Classify Ancient Anatolian (face reconstruction) [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Albobalboa

10-01-2017, 09:40 PM

Pretty much, yeah. I think Turks are simply a mix between local Anatolians and Turkic migrants to Anatolia.

Why think something when there are facts regarding it? They are exactly that, with the vast majority being local Anatolian with perhaps some Turkic influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

"Autosomal studies with recent methodology estimate the Central Asian contribution in Turkish people at 13-15%"

Hudayar

10-01-2017, 09:42 PM

Why think something when there are facts regarding it? They are exactly that, with the vast majority being local Anatolian with perhaps some Turkic influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

"Autosomal studies with recent methodology estimate the Central Asian contribution in Turkish people at 13-15%"

Central Asian is used as a synonym of mongoloid in that article. Besides the same article says we have 21.7% east asian influence :D
here https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?188673-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turks take a look at this if you want to know about us.

Albobalboa

10-01-2017, 09:44 PM

Central Asian is used as a synonym of mongoloid in that article. Besides the same article says we have 21.7% east asian influence :D
here https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?188673-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turks take a look at this if you want to know about us.

"Several studies have concluded that the genetic haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia have the largest share in the gene pool of the present-day Turkish population. An admixture analysis determined that the Anatolian Turks share most of their genetic ancestry with non-Turkic populations in the region and the 12th century is set as an admixture date. However, isolates with dominant Central Asian genetic makeup were found at an Afshar village near Ankara." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

Hudayar

10-01-2017, 09:47 PM

"Several studies have concluded that the genetic haplogroups indigenous to Western Asia have the largest share in the gene pool of the present-day Turkish population. An admixture analysis determined that the Anatolian Turks share most of their genetic ancestry with non-Turkic populations in the region and the 12th century is set as an admixture date. However, isolates with dominant Central Asian genetic makeup were found at an Afshar village near Ankara." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

and? haplogroups will obviously be west asian. even the Ottoman family itself is J2 hence west asian. what are we even arguing about?

StonyArabia

10-01-2017, 09:48 PM

Looks Kurdish or Turkish

Albobalboa

10-01-2017, 09:48 PM

and? haplogroups will obviously be west asian. even the Ottoman family itself is J2 hence west asian. what are we even arguing about?

We're not arguing, I don't even know what case you were trying to make. I responed to MrCee as he "thought" something, which has already been proven by genetic testing. Turks in Anatolia are for the most part native Anatolian descent.

Hudayar

10-01-2017, 09:52 PM

We're not arguing, I don't even know what case you were trying to make. I responed to MrCee as he "thought" something, which has already been proven by genetic testing. Turks in Anatolia are for the most part native Anatolian descent.

My point was the article is kind of deceptive since it uses central asian as the synonym of mongoloid and i was trying to correct it. Nothing too complicated, just a misunderstanding

Anglojew

10-01-2017, 11:38 PM

My point was the article is kind of deceptive since it uses central asian as the synonym of mongoloid and i was trying to correct it. Nothing too complicated, just a misunderstanding

Why are Turkish Turks ashamed of being part-Mongoloid & coming from Central/Asia Siberia?

Hudayar

10-01-2017, 11:46 PM

Why are Turkish Turks ashamed of being part-Mongoloid & coming from Central/Asia Siberia?

Where did you get this from? I actually resent the Turks who claim to be European/Something else other than their true heritage.

zarzian

10-01-2017, 11:50 PM

Why are Turkish Turks ashamed of being part-Mongoloid & coming from Central/Asia Siberia?

They aren't ashame of that, infact thry overstate that part of their ancestry. It's their native Anatolian heritage that they are ashamed of.

Hudayar

10-01-2017, 11:54 PM

They aren't ashame of that, infact thry overstate that part of their ancestry. It's their native Anatolian heritage that they are ashamed of.

actually no one knows anything about ancient anatolians here. let alone be ashamed of the fact that they're part n. anatolian because they simply don't know anything about history or genetics. If I asked 100 people from my city about "ancient anatolians" 80 of them would be clueless and 20 of them would vaguely remember them from history classes.

DarknessWin

10-01-2017, 11:57 PM

Anatolid

zarzian

10-02-2017, 12:00 AM

zarzian

10-02-2017, 12:07 AM

actually no one knows anything about ancient anatolians here. let alone be ashamed of the fact that they're part n. anatolian because they simply don't know anything about history or genetics. If I asked 100 people from my city about "ancient anatolians" 80 of them would be clueless and 20 of them would vaguely remember them from history classes.

Well we aren't talking about the average Turk, who probably doesn't know or care that there were even migrations in the middle ages, we are taking about Anthrotards.

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 12:14 AM

Well we aren't talking about the average Turk, who probably doesn't know or care that there were even migrations in the middle ages, we are taking about Anthrotards.

dunno i've not seen anyone talking bad about ancient anatolians here. but on the internet i did witness cringy people who claimed that they're actually anatolians hence european. not on anthro tho. on the internet.

zarzian

10-02-2017, 12:33 AM

dunno i've not seen anyone talking bad about ancient anatolians here. but on the internet i did witness cringy peopel who claimed that they're actually anatolians hence european.

