Ottoman Empire Sultans haplogroup J2

[J Man]

I sent an email to the guy on ysearch who claims to be a descendant of the Ottoman Sultans. I did correspond with him before on this topic back near the end of last summer. He certainly does claim descent from the Ottoman Sultans.

I hope he responds to em this time though with evidence of who he descends from through Yussuf Izzeddin. I don't know if Yussuf's son had any sons or not?

[bob_chasm]

I sent an email to the guy on ysearch who claims to be a descendant of the Ottoman Sultans. I did correspond with him before on this topic back near the end of last summer. He certainly does claim descent from the Ottoman Sultans.

I hope he responds to em this time though with evidence of who he descends from through Yussuf Izzeddin. I don't know if Yussuf's son had any sons or not?

According to the report, he had a son, named Prince Shehzade Mehmet Nizameddin Efendi who was

"Born 10 January 1909 in Beshiktash. Obviously never married. Died 21 March 1933 in Orsellina, Italy."

I wonder if the particpant claims to be the son of Prince Shehzade? Perhaps he married an Italian heart-throb and had children. However, they may have wanted to guard the children's paternal identity to protect them from being harmed in Italy/ keep Ataturk's young turks from wanting to hang them. I also dont know what Italy would be like for children of Muslim Ottoman rulers in the 20th c.. In any event, it will be interesting to read what he has to say.

ps. During WWII, I had two uncles who were taken POW by the Italians. After the war, one of them almost ended up marrying an Italian girl and staying in Italy. The other one came back and ended up becoming a President of a Muslim country, several years later. These were maternal uncles, so cannot say if they were J2 or not.

[J Man]

According to the report, he had a son, named Prince Shehzade Mehmet Nizameddin Efendi who was

"Born 10 January 1909 in Beshiktash. Obviously never married. Died 21 March 1933 in Orsellina, Italy."

I wonder if the particpant claims to be the son of Prince Shehzade? Perhaps he married an Italian heart-throb and had children. However, they may have wanted to guard the children's paternal identity to protect them from being harmed in Italy/ keep Ataturk's young turks from wanting to hang them. I also dont know what Italy would be like for children of Muslim Ottoman rulers in the 20th c.. In any event, it will be interesting to read what he has to say.

ps. During WWII, I had two uncles who were taken POW by the Italians. After the war, one of them almost ended up marrying an Italian girl and staying in Italy. The other one came back and ended up becoming a President of a Muslim country, several years later. These were maternal uncles, so cannot say if they were J2 or not.

I am thinking that he must be a descendant then of Shehzade if he claims to be of Ottoman royal origin. Either that or the descendant of say Yussuf's concubines or something which then though would not make him a legitimate heir or descendant I believe. I hope he replies to em about this soon.

Very interesting to hear about your uncles as well. My maternal grandfather along with his brother was in WWII as well. They were J2s also as a few years ago we had my maternal grandfather take a Y-DNA test. My grandfather's brother was in Italy for a period during the war also.

Which country did you uncle become president of if you don't mind me asking?

[bob_chasm]

I am thinking that he must be a descendant then of Shehzade if he claims to be of Ottoman royal origin. Either that or the descendant of say Yussuf's concubines or something which then though would not make him a legitimate heir or descendant I believe. I hope he replies to em about this soon.

Very interesting to hear about your uncles as well. My maternal grandfather along with his brother was in WWII as well. They were J2s also as a few years ago we had my maternal grandfather take a Y-DNA test. My grandfather's brother was in Italy for a period during the war also.

Which country did you uncle become president of if you don't mind me asking?

I am not completely sure how it worked with the Ottomans, but usually the children of concubines inherit the same rights as the children of wives in Islam.

RE: Uncles

Let me clarify one was my mother's first cousin and married to my mom's sister ( making him my uncle). The other was his first cousin and also my grand mom's first cousin. They were both war buddies and treated each other like brothers. They were both officers in the 8th Army in WWII. I'd rather not say which country.

http://www.worldwartwobooks.com/product.php/4002/desert-rats-british-8th-army-in-north-africa-1941-43

[T E Peterman]

I think the Norman analogy for Turkey is a good one. The DNA of Anatolia looks about like what one would expect in the land where Europe and the Middle East come together: plenty of J, a nice percentage of R, a similar percentage of E3b & a few others.

My guess is that authentic Turks form a thin veneer of maybe 10% or less of the Turkish population. The other 90% is what was there beforehand.

I think that telltale patrilineal groups to look for among the authentic Turks would be N and Q. There might be some O. I doubt there would be much C. The Genghis Khan expansion both in territory and descendants happened centuries after the Turks moved into Anatolia. The authentic Turks may have brought in some outliers in the R haplogroup (ie, R1b that is M269-), but these would be harder to pick out.

