Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ottoman Empire Sultans haplogroup J2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J Man
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Ottoman ruler

    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    (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?
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 7th May 2009, 02:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darren
    replied
    Please keep the topic pertaining to Genetic Genealogy.

    Darren Marin
    Family Tree DNA

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post

    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?
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 24th April 2009, 12:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 24th April 2009, 12:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm
    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!)

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post

    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.
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 23rd April 2009, 11:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm View Post
    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."
    Last edited by MMaddi; 23rd April 2009, 11:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 23rd April 2009, 11:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MMaddi; 23rd April 2009, 10:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 23rd April 2009, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by bob_chasm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MMaddi; 23rd April 2009, 09:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
    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...ciety_01.shtml
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 23rd April 2009, 08:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X