The majority, if not all, of TA Turks worship the ancient Steppe Turks and will deny or downplay their native Anatolian ancestry and claim that there was a million Oghuz tribes that replaced the natives. Though it is not quite on the opposite end either where the elite dominance advocates claim a single digit percentage Turkic population Turkified the existing Anatolian population at that time. The Oghuz Turks were already a Predominantly Caucasian people when they entered South of Khorasan, much like the present Turkoman people, which are the mixture of ancient Gokturk and Iranian Sogdian/Bactrian peoples. I'm guessing Turkomans are ~25-30% East Eurasian, and Turks from Turkey average 5-10%. By this measure it was probably 1 Oghooz turk for every 2 Native Anatolian, that encompasses Modern Turks. So it might
be the case that Modern Turks are composed of 33% Oghuz and 66% Anatolian.

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 12:40 AM

The majority, if not all, of TA Turks worship the ancient Steppe Turks and will deny or downplay their native Anatolian ancestry and claim that there was a million Oghuz tribes that replaced the natives. Though it is not quite on the opposite end either where the elite dominance advocates claim a single digit percentage Turkic population Turkified the existing Anatolian population at that time. The Oghuz Turks were already a Predominantly Caucasian people when they entered South of Khorasan, much like the present Turkoman people, which are the mixture of ancient Gokturk and Iranian Sogdian/Bactrian peoples. I'm guessing Turkomans are ~25-30% East Eurasian, and Turks from Turkey average 5-10%. By this measure it was probably 1 Oghooz turk for every 2 Native Anatolian, that encompasses Modern Turks. So it might
be the case that Modern Turks are composed of 33% Oghuz and 66% Anatolian.

In my other threads i revealed that the average mongoloid dna is around 11-15% for Turks supported by Gedmatch results and by a scientific study on 16 Turks also claims that there's significant East Asian input ranging from 5% to 21.7% from different parts of Turkey. Turkmens? I don't know, i haven't seen Turkmen gedmatch kitnumbers personally but i have this (dunno how reliable it is). Average mongoloid dna of 9 Turkmens is 18.02%
http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Turkmen-genetic-admixture.png

zarzian

10-02-2017, 12:47 AM

In my other threads i revealed that the average mongoloid dna is around 11-15% for Turks supported by Gedmatch results and by a scientific study on 16 Turks also claims that there's significant East Asian input ranging from 5% to 21.7% from different parts of Turkey. Turkmens? I don't know, i haven't seen Turkmen gedmatch kitnumbers personally but i have this (dunno how reliable it is). Average mongoloid dna of 9 Turkmens is 18.02%
http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Turkmen-genetic-admixture.png

How did you get the 18%? , at a glance I was getting ~25% for these samples.

Proto-Shaman

10-02-2017, 12:49 AM

She was from Kayseri
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4NsxaqK7h8E/TDhisEf9ibI/AAAAAAAADcI/liWYxejcBns/s1600/2500.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/n1j5WJ3.jpg

This finding actually underpins the proto-Turkic presence in Anatolia. She looks Irano-Turanid = Carleton Coon's "Altaic Corded Ware" desciption

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 12:52 AM

How did you get the 18%? , at a glance I was getting ~25% for these samples.

counted Tungus Altaic, S. East Asian, Paleo Siberian, East Siberian, Austronesian, Arctic and Amerindian

zarzian

10-02-2017, 01:14 AM

counted Tungus Altaic, S. East Asian, Paleo Siberian, East Siberian, Austronesian, Arctic and Amerindian

What about ancestral Altaic? I was including that as EE, but now thinking about it it could be either or ,depending the definition of Ancestral Altaic.

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 01:29 AM

What about ancestral Altaic? I was including that as EE, but now thinking about it it could be either or ,depending the definition of Ancestral Altaic.

ancestral altaic is a bit mysterious. some people claim that it's actually caucasoid. but on the other hand asiatic people; Turkic, Siberian and Finno-Ugrics have lots of ancestral altaic compared to others. not very sure about it and i don't often include it. it could be mongoloid though. or part mongoloid at least.

JMack

10-02-2017, 01:43 AM

Predominantly Mediterranean.

Anglojew

10-02-2017, 01:47 AM

They aren't ashame of that, infact thry overstate that part of their ancestry. It's their native Anatolian heritage that they are ashamed of.

Good points. They have a confused identity.

Anglojew

10-02-2017, 01:50 AM

Where did you get this from? I actually resent the Turks who claim to be European/Something else other than their true heritage.

I keep reading threads & articles by Turks claiming that they weren't originally Siberian or Mongoloid-looking like other Turks (although I believe they were always mixed-race as Caucasoids always existed in Siberia).

