Turks are Iranids who mixed with Mongolians around 1250 AD

[Voskos]

The rapid expansion led by Genghis Khan and the subsequent Mongol empire (1206-1368CE: 1) is one of the most dramatic events in human history. One population believed to be at least partly descended from these Mongols, based on historical, linguistic and oral tradition, and unusual patterns of Y-chromosome male descent, are the Hazara from Pakistan (2, 3). In our analysis, which uses only autosomal genetic data, we independently infer this population to show the clearest signal of admixture in the entire dataset, with an admixture event occurring 22 (19-24) generations in the past, or 1306CE (1250-1390CE), between a source similar to the Iranians (55% contribution), and a source most closely similar among our sampled groups to present-day Mongolians (45%), confirming that both the date and origin of admixture link precisely to the Mongol empire. In fact we find that the Hazara are just one of seven populations (four among the top 20 clearest signals), including the Uyghur (4) and the Mongola themselves, who show an admixture event between a local source and a source closely genetically related to the Mongola, dating within the Mongol Period (Figure 2D). These populations were all sampled from within the range of the Mongol expansion and show a progressive westward decrease in Mongol ancestry. We however note that the slightly earlier date in the Turkish of 1250AD (1166-1362) is not inconsistent with other known Turkic pre-Genghis movements from East Asia, such as the Oghuz Turks (1).



Side 1 (Mongola-like)
Mongola (3.7%)
Oroqen (1.3%)
Hazara (0.6%)
Naxi (0.4%)
Yakut (0.4%)
Miao (0.3

Side 2 (Iranian-like)


Analysis: FullAnalysis
Number of individuals: 17
Conclusion: One date
Estimated date (95% CI): 1250CE (1166CE - 1362CE)
Estimated proportion: 0.08
View: mixing coefficients

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

[Scholarios]

This is obvious to anyone who isn't a Turk.

[Afshar]

Why are the Greeks worrying so much about Turkish genetics

[Scholarios]

Why are the Greeks worrying so much about Turkish genetics

Well, we don't teach your genetics in our school textbooks like you teach that we aren't descendants of Ancient Hellenes.

[Afshar]

Does not worry me, you can be the descendant of anybody you like.

[Scholarios]

Does not worry me, you can be the descendant of anybody you like.

fair enough, but this is actually interesting from an objective point of view.

[Grab the Gauge]

Modern Turks (from Turkei) actually have a very low percentage of East Eurasian admixture, only three percent more than the English.

[Böri]

Modern Turks (from Turkei) actually have a very low percentage of East Eurasian admixture, only three percent more than the English.

LoL this thread funny this post even more. Someone who know nothing about us comes here and read this post: what he thinks? Turks pretend they are Chinese! Drama!
Yeah I will deny muself and try to be low class Euro or Arab and try to assimilate. This is such Dramatic end for nation of Turks :fuck_you::death::coffee:

[Ujku]

Well, we don't teach your genetics in our school textbooks like you teach that we aren't descendants of Ancient Hellenes.

Well , That's true tho..

[DarkSecret]

Modern Turks (from Turkei) actually have a very low percentage of East Eurasian admixture, only three percent more than the English.

English have some Turkic admixture too.

[DarkSecret]

Why does it matter we are all humans 99% of our DNA is the same yet we focus on 1% difference hahahahahha

[Scholarios]

Well , That's true tho..

Whether it is true or not is missing the point. Don't hold a grudge man, it's not serious. The point is that Turks and our Balkan neighbors legitimize our claim to be ancient Hellenes with this kind of textbook and various other theories. (see Pelagsians theory of Albanians, which was invented solely to one-up us).

Regardless, we have the Greek language and literature. The undeniable cultural capital of that one detail can't be overestimated- every time Laberia starts a troll thread, or you reply with this kind of tangential irrelevancy, it is more evident.

Sorry for off-topic, Villager.

[Ujku]

Whether it is true or not is missing the point. Don't hold a grudge man, it's not serious. The point is that Turks and our Balkan neighbors legitimize our claim to be ancient Hellenes with this kind of textbook and various other theories. (see Pelagsians theory of Albanians, which was invented solely to one-up us).

Regardless, we have the Greek language and literature. The undeniable cultural capital of that one detail can't be overestimated- every time Laberia starts a troll thread, or you reply with this kind of tangential irrelevancy, it is more evident.

Sorry for off-topic, Villager.

I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

[Scholarios]

I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

genetics only matter to those who have nothing else.

[Governor]

Nowadays Turks mostly mix of Armenid+Iranid+Assyrian+Caucasian+Levantine+S.E.Eu ro with at least 10% Mongoloid/Turanid(Turkmen-Uzbek).

[Danaan]

Imo, the term Iranic is problematic because Anatolian Turks have some real Iranic admixture (W Iranic) while other groups like the Kipchaks have 'Scythian' admixture which isn't Iranic really.

Basically the last study on ancient Scythians confirmed that there is some short of continuity in the Steppes. Closer to those labeled 'Eastern Scythians' are the modern Kipchaks.
The Indoeuropeanists ususally say or imply that the Kipchaks are Iranic+Proto-Turkic and place the Proto-Turkic homeland as far east as they can.

Scythians were never Iranic though. We can review the data if someone wants.

I will repost that article as an introduction:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

He doesn't openly reject the possibility of Iranic Scythians but it's good enough.

[Pahli]

Imo, the term Iranic is problematic because Anatolian Turks have some real Iranic admixture (W Iranic) while other groups like the Kipchaks have 'Scythian' admixture which isn't Iranic really.

Basically the last study on ancient Scythians confirmed that there is some short of continuity in the Steppes. Closer to those labeled 'Eastern Scythians' are the modern Kipchaks.
The Indoeuropeanists ususally say or imply that the Kipchaks are Iranic+Proto-Turkic and place the Proto-Turkic homeland as far east as they can.

Scythians were never Iranic though. We can review the data if someone wants.

I will repost that article as an introduction:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

He doesn't openly reject the possibility of Iranic Scythians but it's good enough.

No one knows if the Eastern Scythians spoke an Iranic language or not, but its most likely the Western ones did.

[Inquizzzitor]

Turks are clearly part Mongolian. It's obvious historically, linguistically, genetically, phenotypically, culturally, religious, stupendously and prodigiously. 3% more East Asian may be true, but the Mongols are not a purely East Asian people themselves....dude have you looked at a Turk lately? They appear more Asian than Persians...

[Pahli]

Turks are clearly part Mongolian. It's obvious historically, linguistically, genetically, phenotypically, culturally, religious, stupendously and prodigiously. 3% more East Asian may be true, but the Mongols are not a purely East Asian people themselves....dude have you looked at a Turk lately? They appear more Asian than Persians...

Persians are barely Asian, Turks range from almost 0 to around 15%, rare examples might reach 20%.