Timothy Peterman

[bob_chasm]

I think the Norman analogy for Turkey is a good one. The DNA of Anatolia looks about like what one would expect in the land where Europe and the Middle East come together: plenty of J, a nice percentage of R, a similar percentage of E3b & a few others.

My guess is that authentic Turks form a thin veneer of maybe 10% or less of the Turkish population. The other 90% is what was there beforehand.

I think that telltale patrilineal groups to look for among the authentic Turks would be N and Q. There might be some O. I doubt there would be much C. The Genghis Khan expansion both in territory and descendants happened centuries after the Turks moved into Anatolia. The authentic Turks may have brought in some outliers in the R haplogroup (ie, R1b that is M269-), but these would be harder to pick out.

Timothy Peterman

You are right we would expect about 10% of N, Q and O. However, N, Q and O is all but absent in Turkey, Tim.

As far as the parallels between the Norman invasion, that is what I was trying to say too, i.e the Turks may have been the same as the native inhabitants of Anatolia, as Normans were the same as the Anglo Saxons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/society_01.shtml

[MMaddi]

You are right we would expect about 10% of N, Q and O. However, N, Q and O is all but absent in Turkey, Tim.

As far as the parallels between the Norman invasion, that is what I was trying to say too, i.e the Turks may have been the same as the native inhabitants of Anatolia, as Normans were the same as the Anglo Saxons:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...ciety_01.shtml

T E Peterman was agreeing with my point that the Turks and Normans did not significantly colonize their conquered territory. So they remained a small minority within the population. He was not agreeing with your point that the conquering and conquered populations were the same. At least, that seemed to be the gist of his posting. While you may make a case that the Anglo-Saxons and Normans were the same, although not strictly speaking, in no sense were the Norman conquerors the same as the population of Sicily and southern Italy (Arabs, Berbers, Italians, Greeks).

I looked at the original citation from Cinioglu about the haplogroup breakdown of modern Turkey. Here it is again: J2 - 24%; R1b3 - 15%; E3b - 11%; G - 11%; J1 - 9%; R1a - 7%; I - 5%; R2 - 1%. Add all those percentages up and you'll find the total is 83%, not 100%. What haplogroups comprise the missing 17%?

Here's a quote from the abstract for that study:
"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....

"This comprehensive characterization of Y-chromosome heritage addresses many multifaceted aspects of Anatolian prehistory, including: (1) the most frequent haplogroup, J, splits into two sub-clades, one of which (J2) shows decreasing variances with increasing latitude, compatible with a northward expansion; (2) haplogroups G1 and L show affinities with south Caucasus populations in their geographic distribution as well as STR motifs; (3) frequency of haplogroup I, which originated in Europe, declines with increasing longitude, indicating gene flow arriving from Europe; (4) conversely, haplogroup G2 radiates towards Europe; (5) haplogroup E3b3 displays a latitudinal correlation with decreasing frequency northward; (6) haplogroup R1b3 emanates from Turkey towards Southeast Europe and Caucasia and; (7) high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia."

Cinnioglu does find a "detectable yet weak signal" of the Central Asian origin of the conquering Turkic tribes who formed the leadership of the Ottoman Empire - "a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%)." He didn't include N as one of the haplogroups for a Central Asian signal, placing it among the major components of haplogroups, but T E Peterman had put forward N as a possible signal for the Central Asian Turkic origin of the leadership of the Ottoman Empire. So you can add some unknown percentage for N to the 3.4% for C, Q and O - you'll probably get the close to the 10% figure you and Tim expect.

[bob_chasm]

T E Peterman was agreeing with my point that the Turks and Normans did not significantly colonize their conquered territory. So they remained a small minority within the population. He was not agreeing with your point that the conquering and conquered populations were the same. At least, that seemed to be the gist of his posting. While you may make a case that the Anglo-Saxons and Normans were the same, although not strictly speaking, in no sense were the Norman conquerors the same as the population of Sicily and southern Italy (Arabs, Berbers, Italians, Greeks).

I looked at the original citation from Cinioglu about the haplogroup breakdown of modern Turkey. Here it is again: J2 - 24%; R1b3 - 15%; E3b - 11%; G - 11%; J1 - 9%; R1a - 7%; I - 5%; R2 - 1%. Add all those percentages up and you'll find the total is 83%, not 100%. What haplogroups comprise the missing 17%?

Here's a quote from the abstract for that study:
"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....

