tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8992679893594731102..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: A look at Y chromosomes of Romania via Count DraculaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33838939264435125122012-12-16T02:37:00.680+02:002012-12-16T02:37:00.680+02:00Ron,
When your ancestors migrated to Athens from ...Ron,<br /><br />When your ancestors migrated to Athens from what is now Romania, all Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire were still under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and considered as part of the same Rum millet according to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)" rel="nofollow">Ottoman millet system</a>. Thus your ancestors from what is now Romania may very well have been ethnic Romanians and switched to Greek identity only after migrating to Athens.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89866987201117448752012-12-15T08:15:33.335+02:002012-12-15T08:15:33.335+02:00Perhaps there is value in this anecdote. My patril...Perhaps there is value in this anecdote. My patrilineal subclade is J-241 (J2b1a). We are "Greek". Family history is that an ancestor from around Athens migrated to Romania during one of the 'dispersions' of Greeks by the Ottomans. When Greece gained independence in the early 1820s, descendants of the migrant family returned to Athens. The family name is 'Pavellas', a unique name as far as I know. My second cousin says that the migrant family adopted the name 'Pavel' in Romania and, upon returning to Greece, 'Greekified' it by adding 'las'.Ron Pavellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17223746420808661981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50346996836281487652012-08-01T14:28:04.498+03:002012-08-01T14:28:04.498+03:00It is clear that Turkic groups en route to the Wes...<i>It is clear that Turkic groups en route to the West were influenced by Iranic groups.</i><br /><br />All of Central Asian Turkic groups have varying amounts of Indo-European origin (Iranic, Tocharian), the most important difference being not the variety of the Indo-European origin (e.g., northern vs. southern or western vs. eastern) but the amount of the Indo-European origin: some of them are very heavily mixed with Indo-Europeans (especially those living in areas only Turkicized during the last 1000 years, e.g., modern day Turkmens of Turkmenistan, who are more descended from Iranic natives of what is now Turkmenistan than they are descended from their original Turkmen ancestors from what is now Kazakhstan, who migrated to what is now Turkmenistan as late as the Seljuq times), and some not so heavily (Altaians, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Uyghurs and some Uzbeks).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57778343121987494242012-07-30T04:04:54.575+03:002012-07-30T04:04:54.575+03:00FWIW, I once had a Romanian man as a client who ha...FWIW, I once had a Romanian man as a client who had adopted his wife's surname during the Communist regime in Romania because it made it harder for the Romanian secret police to connect him with his young adult anti-Communist activities prior to his marriage. <br /><br />I have no idea if this was a common practice for men with similar backgrounds, but I'm certain that it was not a unique case, and if this was an even modestly common practice, it would distort the data in this kind of study.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22626822119126842762012-07-29T08:43:11.793+03:002012-07-29T08:43:11.793+03:00To Rob
As I said it does not matter whether the s...To Rob<br /><br />As I said it does not matter whether the similarity is from an areal contact or genetic(liguistically). The Turkic language shows signs of ancient contacts to the peoples of the East almost exclusively while with West Eurasia all of them can be certifiably dated to events well into historic times.<br /><br />Even physically Turks were considered indistinguishable from Mongols during the 10-13th century from Arabs' point of view.<br />When European explorers encountered Inuits they exclaimed that they looked like Tartars.<br /><br />Chinese had noted some Caucasian features among SOME Turking speaking peoples. But they were exceptions since most Turks they knew like Uighurs(not related to present day Uighurs) were physically indistinguishable from Mongols.Hectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971694159010797162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38233573563270737732012-07-28T11:52:47.718+03:002012-07-28T11:52:47.718+03:00There is Mongoloid admixture within all Altaic gro...There is Mongoloid admixture within all Altaic groups, and the origin of the Altaic language family is in Mongoloid territory.<br /><br />This leaves little doubt that the Altaic ancestors of the Turkic peoples were originally Mongoloid.<br /><br />Some West Eurasian admixture in them cannot be excluded, but the dominant component was clearly Mongoloid<br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/uzbeks-as-nexus-altai-as-source-of.html<br /><br /><i>Recent reports have placed Turkish origin within a Iranian-Sogdian milleiu of what is now the "Turkestan" region, just east of the Aral Sea. </i><br /><br />"Turkish" origin is not the same as "Turkic" origin. It is clear that Turkic groups en route to the West were influenced by Iranic groups.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69766667425670640482012-07-28T04:32:59.810+03:002012-07-28T04:32:59.810+03:00Areal contacts with Mongolic does not mean genetic...Areal contacts with Mongolic does not mean genetic relatedness, and even more does not mean a mongolian Turkkic "homeland' Recent reports have placed Turkish origin within a Iranian-Sogdian milleiu of what is now the "Turkestan" region, just east of the Aral Sea. So not as east as you think<br />http://books.google.com.au/books?id=8-OilJCX1moC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=t'ieh-le+uighurs&source=bl&ots=PCZs_oX9qy&sig=wKFQmqp4tT3C0Cc9_ts9gqFFDqA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aj4TUJfbFemhigfA94HICg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=t'ieh-le%20uighurs&f=falseRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19256974084981232872012-07-27T06:28:18.663+03:002012-07-27T06:28:18.663+03:00Dienekes,The actual Epithet is Dracul not Dracula!...Dienekes,The actual Epithet is Dracul not Dracula! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III,_Prince_of_Wallachia#NameNirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13841897572610699932012-07-26T20:19:33.226+03:002012-07-26T20:19:33.226+03:00If Turks were "originally" West Eurasian...If Turks were "originally" West Eurasian one should expect the influence of their language more to the West than to the East.<br /><br />Even if one does not subscribe to the Altaic language family theory it should be quite evident that the Turkic language has been in contact with the speakers of Mongolian and Tungusic, possibly even Korean and Japanese.<br /><br />The similarity among these languages is beyond chance resemblance. The only question is on weather it arose due to contact or common descent. <br /><br />Either way, Turkic seems to have an origin in the East and so do the people who speak the language.Hectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971694159010797162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23646197791928398572012-07-26T15:01:07.950+03:002012-07-26T15:01:07.950+03:00" incoming Turkic groups in Europe were not p..." incoming Turkic groups in Europe were not purely Mongoloid like their more remote ancestors."<br /><br />I doubt even the "original" Turks (whomever they were) were purely "mongoloid". As D Sinor has argued, there is no real proof for a strictly localized Sayan-Altai origin for Turkic languages. It could have been spoken over a broader area of Eurasian, even in more western regions, for quite a long time, with more western versions, esp. Oghuric (Bulgar, Avar, Hun, etc), actually developing in the western steppes.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.com