[archangel]

We are Northener Steppe people bitches,:cool:

[Pahli]

We are Northener Steppe people bitches,:cool:

You are half Greek and half Turkmen (Central Asian), Northern Steppe people are different and extinct :cool:

[archangel]

You are half Greek and half Turkmen (Central Asian), Northern Steppe people are different and extinct :cool:

i look perfectly Volga Tatar and can pass among others in the region,Greeks are mostly swarthy and look a mixture of levantines(darker semitics) and balkans

[archangel]

edit:cool:

[Böri]

Many Greek niggas have African like features and mongrels. You can see in Queen B lips, Casandrinos mouth. Nobody should try to f*ck with Turks here.

[Danaan]

No one knows if the Eastern Scythians spoke an Iranic language or not, but its most likely the Western ones did.

I have said once that even if someone proved definitely that the 'Massagetae' or 'Sarmatians', for example, spoke Iranic languages related to Ossetic or not, that wouldn't make all those who we call or have called 'Scythians' Iranic.

[Pahli]

I have said once that even if someone proved definitely that the 'Massagetae' or 'Sarmatians', for example, spoke Iranic languages related to Ossetic or not, that wouldn't make all those who we call or have called 'Scythians' Iranic.

We have names of chiefs, kings, tribes etc that point to a Indo-Iranian origin, so most likely they were concentrated to the West, followed by assimilation by proto-Slavs in the 6th and 7th century.

[magnetar]

Many Greek niggas have African like features and mongrels. You can see in Queen B lips, Casandrinos mouth. Nobody should try to f*ck with Turks here.

:rotfl:

[Danaan]

We have names of chiefs, kings, tribes etc that point to a Indo-Iranian origin, so most likely they were concentrated to the West, followed by assimilation by proto-Slavs in the 6th and 7th century.

Can you post some of those (including the source)?

[Wrong]

This is not surprising at all, I mentioned it some days ago.

[Wrong]

We are Northener Steppe people bitches,:cool:
http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Evolution+and+turkey_a07948_5862920.jpg

[Pahli]

Can you post some of those (including the source)?

Just one example:

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Dniepr_River?View=embedded%27

[RN97]

It varies a lot. Some Turks are genetically close to Bulgarians even, while some to Armenians, some actually do have significant east Eurasian but the average Turk can be modeled as mostly Iranian with some Greek/ Balkan admixture.

[magnetar]

Turks have less Negroid in them than Greeks and Southern Europeans.

[RN97]

Turks have less Negroid in them than Greeks and Southern Europeans.

Not really bruv
http://i.imgur.com/nzauyZY.png

[Danaan]

Just one example:

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Dniepr_River?View=embedded%27

I have seen that. They also say that Dniester comes from dānu nazdya, but how really?
For the languages which are relatively well attested they use complex phonological laws.
*Danu was supposedly a PIE root too, so not exclusively Iranic, if we accept that.
Personally, I've realized that if someone follows mainstream theories he can get away with manipulations or 'normalisations' etc

[Myanthropologies]

Imo, the term Iranic is problematic because Anatolian Turks have some real Iranic admixture (W Iranic) while other groups like the Kipchaks have 'Scythian' admixture which isn't Iranic really.

Basically the last study on ancient Scythians confirmed that there is some short of continuity in the Steppes. Closer to those labeled 'Eastern Scythians' are the modern Kipchaks.
The Indoeuropeanists ususally say or imply that the Kipchaks are Iranic+Proto-Turkic and place the Proto-Turkic homeland as far east as they can.

Scythians were never Iranic though. We can review the data if someone wants.

I will repost that article as an introduction:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

He doesn't openly reject the possibility of Iranic Scythians but it's good enough.

That's actually not true at all,

"Both the ancient and most modern-day Eastern Iranian-speakers (Sarmatians and Pamir Tajiks, respectively) more or less hug the line of best fit, suggesting that they're a mixture of Steppe_MLBA and Steppe_EMBA"

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/eastern-scythians-steppe-mlba-east.html?m=1

Scythians are ancient eastern Iranians

[Myanthropologies]

It varies a lot. Some Turks are genetically close to Bulgarians even, while some to Armenians, some actually do have significant east Eurasian but the average Turk can be modeled as mostly Iranian with some Greek/ Balkan admixture.

The average Turk is modeled as half Greek half Turkmen or other central asian ethnicity.

[RN97]

The average Turk is modeled as half Greek half Turkmen or other central asian ethnicity.

Show me a PCA that shows that.

[Myanthropologies]

Show me a PCA that shows that.

It's not PCA information, but gedmatch of Turks. I recieved this information from all-in, so ask him. They sure as hell aren't "Iranians with some Bulgarian admixture" lmao

[Deniz]

You are half Greek and half Turkmen (Central Asian), Northern Steppe people are different and extinct :cool:

I love realist people.They don't live in dream world.We don't need empty discussions.I love you for this reason.But,You should look more broad perspective the history.What do you think about Today's İranians?Have you got Bedouin-Arab components?Percent?:)

Please do your autosomal test and share with us friends."Those,who don't".And,We can not compare old Turkic tribes with today's Turkmen people.Gedmatch calculators don't have Seljuk population.Every historian or history lover know this fact."They were Turko-Persians,when they invaded the Anatolia."

Today,Turkmens are %15 or %20 percent South Asian.How can you explain this?And I am %90 Bulgarian or %85 Macedonian,%80 Bosnian,or %75 Serbian with Euroasian mixture.So,Dont need a troll.Just science.

[Böri]

I love realist people.They don't live in dream world.We don't need empty discussions.I love you for this reason.But,You should look more broad perspective the history.What do you think about Today's İranians?Have you got Bedouin-Arab components?Percent?:)

Please do your autosomal test and share with us friends."Those,who don't".And,We can not compare old Turkic tribes with today's Turkmen people.Gedmatch calculators don't have Seljuk population.Every historian or history lover know this fact."They were Turko-Persians,when they invaded the Anatolia."

Today,Turkmens are %15 or %20 percent South Asian.How can you explain this?And I am %90 Bulgarian or %85 Macedonian,%80 Bosnian,or %75 Serbian with Euroasian mixture.So,Dont need a troll.Just science.

Rrrrrrr. Seljuks being Turkish-Persian is cultural thing not racial my Turkic friend. Racially ethnically they were only Turkmens. And modern Turkmens arent %20 South Asian not even 10.

[RN97]

It's not PCA information, but gedmatch of Turks. I recieved this information from all-in, so ask him. They sure as hell aren't "Iranians with some Bulgarian admixture" lmao

Dude, Iranians have a lot of ANE (or amerindian if you wish) admixture. Bulgarians have less than Turks. Turks seem to have somewhere around 15%(the same as NW Europeans), Iranians around 20% (higher than all Europeans) and Bulgarians around 13%. This means that the ANE can substitute east Eurasian that pushes Turks eastwards. Look at this PCA and tell me if you can't model Turks as mostly Iranians with some Bulgarian admixture.
http://i.imgur.com/4ioXkjs.jpg

EDIT: I can also believe that what you say is true because Greeks have very little ANE, so it also makes sense for Turks to be half-Greek and half-Turkmen

[Pennywise]

Dude, Iranians have a lot of ANE (or amerindian if you wish) admixture. Bulgarians have less than Turks. Turks seem to have somewhere around 15%(the same as NW Europeans), Iranians around 20% (higher than all Europeans) and Bulgarians around 13%. This means that the ANE can substitute east Eurasian that pushes Turks eastwards. Look at this PCA and tell me if you can't model Turks as mostly Iranians with some Bulgarian admixture.
http://i.imgur.com/4ioXkjs.jpg

EDIT: I can also believe that what you say is true because Greeks have very little ANE, so it also makes sense for Turks to be half-Greek and half-Turkmen

%90 of your posts are useless junk. I don't know why you haven't banned yet. What the fuck do Iranians have anything to with modern Turks? Anatolian Turks don't even cluster with them closely, let alone modelling Turks with %50 Iranian-like ancestry.