"This comprehensive characterization of Y-chromosome heritage addresses many multifaceted aspects of Anatolian prehistory, including: (1) the most frequent haplogroup, J, splits into two sub-clades, one of which (J2) shows decreasing variances with increasing latitude, compatible with a northward expansion; (2) haplogroups G1 and L show affinities with south Caucasus populations in their geographic distribution as well as STR motifs; (3) frequency of haplogroup I, which originated in Europe, declines with increasing longitude, indicating gene flow arriving from Europe; (4) conversely, haplogroup G2 radiates towards Europe; (5) haplogroup E3b3 displays a latitudinal correlation with decreasing frequency northward; (6) haplogroup R1b3 emanates from Turkey towards Southeast Europe and Caucasia and; (7) high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia."

Cinnioglu does find a "detectable yet weak signal" of the Central Asian origin of the conquering Turkic tribes who formed the leadership of the Ottoman Empire - "a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%)." He didn't include N as one of the haplogroups for a Central Asian signal, placing it among the major components of haplogroups, but T E Peterman had put forward N as a possible signal for the Central Asian Turkic origin of the leadership of the Ottoman Empire. So you can add some unknown percentage for N to the 3.4% for C, Q and O - you'll probably get the close to the 10% figure you and Tim expect.

MMaddi, where are the examples in modern history of small unrelated minorities conquering large nations and changing their language and religion? I stopped believing such stories, the day I realized there was no fat man with a white beard crawling down chimneys, bringing presents to all the good little boys on Christmas day. The Normans were one of three nations from continental Europe attacking a tiny island defended by about 8,000 soldiers. The Normans were also related to the Anglo Saxons, as were the French.

So for a small force to sucessfully defeat the Anatolians like the Normans defeated the Britons, they would


A. Have to be related the Anatolians.

or

B. Not be that small.

Now I dont know if the Turks were central Asians or from Mars, but if they were a small force they would have to be related to the people that inhabited Turkey or the force could not be small.

[MMaddi]

MMaddi, where are the examples in modern history of small unrelated minorities conquering large nations and changing their language and religion? I stopped believing such stories, the day I realized there was no fat man with a white beard crawling down chimneys, bringing presents to all the good little boys on Christmas day. The Normans were one of three nations from continental Europe attacking a tiny island defended by about 8,000 soldiers. The Normans were also related to the Anglo Saxons, as were the French.

So for a small force to sucessfully defeat the Anatolians like the Normans defeated the Britons, they would


A. Have to be related the Anatolians.

or

B. Not be that small.

Now I dont know if the Turks were central Asians or from Mars, but if they were a small force they would have to be related to the people that inhabited Turkey or the force could not be small.

You've totally ignored the clear example of the Norman conquest of Sicily, which involved a small invasion force and rulers from northern Europe who replaced Muslim (Arab/Berber) rulers over a population of Italian and mainly Greek speakers. The Muslim portion of the population was large, perhaps about one-third. That would seem to fit the model of a small outside ethnic group taking over the territory and government. They didn't impose their language on the population, but they did restore Christianity to the island, after a couple of hundred years of Islam being the established religion. However, they imposed the Latin version of Christianity to replace the previously majority Constantinople-oriented Eastern Chrisitianity.

Believe as you wish. I just investigated a little further and actually read at least the abstract of the Cinnioglu study. It certainly indicates that a relatively small outside ethnic group (from 3.4-10.0%) was what ran the Ottoman Empire. And it was exactly along the lines that Tim expected, as far as what haplogroups would be involved. If you have a problem with that, you'll have to take it up with Cinnioglu.

[MMaddi]

Now I dont know if the Turks were central Asians or from Mars, but if they were a small force they would have to be related to the people that inhabited Turkey or the force could not be small.

I happened to be reading The Great Migrations, by John Haywood, today. Here is what he writes (pp. 136-137) about the role of the Turkic tribes in turning Anatolia into what became the Ottoman Empire: "Writers of the time describe the Turkish conquest and occupation of Anatolia as a process of infiltration by small warrior bands. Because of this it has long been thought that the contribution of Turkish immigrants to the population of modern Turkey as a whole was relatively small. There were certainly few obstacles to the conquered Byzantine Christians adopting Turkish identity once they had converted to Islam. Converts gained equal rights with Turks and it then only required them (or more likely, their children) to become fluent Turkish speakers for the transition to be complete."

From my reading of Sicilian history, it seems that the Normans only had a few hundred knights involved in taking Sicily from the Muslim rulers. That's one reason it took them about 20 years to take full control of the island. One factor is that the various Muslim rulers in different parts of the island were in conflict with each other. The initial foray by the Normans into Sicily was on the invitation of one of the feuding emirs. So, it is quite possible under certain circumstances for a small force to exploit a disunited enemy and prevail.