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 01:57 AM

I keep reading threads & articles by Turks claiming that they weren't originally Siberian or Mongoloid-looking like other Turks (although I believe they were always mixed-race as Caucasoids always existed in Siberia).

it's actually complicated.

Our ancestors (Seljuks/Early Ottomans) were indeed not Siberian nor predominantly Mongoloid. They were, rather, Predomiantly Iranians with great mongoloid influence (varied from 20% to 50%). Best represantives of them are Turkmens and some Uzbeks. But their ancestors were more mongoloid, close to Kyrgyzes and Kazakhs. And ancestors of our ancestors' ancestors were pure mongoloids like Yakuts.

Chev Chelios

10-02-2017, 07:05 AM

Central Asian is used as a synonym of mongoloid in that article. Besides the same article says we have 21.7% east asian influence :D
here https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?188673-Turkish-Autosomal-DNA-West-Central-and-East-Anatolian-Turks take a look at this if you want to know about us.

Not really. Central Asian admixture is not equal to Mongoloid/East Asian. CA admixture includes various components (Mongoloid is one of them) and some of them are archaic (Andronovo, BMAC, Yaz) and unique to Central Asia. I doubt any geneticist use CA as a synonym for East Asian/Mongolian.

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 07:49 AM

Not really. Central Asian admixture is not equal to Mongoloid/East Asian. CA admixture includes various components (Mongoloid is one of them) and some of them are archaic (Andronovo, BMAC, Yaz) and unique to Central Asia. I doubt any geneticist use CA as a synonym for East Asian/Mongolian.

I don't think actual geneticists created the article at all. It's wikipedia, not a very scientific source. Here's some flaws from the same wiki article.

"The largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics (on 16 individuals) concluded the weight of Central Asian migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%." (uses the same source as the text below)
"They estimate the weights for the migration events predicted to originate from the East Asian branch into current-day Turkey was at 21.7%" (uses the same source as the text above)

As far as i know Central Asians are not same as East Asians, are they? And the actual article (not wiki) does not even mention Central Asians, rather, East Asians such as Japanese.
For some reasons people use Central Asian as a synonym of mongoloid. Either on purpose or not, it's wrong because of the reasons you mentioned.

Chev Chelios

10-02-2017, 08:19 AM

I don't think actual geneticists created the article at all. It's wikipedia, not a very scientific source. Here's some flaws from the same article.

"The largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics (on 16 individuals) concluded the weight of Central Asian migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%." (uses the same source as the text below)
"They estimate the weights for the migration events predicted to originate from the East Asian branch into current-day Turkey was at 21.7%" (uses the same source as the text above)

As far as i know Central Asians are not same as East Asians, are they? And the article does not even mention Central Asians, rather, East Asians such as Japanese.
For some reasons people use Central Asian as a synonym of mongoloid. Either on purpose or not, it's wrong because of the reasons you mentioned.

That wikipedia article is destroyed. Just look at its history. Someone should rewrite it because it seems every editor injected his/her own stories into that article.

Having Mongoloid traits (e.g. Epicanthic fold) do not guarantee that a specific person is genetically Mongolian. It's just a dominant trait which appeared in her/his face.

Hudayar

10-02-2017, 08:24 AM

That wikipedia article is destroyed. Just look at its history. Someone should rewrite it because it seems every editor injected his/her own stories into that article.

Having Mongoloid traits (e.g. Epicanthic fold) do not guarantee that a specific person is genetically Mongolian. It's just a dominant trait which appeared in her/his face.

I am aware of that. This is why i don't actually trust or take Wikipedia seriously :p But i like battle info boxes. They're very original, even though numbers are often inflated or deflated.

Chev Chelios

10-02-2017, 08:41 AM

I am aware of that. This is why i don't actually trust or take Wikipedia seriously :p But i like battle info boxes. They're very original, even though numbers are often inflated or deflated.

Actually many wikipedia articles are good but you should focus on their references and sources because it's possible the wiki text =/= cited source(s). The quality of wikipedia articles varies from good to bullshit. So use wikipedia for instant searches but focus on the references.

That mentioned article (Genetic studies on Turkish people) uses peer-reviewed sources but its current content is a result of wars between several editors.

teodor11

10-02-2017, 05:01 PM

Anatolid / Med

Proto-Shaman

05-14-2018, 05:49 PM

Iranid-Pamirid

Alpine 0%

Wrong

05-14-2018, 05:50 PM

Proto-Assyrid

nightrider+

05-14-2018, 05:53 PM

Shit reconstruction. Look at the people behind her. "Let's make her look like all of us mixed together!"

decordoba

05-14-2018, 06:06 PM

I dont know the age of this skull - but this is important.

The reconstruction is similar to the reconstruction of any Yamnaya female (IndoEuropean of Y-DNA R1b1 branch).

The ancestors of the Yamnaya tribe settled 9.000 years ago in an area (northern Iraq, eastern Turkey, Syria?) - Today the area of Kurdistan. They had been cattle-herders.

Proto-Shaman

05-14-2018, 06:10 PM