[Pahli]

I love realist people.They don't live in dream world.We don't need empty discussions.I love you for this reason.But,You should look more broad perspective the history.What do you think about Today's İranians?Have you got Bedouin-Arab components?Percent?:)

Please do your autosomal test and share with us friends."Those,who don't".And,We can not compare old Turkic tribes with today's Turkmen people.Gedmatch calculators don't have Seljuk population.Every historian or history lover know this fact."They were Turko-Persians,when they invaded the Anatolia."

Today,Turkmens are %15 or %20 percent South Asian.How can you explain this?And I am %90 Bulgarian or %85 Macedonian,%80 Bosnian,or %75 Serbian with Euroasian mixture.So,Dont need a troll.Just science.

Gedmatch is down at the moment but Meisje posted an old Gökturk sample that was heavily East Eurasian with some Steppe component of course. Anyways, nomads don't give a dang about ethnicity as such, so that is why you see people such as Volga Tatars that are actually an assimilated Finno-Ugric ethnicity with 20% East Eurasian. Turkmens don't have that much South Asian, around 10 - 15%, it is higher among other Central Asian Iranic ethnicities. Basically Turkmens are a mix of Gökturk and East Iranians in Turkmenistan, most likely the Dahae tribe and perhaps even some Parthian leftovers. Seljuqs were probably Turkmen with little Iranic / Persian admixture, they didn't actually mix that much until they arrived to Anatolia, some of them settled in various regions of Persia but the dominant part of the Seljuqs settled in Anatolia. The only reason why they were "Turko-Persian" is because they were heavily Persianized in terms of culture.

And about you, you're most likely an assimilated Bulgarian, if we look at autosomal DNA and also haplogroup. The same goes for me, I am native to my region and not so "Iranian" if we look at the components and haplogroup. It doesn't mean you aren't Turk / Iranian. Some Turks come out as half Greek half Turkmen, others way more Anatolian shifted.

[Pennywise]

As for the OP, aside from the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about (he doesn't even know what "Iranid" means) it is possible that Oghuz Turks had some Mongolian-like admixture. But all these studies are experimental and gives us estimated numbers because we don't have Oghuz samples dated 11-13th centuries from Anatolia and Iran. Until then, we can't be sure how was their genetic structure and how much it is similar or different than modern day Turks.

[Deniz]

Rrrrrrr. Seljuks being Turkish-Persian is cultural thing not racial my Turkic friend. Racially ethnically they were only Turkmens. And modern Turkmens arent %20 South Asian not even 10.

I didn't say half ethnic Persian for Old Turkmen population.But,They had İranic admixture and Persian Culture.I Said,We can't compare Old Turkmen tribes with Today's Turkmens.They have %13,15 average.Believe me some of them have %20 like a Tajiks.But minority.

[Pennywise]

And about you, you're most likely an assimilated Bulgarian, if we look at autosomal DNA and also haplogroup. The same goes for me, I am native to my region and not so "Iranian" if we look at the components and haplogroup. It doesn't mean you aren't Turk / Iranian. Some Turks come out as half Greek half Turkmen, others way more Anatolian shifted.

His results are different than an average native Bulgarian. If there is a difference, you can't call him "assimilated". He's just mixed with the Balkanian populations while the Turks in Anatolia mixed with the Asia Minor populations.

[Hadouken]

Iranid is a phenotype . only some Turks are Iranid (those who are often have Turanid too like for example Kenan Imirzalioglu or Ugur Isilak) . even among Kurds in Turkey Iranid is not that common except in some areas where you find it a lot

[Deniz]

His results are different than an average native Bulgarian. If there is a difference, you can't call him "assimilated". He's just mixed with the Balkanian populations while the Turks in Anatolia mixed with the Asia Minor populations.

Nothing won't change.I am still Bulgarian Turk and partly Tatar.Slavo-Turko-Balkan.We are talking historical and scientific facts with him.:book2:.

[Pennywise]

Nothing won't change.I am still Bulgarian Turk and partly Tatar.Slavo-Turko-Balkan.We are talking historical and scientific facts with him.:book2:.

Well, he is wrong about that particular "fact" above I mentioned. Your results are normal for a Balkan Turk, which show differences compared to native populations. If you are assimilated, than rest of the Bulgarian Turks are too. People often don't know the difference between what's being assimilated and what is being mixed. In order to call someone or some group of people assimilated, they MUST be identical with the native population they're being claimed to be assimilated members of. In case of Balkan Turks, they're not genetically identical with the other native Balkanians. Same thing also goes for the Anatolian Turks.

[Babak]

It varies a lot. Some Turks are genetically close to Bulgarians even, while some to Armenians, some actually do have significant east Eurasian but the average Turk can be modeled as mostly Iranian with some Greek/ Balkan admixture.

No, the average turk is partly west asian and the rest as East-Central Asian Turkic-speaking admixture. They're probably around ~10-15% because those Turkic speaking nomads were definitely part "West Eurasian" and were not purely of East Asian-related origins. I have no idea what sort of modern East-Central Asian population they would have been genetically most comparable too, though. Perhaps Khazakhs/Krgyz

Iranians and turks have their own cluster. The only reason why you would see some PCA plots show them clustering together is because of shared west asian ancestry.

[Pahli]

His results are different than an average native Bulgarian. If there is a difference, you can't call him "assimilated". He's just mixed with the Balkanian populations while the Turks in Anatolia mixed with the Asia Minor populations.

They are still very similar, although you are probably right, he came out as 75% Bulgarian + 25% Turkmen in one gedmatch result. I don't know anyway, he's still very Western shifted, more so than a tatar as I can imagine his East Eurasian admix. is fairly low.

[RN97]

No, the average turk is partly west asian and the rest as East-Central Asian Turkic-speaking admixture. They're probably around ~10-15% because those Turkic speaking nomads were definitely part "West Eurasian" and were not purely of East Asian-related origins. I have no idea what sort of modern East-Central Asian population they would have been genetically most comparable too, though.

Iranians and turks have their own cluster. The only reason why you would see some PCA plots show them clustering together is because of shared west asian ancestry.
Yes, but they are not so genetically distant as wannabe mongolians like Manzikert likes to make them out. The genetic distance between Turks and Iranians is about the same as between n. Italians and s. Italians, WTF is so wrong with saying that Turks are genetically quite close to Iranians? Show me how that's wrong.

