Ottoman Empire Sultans haplogroup J2

[bob_chasm]

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.

When one is locked in by the sea, fighting on a continent in which the majority is zelously fundamentalist over another faith and desires that those who follow your faith be expelled from their continent and the cause receives the support of the all powerful Church, that is also engaged in a holy war against your religion, on another continent, then the actual number of knights, quoted by any historian, becomes relatively meaningless.

Yes you are right, about the feuding emirs. I also recall good treatment for the Muslims for a little while until they could no longer be protected. Also, by the way, were the Lombards not persecuted by the church for being Arians before the Islamic invasion?Or was that only in Spain?

[T E Peterman]

Demographers have long noted the Founder Effect in population studies. One population arrives first, settles down & the numbers begin growing.

Throughout history, conquering warbands have moved around & changed not only the political structure, but also the language & religion of a region. The questions that historians ask is whether the population was in fact replaced by the conquerors (ie, were the Celts booted out of England and replaced by Anglo-Saxons?) or whether the population remained largely the same & adopted the new language & religion, perhaps because of political advantage.

The Founder Effect suggests that the core population remains the same, with the warbands merely adding a new veneer of a few percents to the existing population. I suspect that in many cases the conquest was really of the former rulers & not of the people. The people would gladly pledge allegiance to whomever gave them the best deal. Of course, in many cases, they were probably not enthusiastic about either: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

I think that Founder Effect theory is solid enough that we can say the burden of proof for an explanation lies with those who assert a population history that is not consistent with the Founder Effect. Two huge ones come to mind:

1. the Founder Effect suggests that modern America should be overwhelmingly Q1a3+. The fact that this isn't the case; that European haplogroups dominate modern America suggests that something notable happened. We need to find an explanation for why Native American numbers dwindled & European numbers expanded incredibly after about 1492 (or should I say 1607, or 1620?). Any student of American history knows the answer already. But if our records were to disappear & America collapse into 2,000 years of disarray, a future geneticist/ demographer would no doubt assert that based on the Founder Effect, the original American population must be R1b (M269+). The burden of proof would lie with those who were to insist that the somewhat obscure group of Q1a3 were really the founders.

2. the Founder Effect suggests that modern Europe should be overwhelmingly _____ (does anyone know the dominant haplogroup of the Aurignacian culture?). If you look at modern western Europe, you see R1b all over the place. Since no one knew from common sensical history what should go in the blank, the early genetic demographers said R1b (based on nothing but the Founder Effect). Now, we know that R1b was tens of thousands of years younger than the Aurignacian. Now we have an anomaly: Modern humans were in Europe 35,000 years ago. Were they I? Were they G? Maybe they were IJ? Maybe some now extinct haplogroup. Something happened. The dominance of R1b in western Europe today actually runs contrary to the Founder Effect & this begs an explanation.

The Founder Effect suggests that inhabitants of modern Turkey should be, for the most part, descended from Anatolians from a bygone era -and the DNA evidence supports this. I don't know much about Turkish history, but I do know that Muslims were trying to convert the Anatolian subjects of the Byzantine Empire long before the Turks arrived. The Turks showed up, no doubt just a small population on horseback. They converted to Islam & began to launch raids into what is now Turkey. They may have shared the stolen goods with the local populations, which may have been taxed excessively by the Byzantines to pay for defense.

By the late Middle Ages, the Anatolian & Aegean populations appears to have been divided between those claiming a Greek identity & those claiming a Turkish identity. The Greeks maintained loyalty to the Byzantines and were Christian. The Turks maintained loyalty to the Ottomans and were Muslim. Each was probably educated according to its political/ religious loyalty (Greek alphabet vs Arabic alphabet). But regardless of whether they claimed to be Greek or Turk, the people of both groups were probably descended overwhelmingly from the ancient Anatolians.

I suspect that in modern Turkey you could find tiny minorities descended patrilineally from the Ottoman rulers & tiny minorities descended patrilineally from the Byzantine rulers. But if most modern Turks trace their ancestry on all sides & go back far enough, most could probably find a few lines leading to Ottoman rulers & a few lines leading back to Byzantine rulers.

Timothy Peterman

[Darren]

Please keep the topic pertaining to Genetic Genealogy.

Darren Marin
Family Tree DNA

[bob_chasm]

Ottoman ruler

(Yes, this thread was actually started to discuss the haplogroup of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, believe it or not!)

I happen to be a distance of three micro sat on the 12 marker test from this ruler. So, if you have anything to add to haplogroup info let me know, I am personally, very interested. By the way, population genetics also involves speculations on movement of populations (human migrations) as well. Therefore, even if these debates get heated, I enjoyed your posts. It seems to me you are suggesting that the Turks were a small minority from Central Asia that gave the people of Turkey their language and religion and then quitely disappeared. In contrast, my view is that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire are probably descendant of those early Turkish invaders. My reason for believing this, is that small unrelated minorities cannot change the language and religion of large nations. Also, I have no reason to doubt their claim of being descendants of Turks. So, the invading force must have been fairly large. It was in that context, I asked, where are the examples in modern history of small unrelated minorities conquering large nations and changing their language and religion?

So, far you have given the example of Normans invading Britain. However, Normans were related to the Anglo Saxon. Furthermore the Normans did not impose their language on the inhabitants.

You gave the example of Normans and Lombards joing forces to expel the Muslim Arabs. You say Muslim were a third of the population of Sicily. In this case Muslim a 1/3 minority in Sicily and were also a dispized minority on the European continent. Two thirds of Sicilians (the majority) were Christian. Furthermore, Normans and Lombards were more closely related to the native majority in Sicily than J1 Muslim Arabs. I am also not sure which distant unrelated language you are claiming they imposed on the Sicilians.

______________________

JMan,

any response to the email?

[J Man]

I happen to be a distance of three micro sat on the 12 marker test from this ruler. So, if you have anything to add to haplogroup info let me know, I am personally, very interested. By the way, population genetics also involves speculations on movement of populations (human migrations) as well. Therefore, even if these debates get heated, I enjoyed your posts. It seems to me you are suggesting that the Turks were a small minority from Central Asia that gave the people of Turkey their language and religion and then quitely disappeared. In contrast, my view is that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire are probably descendant of those early Turkish invaders. My reason for believing this, is that small unrelated minorities cannot change the language and religion of large nations. Also, I have no reason to doubt their claim of being descendants of Turks. So, the invading force must have been fairly large. It was in that context, I asked, where are the examples in modern history of small unrelated minorities conquering large nations and changing their language and religion?

So, far you have given the example of Normans invading Britain. However, Normans were related to the Anglo Saxon. Furthermore the Normans did not impose their language on the inhabitants.

You gave the example of Normans and Lombards joing forces to expel the Muslim Arabs. You say Muslim were a third of the population of Sicily. In this case Muslim a 1/3 minority in Sicily and were also a dispized minority on the European continent. Two thirds of Sicilians (the majority) were Christian. Furthermore, Normans and Lombards were more closely related to the native majority in Sicily than J1 Muslim Arabs. I am also not sure which distant unrelated language you are claiming they imposed on the Sicilians.

______________________

JMan,

any response to the email?

HI Bob,

Unfortunaetly no not yet. I was in contact with him a while ago though and he indeed claims to be descended from the Ottoman Sultans.