[bob_chasm]

You've totally ignored the clear example of the Norman conquest of Sicily, which involved a small invasion force and rulers from northern Europe who replaced Muslim (Arab/Berber) rulers over a population of Italian and mainly Greek speakers. The Muslim portion of the population was large, perhaps about one-third. That would seem to fit the model of a small outside ethnic group taking over the territory and government. They didn't impose their language on the population, but they did restore Christianity to the island, after a couple of hundred years of Islam being the established religion. However, they imposed the Latin version of Christianity to replace the previously majority Constantinople-oriented Eastern Chrisitianity.

Do the Anglo Saxons/ Normans look like a small minority in Europe to you Maddi?

you would consider Norman Christians, ruling Northern Europe, working with the Lombards of Italy, fighting to get rid of the Muslim North African/ Arab (Saracen) invaders in Sicily in Europe, during the Crusades, an act of a small minority changing the language and religion of a large majority? Did it cross your mind that infact, it was the Arab who were the tiny minority that was unable to hold Sicily because they were a minority land locked in a Christian Europe, trying to rule a people who were, historically, geographically and culturally, more closely related to the Lombards and Normans than the Arabs? I never did understand the need for grown men to cling to the fat man with the white beard myth.

[MMaddi]

Do the Anglo Saxons/ Normans look like a small minority in Europe to you Maddi?

It is so precious, that you would consider Norman Christians, ruling Northern Europe, working with the Lombards of Italy, fighting to get rid of the Muslim North African/ Arab (Saracen) invaders from Sicily in Europe, during the Crusades, an act of a small minority changing the language and religion of a large majority. lol. Did it ever cross your mind that infact, it was the Arab who were the tiny minority that was unable to hold Sicily because they were a minority land locked in a Christian Europe, trying to rule a people who were, historically, geographically and culturally, more closely related to the Lombards and Normans than the Arabs? I never did understand the need to cling to the fat man with the white beard myth.

You evidently have no idea about the multi-ethnic/religious nature of Sicily under both the Muslims and the Normans/Frederick. I won't go through the details for you, since you seem resistant to any knowledge that goes against your pet theories about history. One fact I'll throw at you - the Normans came into southern Italy to help the Lombards throw the Byzantine Empire out. It was only when the Normans had succeeded in defeating the Byzantine (European Christian) forces that they turned on their Lombard (European Christian) employers and took over southern Italy. Finally after all that "comraderie" with their fellow European Christians, they turned their attention to Muslim Sicily! You really should read the history, it's fascinating.

My main purpose in responding to your pet theory is that you happen to be wrong in what you write about Anatolia/Ottoman Empire. The figures in Cinnioglu's study, which you cited yourself (although incomplete from Kaiser), show that your pet theory is wrong. My main concern is that you were trying to sidetrack the original discussion in this thread with what seems to be a political agenda of some sort, as seen in the title you gave your original posting, "Prejudices die hard."

[bob_chasm]

My main purpose in responding to your pet theory is that you happen to be wrong in what you write about Anatolia/Ottoman Empire. The figures in Cinnioglu's study, which you cited yourself (although incomplete from Kaiser), show that your pet theory is wrong. My main concern is that you were trying to sidetrack the original discussion in this thread with what seems to be a political agenda of some sort, as seen in the title you gave your original posting, "Prejudices die hard."

What did I write? Also, here you are trying to suggest that Christians in Europe, during the crusades, who converted Muslims in Sicily into Christians were the minority and the Muslims in Europe were actually the majority. You also seem to be suggesting that the natives of Sicily were some how more closely related to the Arabs than the Europeans. Finally, I see no evidence of German being spoken in Sicily.

[MMaddi]

Okay, for your pleasure I will concede Christian Normans were a minority and Muslim Arabs were a majority in Europe. Not.

Yes, I get the sarcasm, but it doesn't prove your pet theory, unless you think that Cinnioglu rigged his figures on haplogroups in Turkey to match what Tim postulated they should be if the Turks were outsiders to Anatolia. (Yes, this thread was actually started to discuss the haplogroup of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, believe it or not!)

[bob_chasm]

Yes, I get the sarcasm, but it doesn't prove your pet theory, unless you think that Cinnioglu rigged his figures on haplogroups in Turkey to match what Tim postulated they should be if the Turks were outsiders to Anatolia. (Yes, this thread was actually started to discuss the haplogroup of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, believe it or not!)

I do not believe that a small, ethnically, lingusitically, cultually and religiously different distant nation can convince an unrelated large majority to change their religion and language. So, either there were large numbers of Central Asians, who displaced the natives of Anatolia or the native Anatolians felt an affinity/ kinship with the Turks, that compelled them to adopt their language/ religion. That is my view. I dont belive because I have yet to see a small invading minority convince a large, unrelated nation to change it's language and religion.