%90 of your posts are useless junk. I don't know why you haven't banned yet. What the fuck do Iranians have anything to with modern Turks? Anatolian Turks don't even cluster with them closely, let alone modelling Turks with %50 Iranian-like ancestry.
I'm not going to deal with your wannabe Genghis Khan ass unless you provide some evidence. Modern day Turks are not so genetically distant from Kurds, Turks, Armenians and even some jewish groups.
This is a Turkish result:
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 28.7
2 East_Med 27.49
3 West_Med 12.97
4 Baltic 8.69
5 Red_Sea 5.64
6 Siberian 5.24
7 East_Asian 3.32
8 North_Atlantic 2.81
9 South_Asian 1.66
10 Sub-Saharan 1.48
11 Oceanian 1.28
12 Amerindian 0.71

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.84
2 Azeri 10.48
3 Georgian_Jewish 13.47
4 Assyrian 14.35
5 Armenian 14.42
6 Kurdish 15.09
7 Iranian 15.6
8 Lebanese_Muslim 15.75
9 Kumyk 16.38
10 Syrian 16.51
11 Kurdish_Jewish 16.88
12 Iranian_Jewish 16.98
13 Turkmen 17.25
14 Cyprian 17.48
15 Balkar 19.37
16 Central_Greek 19.62
17 Adygei 20.13
18 East_Sicilian 20.24
19 Kabardin 20.34
20 South_Italian 20.6
The only reason why he's more distant from Iranians is because he's also distant from the average Turk.

[Pennywise]

Yes, but they are not so genetically distant as wannabe mongolians like Manzikert likes to make them out. The genetic distance between Turks and Iranians is about the same as between n. Italians and s. Italians, WTF is so wrong with saying that Turks are genetically quite close to Iranians? Show me how that's wrong.

I'm not going to deal with your wannabe Genghis Khan ass unless you provide some evidence. Modern day Turks are not so genetically distant from Kurds, Turks, Armenians and even some jewish groups.
This is a Turkish result:
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 28.7
2 East_Med 27.49
3 West_Med 12.97
4 Baltic 8.69
5 Red_Sea 5.64
6 Siberian 5.24
7 East_Asian 3.32
8 North_Atlantic 2.81
9 South_Asian 1.66
10 Sub-Saharan 1.48
11 Oceanian 1.28
12 Amerindian 0.71

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.84
2 Azeri 10.48
3 Georgian_Jewish 13.47
4 Assyrian 14.35
5 Armenian 14.42
6 Kurdish 15.09
7 Iranian 15.6
8 Lebanese_Muslim 15.75
9 Kumyk 16.38
10 Syrian 16.51
11 Kurdish_Jewish 16.88
12 Iranian_Jewish 16.98
13 Turkmen 17.25
14 Cyprian 17.48
15 Balkar 19.37
16 Central_Greek 19.62
17 Adygei 20.13
18 East_Sicilian 20.24
19 Kabardin 20.34
20 South_Italian 20.6
The only reason why he's more distant from Iranians is because he's also distant from the average Turk.

You dumbass you don't even know how to read those results. 2 pop. mix mod is often useless when you are going to generelize a whole population. Turks can be modelled as %50 Iraqi + %50 Russian too. You just pulled that Iranian out of your ass. Don't waste peoples time here.

[Philip Latinowitz]

It'd be more precise to describe them as Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix. Which probably predates both Mongols and Iranics. Central Asia has been invaded by mongoloids already in ancient times.

[RN97]

You dumbass you don't even know how to read those results. 2 pop. mix mod is often useless when you are going to generelize a whole population. Turks can be modelled as %50 Iraqi + %50 Russian too. You just pulled that Iranian out of your ass. Don't waste peoples time here.

That result was Turkish, did you even read what I wrote? How is it wrong to model Turks as Russian + Iraqi? Russians are partly siberian and have a lot of ANE. Iraqis have no ANE/ mongoloid and they're mostly basal Eurasian. I haven't seen Turks modeled as such but I don't see how that is so very wrong....

[Babak]

Heres some:

Central Anatolian Turk:

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 36.74
2 South_Central_Asian 11.53
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 11.25
4 European_Early_Farmers 9.71
5 Tungus-Altaic 6.55
6 Near_East 5.53
7 East_Siberian 4.73
8 Arctic 3.48
9 Ancestral_Altaic 2.95
10 North_African 2.41
11 South_East_Asian 1.61
12 Melano_Polynesian 1.30
13 Australoid 1.01

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Turk_Aydin @ 5.885062
2 Turk_Balikesir @ 8.318324
3 Turk_Istanbul @ 8.869559
4 Turk @ 10.355407
5 Crimean_Tatar_Mountain @ 12.021833
6 Azov_Greek @ 12.157321
7 Nogai @ 12.231788
8 Turk_Kayseri @ 13.440648
9 Crimean_Tatar_Coast @ 13.851104
10 Turk_Adana @ 13.981258
11 Cirkassian @ 14.427249
12 Stalskoe_Kumyk @ 16.548096
13 Cretan @ 16.682146
14 Georgian_Jew @ 16.721102
15 Circassian @ 17.177387
16 Kumyk @ 17.458357
17 Greek_Macedonia @ 17.539604
18 Romanian_Jew @ 17.566490
19 Greek @ 17.602461
20 Kabardin @ 17.636078

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nogai +50% Turk_Balikesir @ 4.635275


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Circassian +25% Sicilian_Agrigento +25% Tatar-Siberian @ 4.058968


East Anatolian turk:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 38.66
2 South_Central_Asian 16.74
3 Near_East 10.45
4 European_Early_Farmers 9.52
5 European_Hunters_Gatherers 6.67
6 Tungus-Altaic 5.64
7 North_African 4.58
8 Ancestral_Altaic 2.90
9 South_East_Asian 2.31
10 East_African 1.01

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Turk_Adana @ 5.637801
2 Turk @ 5.994474
3 Turk_Kayseri @ 6.931874
4 Turk_Aydin @ 8.608265
5 Turk_Istanbul @ 9.245278
6 Georgian_Jew @ 9.428378
7 Turk_Balikesir @ 10.234280
8 Azeri @ 10.461411
9 Kurd_North @ 11.031638
10 Uzbek_Tashkent @ 11.144834
11 Uzbekistani_Jew @ 12.008043
12 Assyrian_Iraqi @ 12.388454
13 Iraqi_Chaldean @ 12.462269
14 Kurd_South @ 13.133368
15 Syrian_Jew @ 13.788258
16 Kurd_Jew @ 13.849469
17 Azov_Greek @ 13.851061
18 Kurd_East @ 14.105750
19 Kurd @ 14.108153
20 Iraqi_Mandean @ 14.109435

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Azeri +50% Turk_Balikesir @ 4.362856


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Azeri +25% Nogai +25% Turk_Jew @ 3.328340

[Pennywise]

That result was Turkish, did you even read what I wrote? How is it wrong to model Turks as Russian + Iraqi? Russians are partly siberian and have a lot of ANE. Iraqis have no ANE/ mongoloid and they're mostly basal Eurasian. I haven't seen Turks modeled as such but I don't see how that is so very wrong....

