caucasian tribes might have undergone a process of elite substitution before becoming the Oghuz Turks. Until we can really work on ancient bones beyond the current slightly dodgy mtDNA analysis, there's some significant IF's in all these studies.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jan 4, 2008 2:35:56 GMT -5
Lol...jenny sees racism everywhere. Different studies for different countries give different results. In UK, they have conducted many such studies on the population there. For the native Brits, they have concluded two things:
1. That the Saxon and the Norman element is not so strong as it once was believed to have been;
2. That a good portion of (white) Brits have African origins, believed to have been included when Brittain was part of the Roman Empire.
If the Europeans were on a conspiracy edge, as you try to imply, and wanted to promote their shyt, those studies wouldn't have given such reports.
|
|