Your attempt to associate Anatolian Turks with the Iranians are just ridiculous and false and modelling them with 2 pops. is pointless. You don't prove anything. Your methodology is wrong and meaningless. It's misleading. Get it?

[Deniz]

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 34.87
2 Neolithic 22.24
3 NorthEastEuropean 17.9
4 Steppe 16.2
5 Siberian 2.85
6 Indian 1.78
7 NorthAfrican 1.05
8 Arctic 0.78
9 SouthEastAsian 0.75
10 Australian 0.54
11 NearEast 0.52
12 Oceanic 0.38
13 EastAfrican 0.12

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 5.2
2 Bulgarian 5.44
3 Gagauz 5.82
4 Romanian 5.97
5 Macedonian 6.29
6 Romanian 7.06
7 Kosovar 7.53
8 Romanian 7.57
9 Greek 7.58
10 Albanian 7.67
11 Montenegrian 7.92
12 Greek 8.04
13 Serbian 8.36
14 Moldavian 8.39
15 Greek 8.39
16 Greek 8.4
17 Italian 9.66
18 Serbian 10.13
19 Bosnian 10.19
20 Croat 10.26

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66.5% German + 33.5% Turk @ 2.12
2 75.1% Serbian + 24.9% Ossetian @ 2.15
3 81.7% Bulgarian + 18.3% Nogai @ 2.22
4 76.7% Serbian + 23.3% Balkar @ 2.23
5 71.3% Serbian + 28.7% Circassian @ 2.28
6 75.3% Serbian + 24.7% Kumyk @ 2.29
7 77.3% Serbian + 22.7% Adygei @ 2.31
8 81.2% Bulgarian + 18.8% Circassian @ 2.35
9 78.6% Serbian + 21.4% Abkhazian @ 2.35
10 81.2% Bulgarian + 18.8% Kabardin @ 2.38
11 76.9% Serbian + 23.1% Abkhazian_Lykhny @ 2.39
12 77.3% Romanian + 22.7% Ossetian @ 2.42
13 79.3% Romanian + 20.7% Adygei @ 2.45
14 80.9% Romanian + 19.1% Georgian @ 2.45
15 77.4% Romanian + 22.6% Kumyk @ 2.49
16 78.8% Romanian + 21.2% Abkhazian_Lykhny @ 2.49
17 82.5% Bulgarian + 17.5% Avar @ 2.52
18 78.7% Romanian + 21.3% Balkar @ 2.52
19 82.1% Bulgarian + 17.9% Ava @ 2.54
20 85.4% Bulgarian + 14.6% Balkar @ 2.54

Mine

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 24
2 East_Med 20.15
3 North_Atlantic 17.96
4 West_Asian 15.85
5 West_Med 13.09
6 Siberian 4.66
7 Red_Sea 2.49
8 Northeast_African 1.29
9 South_Asian 0.51

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 7.95
2 Romanian 8.98
3 Serbian 11.92
4 Greek_Thessaly 12.29
5 Moldavian 14.8
6 Central_Greek 17.16
7 Italian_Abruzzo 17.55
8 Croatian 18.28
9 East_Sicilian 18.44
10 Hungarian 18.59
11 Ashkenazi 19.52
12 Tuscan 19.66
13 West_Sicilian 19.86
14 South_Italian 21.52
15 North_Italian 21.68
16 Tatar 22.07
17 Austrian 22.13
18 Ukrainian_Lviv 23.47
19 East_German 23.86
20 South_Polish 24.6

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

Bulgarian

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 24.41
2 East_Med 20.64
3 North_Atlantic 20.07
4 West_Med 17.8
5 West_Asian 12.8
6 Red_Sea 3.05
7 Oceanian 0.69
8 East_Asian 0.55

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 2.21
2 Romanian 4.86
3 Serbian 8.67
4 Greek_Thessaly 8.87
5 Moldavian 13.23
6 Central_Greek 15.38
7 Italian_Abruzzo 15.63
8 Tuscan 15.96
9 Croatian 16.35
10 East_Sicilian 16.76
11 Hungarian 16.85
12 West_Sicilian 17.26
13 North_Italian 17.39
14 Ashkenazi 18.31
15 Austrian 19.78
16 South_Italian 19.93
17 East_German 21.61
18 Ukrainian_Lviv 22.53
19 French 23.37
20 West_German 23.45



Bulgarian

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 23.52
2 Baltic 22.82
3 North_Atlantic 21.41
4 West_Med 19.28
5 West_Asian 11.1
6 Red_Sea 1.36
7 Siberian 0.44
8 Amerindian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 3.61
2 Romanian 6.01
3 Greek_Thessaly 7
4 Serbian 9.98
5 Tuscan 13.53
6 Central_Greek 13.84
7 Italian_Abruzzo 13.89
8 West_Sicilian 15.04
9 East_Sicilian 15.17
10 North_Italian 15.27
11 Moldavian 15.58
12 Ashkenazi 16.34
13 South_Italian 18.05
14 Hungarian 18.11
15 Croatian 18.33
16 Austrian 20.67
17 Portuguese 22
18 East_German 22.61
19 French 22.76
20 Spanish_Galicia 22.85

[Babak]

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 34.87
2 Neolithic 22.24
3 NorthEastEuropean 17.9
4 Steppe 16.2
5 Siberian 2.85
6 Indian 1.78
7 NorthAfrican 1.05
8 Arctic 0.78
9 SouthEastAsian 0.75
10 Australian 0.54
11 NearEast 0.52
12 Oceanic 0.38
13 EastAfrican 0.12

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 5.2
2 Bulgarian 5.44
3 Gagauz 5.82
4 Romanian 5.97
5 Macedonian 6.29
6 Romanian 7.06
7 Kosovar 7.53
8 Romanian 7.57
9 Greek 7.58
10 Albanian 7.67
11 Montenegrian 7.92
12 Greek 8.04
13 Serbian 8.36
14 Moldavian 8.39
15 Greek 8.39
16 Greek 8.4
17 Italian 9.66
18 Serbian 10.13
19 Bosnian 10.19
20 Croat 10.26

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66.5% German + 33.5% Turk @ 2.12
2 75.1% Serbian + 24.9% Ossetian @ 2.15
3 81.7% Bulgarian + 18.3% Nogai @ 2.22
4 76.7% Serbian + 23.3% Balkar @ 2.23
5 71.3% Serbian + 28.7% Circassian @ 2.28
6 75.3% Serbian + 24.7% Kumyk @ 2.29
7 77.3% Serbian + 22.7% Adygei @ 2.31
8 81.2% Bulgarian + 18.8% Circassian @ 2.35
9 78.6% Serbian + 21.4% Abkhazian @ 2.35
10 81.2% Bulgarian + 18.8% Kabardin @ 2.38
11 76.9% Serbian + 23.1% Abkhazian_Lykhny @ 2.39
12 77.3% Romanian + 22.7% Ossetian @ 2.42
13 79.3% Romanian + 20.7% Adygei @ 2.45
14 80.9% Romanian + 19.1% Georgian @ 2.45
15 77.4% Romanian + 22.6% Kumyk @ 2.49
16 78.8% Romanian + 21.2% Abkhazian_Lykhny @ 2.49
17 82.5% Bulgarian + 17.5% Avar @ 2.52
18 78.7% Romanian + 21.3% Balkar @ 2.52
19 82.1% Bulgarian + 17.9% Ava @ 2.54
20 85.4% Bulgarian + 14.6% Balkar @ 2.54

Mine

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 24
2 East_Med 20.15
3 North_Atlantic 17.96
4 West_Asian 15.85
5 West_Med 13.09
6 Siberian 4.66
7 Red_Sea 2.49
8 Northeast_African 1.29
9 South_Asian 0.51

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 7.95
2 Romanian 8.98
3 Serbian 11.92
4 Greek_Thessaly 12.29
5 Moldavian 14.8
6 Central_Greek 17.16
7 Italian_Abruzzo 17.55
8 Croatian 18.28
9 East_Sicilian 18.44
10 Hungarian 18.59
11 Ashkenazi 19.52
12 Tuscan 19.66
13 West_Sicilian 19.86
14 South_Italian 21.52
15 North_Italian 21.68
16 Tatar 22.07
17 Austrian 22.13
18 Ukrainian_Lviv 23.47
19 East_German 23.86
20 South_Polish 24.6

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

Bulgarian

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Baltic 24.41
2 East_Med 20.64
3 North_Atlantic 20.07
4 West_Med 17.8
5 West_Asian 12.8
6 Red_Sea 3.05
7 Oceanian 0.69
8 East_Asian 0.55

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 2.21
2 Romanian 4.86
3 Serbian 8.67
4 Greek_Thessaly 8.87
5 Moldavian 13.23
6 Central_Greek 15.38
7 Italian_Abruzzo 15.63
8 Tuscan 15.96
9 Croatian 16.35
10 East_Sicilian 16.76
11 Hungarian 16.85
12 West_Sicilian 17.26
13 North_Italian 17.39
14 Ashkenazi 18.31
15 Austrian 19.78
16 South_Italian 19.93
17 East_German 21.61
18 Ukrainian_Lviv 22.53
19 French 23.37
20 West_German 23.45



Bulgarian

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 23.52
2 Baltic 22.82
3 North_Atlantic 21.41
4 West_Med 19.28
5 West_Asian 11.1
6 Red_Sea 1.36
7 Siberian 0.44
8 Amerindian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bulgarian 3.61
2 Romanian 6.01
3 Greek_Thessaly 7
4 Serbian 9.98
5 Tuscan 13.53
6 Central_Greek 13.84
7 Italian_Abruzzo 13.89
8 West_Sicilian 15.04
9 East_Sicilian 15.17
10 North_Italian 15.27
11 Moldavian 15.58
12 Ashkenazi 16.34
13 South_Italian 18.05
14 Hungarian 18.11
15 Croatian 18.33
16 Austrian 20.67
17 Portuguese 22
18 East_German 22.61
19 French 22.76
20 Spanish_Galicia 22.85

Yea pretty typical for bulgarian turks

[RN97]

Your attempt to associate Anatolian Turks with the Iranians are just ridiculous and false and modelling them with 2 pops. is pointless. You don't prove anything. Your methodology is wrong and meaningless. It's misleading. Get it?

Ok sry. Turks and Iranians, Assyrians, Kurds and Armenians have nothing to do with each other. They just plot very close on PCA maps for the shits and gigs.

[DarknessWin]

i look perfectly Volga Tatar and can pass among others in the region,Greeks are mostly swarthy and look a mixture of levantines(darker semitics) and balkans

You speak bullshit , modern Turks are way swarthier than Greeks.
Turks are ever darker than Cypriots

Turks are mixture with Levantines and its proven from history and your connections

If you are the man in the photo, well you look more like Greek and Italian and not like Tatar or Asian

[archangel]

You speak bullshit , modern Turks are way swarthier than Greeks.
Turks are ever darker than Cypriots

Turks are mixture with Levantines and its proven from history and your connections

If you are the man in the photo, well you look more like Greek and Italian and not like Tatar or Asian

ethnic Turks cant be darker than greeks,you are a med souther nation whereas our origin lies in north,


But you are right there are lots of mongrels in our country,Fortunately full blood Türks like me exist in good numbers too

Btw Cypriots are legit menas and cant be lighter than ethnic Turks lol look at the map.

Only slavic admixture or germanic leftovers in italy can be light,any light trait below urals and alps cant be native,lightness comes from north(All way from scandavia to urals)

[Böri]

Ok sry. Turks and Iranians, Assyrians, Kurds and Armenians have nothing to do with each other. They just plot very close on PCA maps for the shits and gigs.

Except Turkic Iranians (like Azeri) actually we have nothing to do with people in your lists. Assyrians? LoL what else? We descend from Nimrod of Babel?

[Peter Nirsch]

not surprising, many turks looks a little bit chinky, particularly the ones living in inner Turkey.

[Pennywise]

Ok sry. Turks and Iranians, Assyrians, Kurds and Armenians have nothing to do with each other. They just plot very close on PCA maps for the shits and gigs.

The reason why Turks come closer to them is the common West Asian component. Aside from it, there are significant differences between these populations that prevents to put them together in the same pot.

[RN97]

The reason why Turks come closer to them is the common West Asian component. Aside from it, there are significant differences between these populations that prevents to put them together in the same pot.

Bro that's exactly what I have been saying here, what the hell? You said literally nothing different than what you got pissed off for me saying.....
By your logic you can't claim there are anything in common between Finns/ Russians and Irish people because the first groups have Siberian and more ANE admixture. What mainly separates Iranians and Turks is more European admixture, less ANE and more Siberian/ mongoloid in Turks. I never said they were the same subgroup or the same group or whatever.

[Leto]

Persians are barely Asian, Turks range from almost 0 to around 15%, rare examples might reach 20%.
Seems so. I think the Turks of Turkey are kind of a mix of Turkmen-like invaders and Pontic-like natives with some additional influences.

[Voskos]

Well , That's true tho..

you have quite some nerve for an immigrant living in Greece. I blame your parents rather than your nationality for what you have become

[Myanthropologies]

Dude, Iranians have a lot of ANE (or amerindian if you wish) admixture. Bulgarians have less than Turks. Turks seem to have somewhere around 15%(the same as NW Europeans), Iranians around 20% (higher than all Europeans) and Bulgarians around 13%. This means that the ANE can substitute east Eurasian that pushes Turks eastwards. Look at this PCA and tell me if you can't model Turks as mostly Iranians with some Bulgarian admixture.
http://i.imgur.com/4ioXkjs.jpg

EDIT: I can also believe that what you say is true because Greeks have very little ANE, so it also makes sense for Turks to be half-Greek and half-Turkmen

ANE is not Amerindian lol, and that isn't the component that you can just substitute for east Eurasian admixture, they aren't the same thing.

[Grab the Gauge]

East Eurasian admixture solely ranges from 0-3% in Eastern Turkey (which has a Kurdish-majority population in some provinces), through 6-9% in Central Anatolia, to 13-18% in Western Anatolia.[35]

This is very minor East Eurasian admixture, for modern Turks to be the product of hybridization. We are left with three possibilities:

1.) Some unknown selection factor eliminated the East Eurasian admixture from the Turkish population, within a few hundred years.

2.) There was no hybridization between modern Turkish people's ancestors and East Eurasians, only limited interbreeding events, and cross cultural dissemination.

3.) There was no hybridization between the ancestors of modern Turkish people, and the East Eurasian admixture simply reflects an ancient, prehistoric population structure that existed before the split of East and West Eurasians.

I am leaning toward possibility #3.

[Óttar]

Fortunately full blood Türks like me exist in good numbers too
How can you claim to be a full-blooded Turk? The guy in your avatar has dark, noodly Grecoo-Italian hair.

This is what Turks originally looked like:

http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/Ancient%20Turks%20-%206.jpg

Modern Turks are 6/7 native Anatolian and 1/7 Central Asian Turk, and the population adopted the Turkish language.

[Pennywise]

How can you claim to be a full-blooded Turk? The guy in your avatar has dark, noodly Grecoo-Italian hair.

This is what Turks originally looked like:



Modern Turks are 6/7 native Anatolian and 1/7 Central Asian Turk, and the population adopted the Turkish language.

You keep coming up with this bullshit without any proof. Where did you get that numbers? How the hell do you know that Oghuz Turks who first came to Anatolia were looked like that? We don't even know what percentage of the population were actually assimilated. You're just repeating what you heard from here and there.

[Pennywise]

This is very minor East Eurasian admixture, for modern Turks to be the product of hybridization. We are left with three possibilities:

1.) Some unknown selection factor eliminated the East Eurasian admixture from the Turkish population, within a few hundred years.

2.) There was no hybridization between modern Turkish people's ancestors and East Eurasians, only limited interbreeding events, and cross cultural dissemination.

3.) There was no hybridization between the ancestors of modern Turkish people, and the East Eurasian admixture simply reflects an ancient, prehistoric population structure that existed before the split of East and West Eurasians.

I am leaning toward possibility #3.

Ancestors of the modern day Turks (Oghuz Turks) were likely predominantly Western Eurasian stock. They've been to Western Central Asia and Khorasan region for centuries prior to their arrival to Anatolia. It's possibly why there is not much East Eurasian admix in modern day Turks.

[Leto]

Ancestors of the modern day Turks (Oghuz Turks) were likely predominantly Western Eurasian stock. They've been to Western Central Asia and Khorasan region for centuries prior to their arrival to Anatolia. It's possibly why there is not much East Eurasian admix in modern day Turks.
Yes. Turkmens are the purest Oghuz Turks and they range between 20 and 40% East Asian.

[Pennywise]

Yes. Turkmens are the purest Oghuz Turks and they range between 20 and 40% East Asian.

You can't take them as an example for mediveal Oghuz Turks. They later mixed a lot with different peoples.

[Leto]

http://turkmenportal.com/images/uploads/cache/blogs/33d38ecaac35f5f833e01350da8f4a30-600x600auto.jpg

[Leto]

There was anti-Iranian racism among Turkmens:


The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.

As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman. (p. 71)

The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries. The fact we have seen, that the Turkomans marry Persian women, when they take them as prisoners. The Turkoman women are, like the men, tall, and when young, well-shaped; their faces are rounder than those of the men; the cheek-bones less prominent; the eyes black, with fine eye-brows, and many with fair complexion; the nose is rather flat; the mouth small, with a row of regular white teeth. In a word, a great number of the younger part of the community might be reckoned as fair specimens of pretty women. (p. 73)
Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60–78.

[Pennywise]

There was anti-Iranian racism among Turkmens:


Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60–78.

That's correct. Vambery writes this in his journal that Iranians were seen as subhumans by the Turkoman tribes in Central Asia. They were captured and used/sold as slaves by them.

[Pahli]

You can't take them as an example for mediveal Oghuz Turks. They later mixed a lot with different peoples.

Not mentioning Genghis Khan's events definitely changed the genetics of Central Asia and the dominance of Iranic speaking ethnicities in most modern Central Asian cities.

[Pennywise]

Not mentioning Genghis Khan's events definitely changed the genetics of Central Asia and the dominance of Iranic speaking ethnicities in most modern Central Asian cities.

It was more like a case for Bactria region but yeah, over all true.

[Leto]

Not mentioning Genghis Khan's events definitely changed the genetics of Central Asia and the dominance of Iranic speaking ethnicities in most modern Central Asian cities.
And even to this day we still can find some traces of Sintashta-like people.
On the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan:

https://www.theismaili.org/ismaili/sites/ismaili/files/4457.jpg

[Pahli]

And even to this day we still can find some traces of Sintashta-like people.
On the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan:

https://www.theismaili.org/ismaili/sites/ismaili/files/4457.jpg


Those are Pamiri people, they score up to 25% NE_Euro which is the highest in Central Asia and the Middle East (Except Turkey). They are believed to be one of the only descendants of Scythians, other ethnicities can be included like Yaghnobi people as well, but they are linked to ancient Sogdians.

[Böri]

There was anti-Iranian racism among Turkmens:


Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60–78.

Its attractive mysterious and mystical but non-scientific belief of being chosen and better than others, not really a 'racism, but more like manners against Iranics but even against other Turks. We (me also Turkoman descent though probably not pure) are the best among Turks. Despite more poor and desert life, Russians and Soviets highly respected Turkmens and knew their value compared to many others

[Pahli]

Its mysterious and mystical belief of being chosen, not only a 'racism, against Iranics but even against other Turks. We (me also Turkoman descent though probably not pure) are the best among Turks too. Despite more poor and desert life, Russians and Soviets highly respected Turkmens and knew their value.

Which is why they destroyed numerous Turkic dynasties that were involved in mass slavery and took control over them? Their fate was pretty much similar to the Crimean Tatars' with the exception that they weren't victims of mass deportation and decimation of their population?

[Böri]

Which is why they destroyed numerous Turkic dynasties that were involved in mass slavery and took control over them? Their fate was pretty much similar to the Crimean Tatars' with the exception that they weren't victims of mass deportation and decimation of their population?

Its already good considering Russians are extremely brutal even with Euro ethnos like Germans of Volga. Turkmens under Russian-USSR control was mostly no violent. Russians treated them 'friendlier, than many others so.

[Babak]

Its attractive mysterious and mystical but non-scientific belief of being chosen and better than others, not really a 'racism, but more like manners against Iranics but even against other Turks. We (me also Turkoman descent though probably not pure) are the best among Turks. Despite more poor and desert life, Russians and Soviets highly respected Turkmens and knew their value compared to many others

uhm..russians werent necessarily fond of turks bro lol

[Pahli]

Its already good considering Russians are extremely brutal even with Euro ethnos like Germans of Volga. Turkmens under Russian-USSR control was mostly no violent. Russians treated them 'friendlier, than many others so.

They weren't enemies as such, Germans were nazis and the great enemy of Russia, Turkmens wouldn't dare to put up resistance anyway, so the Russians did good to try to educate the whole Central Asia, unfortunately jihadist terrorist are also quite common among these areas, secularism has failed for the common population even though the governments try to keep them in line.

[Leto]

Its already good considering Russians are extremely brutal even with Euro ethnos like Germans of Volga. Turkmens under Russian-USSR control was mostly no violent. Russians treated them 'friendlier, than many others so.
For the record: that was Stalin, not 'Russians'. Millions of Russians perished during the said period.

[Leto]

They weren't enemies as such, Germans were nazis and the great enemy of Russia, Turkmens wouldn't dare to put up resistance anyway, so the Russians did good to try to educate the whole Central Asia, unfortunately jihadist terrorist are also quite common among these areas, secularism has failed for the common population even though the governments try to keep them in line.
Turkmenistan is okay more or less. They even have free (or extremely cheap) gas, gasoline and electricity. No jihadism out there.

[meisje]

How can you claim to be a full-blooded Turk? The guy in your avatar has dark, noodly Grecoo-Italian hair.

This is what Turks originally looked like:

http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/Ancient%20Turks%20-%206.jpg

Modern Turks are 6/7 native Anatolian and 1/7 Central Asian Turk, and the population adopted the Turkish language.

You are writing from your ass,Proof your claim

[Squall Leonhart]

I thought it was always a known fact the original Turks were Mongoloid.

[meisje]

I thought it was always a known fact the original Turks were Mongoloid.

Yes, 65% East'Eurasian in known Göktürk Oracles

[Pennywise]

I thought it was always a known fact the original Turks were Mongoloid.

You thought wrong. The OP has nothing to do with "mongoloidness" either.


Yes, 65% East'Eurasian in known Göktürk Oracles

Göktürks are not representing all Turkic peoples.

[meisje]

You thought wrong. The OP has nothing to do with "mongoloidness" either.



Göktürks are not representing all Turkic peoples.

They represent early Turkics very well,They are founders of first Turkish State in the world ,How they do not represent Turkics,Oghuz Turks were not around 1500 years ago,Who represents Turks If they do not ,Come to reality,Turkics mixed with Iranics in Central Asia that's why They score high West Asian, Only difference btw.Turk and Türkmen,Turks score East Eurasian btw. 5-15 %, Turkmens 10-30%

[Pennywise]

They represent early Turkics very well,They are founders of first Turkish State in the world ,How they do not represent Turkics,Oghuz Turks were not around 1500 years ago,Who represents Turks If they do not ,Come to reality,Turkics mixed with Iranics in Central Asia that's why They score high West Asian, Only difference btw.Turk and Türkmen,Turks score East Eurasian btw. 5-15 %, Turkmens 10-30%

Göktürks were a seperate tribe in their own that dominated other Turkic tribes and Central Asia region during the 6th-7th centuries. A göktürk who were living in middle of Mongolia and a Töles under the same empire from south of Urals and east of Caspian Sea or, say a Türgeş from Central Asia were not genetically same. It is normal for a Göktürk in far east to be more East Asian shifted. You can't generelize this to the whole Turkic populations who were spreaded all the way from Eastern Siberia to Eastern Europe during that period.

[Myanthropologies]

Those are Pamiri people, they score up to 25% NE_Euro which is the highest in Central Asia and the Middle East (Except Turkey). They are believed to be one of the only descendants of Scythians, other ethnicities can be included like Yaghnobi people as well, but they are linked to ancient Sogdians.

Turkey doesn't even remotely score 25% NE European. Pamiri Tajiks are very genetically similar to other Tajiks and Pashtuns. All modern eastern iranics are descendants of Scythians, not just Pamiris. North Indians are descendants as well

[ButlerKing]

This is very minor East Eurasian admixture, for modern Turks to be the product of hybridization. We are left with three possibilities:



1.) Some unknown selection factor eliminated the East Eurasian admixture from the Turkish population, within a few hundred years.

2.) There was no hybridization between modern Turkish people's ancestors and East Eurasians, only limited interbreeding events, and cross cultural dissemination.

3.) There was no hybridization between the ancestors of modern Turkish people, and the East Eurasian admixture simply reflects an ancient, prehistoric population structure that existed before the split of East and West Eurasians.

I am leaning toward possibility #3.

Not sure why you think 13-18% is minor East Eurasian admixture is minor. East Eurasian is a lot more higher than I though. Despite British colonization of India their genetic impact was 0%. Turkish people have these significant east Eurasian admixture are prove they are significant enough.

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/TCGiresun/asian_zpsa1662785.jpg
http://i.hizliresim.com/vEB25v.png
http://i57.tinypic.com/25im6uu.jpg

[ButlerKing]

Yes. Turkmens are the purest Oghuz Turks and they range between 20 and 40% East Asian.

The ancient Oghuz originated from Kazakhstan. Anthropology show they were Mongoloid and Mongoloid-Europoid but later became Caucasoid and Mongoloid-Caucasoid after mixing with the Iranic people of Turkmenistan.

[ButlerKing]

Ancestors of the modern day Turks (Oghuz Turks) were likely predominantly Western Eurasian stock. They've been to Western Central Asia and Khorasan region for centuries prior to their arrival to Anatolia. It's possibly why there is not much East Eurasian admix in modern day Turks.

British didn't give Indians no European admixture either only a few anglo-Indian but genetic impact on Indian population is 0% where as Turkish have a massive enough genetic impact of East Eurasian admixture. You can't say they don't have much east Eurasian admixture because it's impossible the Turkic invaders who were less than 1/3 of Anatolia to make a huge genetic impact besides Turkmen today are mixture of Iranian from 17th century aswell.

http://i66.tinypic.com/2vsglmo.jpg

Turkmen East Eurasian admixture depending on the location can be low and high.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png

[Babak]

Not sure why you think 13-18% is minor East Eurasian admixture is minor. East Eurasian is a lot more higher than I though. Despite British colonization of India their genetic impact was 0%. Turkish people have these significant east Eurasian admixture are prove they are significant enough.

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/TCGiresun/asian_zpsa1662785.jpg
http://i.hizliresim.com/vEB25v.png
http://i57.tinypic.com/25im6uu.jpg


Yes because the british invasion wasn't even that big. Oghuz migrations were much and i mean much larger. Probably even more than the Iranic migrations in the near-east.

[ButlerKing]

Yes because the british invasion wasn't even that big. Oghuz migrations were much and i mean much larger. Probably even more than the Iranic migrations in the near-east.

It goes to does to show colonization have nothing to with genetic influences.

[Babak]

It goes to does to show colonization have nothing to with genetic influences.

Pretty much, yes.