MEDIEVAL OTTOMAN TURKISH DNA

[Hudayar]

There are 2 Ottoman samples. First Ottoman Turkish sample is 20% East Eurasian and the second one is 40% East Eurasian. They cluster with Turkmens and Uzbeks.

https://i.imgur.com/X5TQRlI.png

https://i.imgur.com/RiSHdlC.jpg

the yellow bar is east eurasian dna
https://i.imgur.com/Y5pGx4B.png

[Hudayar]

Source:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2018/05/08/science.aar7711.DC1/aar7711_de_Barros_Damgaard_SM.pdf

[Hudayar]

So Ottoman Turks were 30% East Eurasian on average judging from these results. Close to Turkmens from Afghanistan and Uzbekistan on average.

So an average Turk is around 25-30% Turkic and 65-70% Anatolian. However this depends on where the Turk is from. Western Turks seem to have more Turkic heritage than Eastern Turks. I think their Turkic heritage is around 30-40%

https://abload.de/img/eastjouzky8uw7.png

https://abload.de/img/dodecadk12by3rwx.png

[Leto]

Basically the Turks of Turkey can be around 1/3 Oghuz and 2/3 Anatolian.

[Böri]

There is nothing 'Anatolian', the native element was heavily mixed when Turks showed up. Races of East Med, Iranid, Mesopotamid, Caucasids, Arabids mixed and were living under Byzantine Greek or Apostolic Armenian identities when Turks started to show up.

25-30% EE was always my guess. 40% EE is outliner. The average Turk has30-65% Turkic genetics on average, with coastal western and northern region being until 65% similar. South Aegean region Turks were isolated nomads until 20th who stood away from Greeks. Same as in northern regions like in some parts of black sea. Interior regions mixed more.

That has to do with historical context. Turks moving away from 13th century Mongol terror.
Mongols pushed until Central Anatolia and destroyed many cities. They slaughtered many native 'Anatolians' in interior regions.

Turcomans who came from Central Asia first came to Central Anatolia. That was not enough as Ilkhanids (Hulagu generations) crushed central Anatolia too.
Turcoman nomads moved to far away regions, climbing up mountains of Aegean, Mediterranean (Taurus) and northern Pontic mountains to avoid Mongols.

We avoided massive Mongol slaughter which China, Iran, Central Asia, Caucasus and Rus' and even Hungary couldn't avoid through games of 'vassalage' which Seljuks of Rum played, enabling independence to smaller Turkic state formations (beylik) like Ottoman, Aydin, Menteşe etc.

[Böri]

After 1071 Manzikert, only smaller number of Turcomans under Seljuk nobility and warlords showed up.

Massive migrations occur when Mongols start marching West.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjS1FbHLIxM

They who stayed in Central Asia, seeking Mongol mercy, were like Germans in 1945 who didn't want to move west (to Anglo-American lines) and thought they could survive under Soviets...

[Bosniensis]

Sorry Turks... HUGE disappointment is coming your way.

It's not that that concerns me at any level... it's just how it is.

10 mil Anatolians lived in Anatolia 1071 confirmed from multiple sources.

So how many Turks came?

Of course.. FAR LESS.

The fact Anatolians became Turkified as a typical example of modern 100 million French speaking Africans.

[Hudayar]

Basically the Turks of Turkey can be around 1/3 Oghuz and 2/3 Anatolian.

There's also a huge east eurasian percentage difference (20%) among Turkmens. Even modern Turkmens are different from each other in terms of Mongoloid dna as can be seen here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076748.g003


Hence I think we need more samples. The Turkmens of Anatolia were more diverse than the Anatolian Greeks and Armenians in terms of genetics. But these samples are also nice. I'm very excited actually.

[Böri]

Sorry Turks... HUGE disappointment is coming your way.

It's not that that concerns me at any level... it's just how it is.

10 mil Anatolians lived in Anatolia 1071 confirmed from multiple sources.

So how many Turks came?

Of course.. FAR LESS.

The fact Anatolians became Turkified as a typical example of modern 100 million French speaking Africans.

10% Turkic admixture is 2,5% - 3% Siberian and East Asian combined genes.
We have a lot more than than ;) Do maths.

[Böri]

By the way these samples might be pre-Ottoman, Seljuk Turkic samples from Rum.
They can be representative for first Ottomans too since they arrived after Khwarezm's fall.

[Leto]

We avoided massive Mongol slaughter which China, Iran, Central Asia, Caucasus and Rus' and even Hungary couldn't avoid.
Yet you Turco-Muslim peoples seem to take pride in the Golden Horde as if it was a Turco-Muslim achievement. Why use names like Cengiz, Batuhan and many I can't remember now. The same ludicrous thing happens among Tatar nationalists. Lol, their Muslim Volga Bulgaria was destroyed and lost its independence after the shamanist Mongol onslaught, nor do they look like Genghis Khan's horseriders did - Tatars are a Bulgar/Volga Finnic mix with some small Mongol contribution, many of them look completely white with light hair and eyes. Even most of their Y-haplogroups are West Eurasian + N. :picard1:

[Hudayar]

By the way these samples might be pre-Ottoman, Seljuk Turkic samples from Rum.

Or from Anatolian Turkic states that emerged after fall of Rum Seljuk.

But that 40% East Eurasian sample surprised me. He was either a fresh migrant or somehow he managed to stay "pure Turkmen" since 1071. 20% East Eurasian girl is also interesting. I thought she was mixed with Anatolians but she has elevated south indian ancestry which is found in Central Asians and Indo-Iranians but not in Anatolian Greeks.

[Hudayar]

Why use names like Cengiz, Batuhan and many I can't remember now. The same ludicrous thing happens among Tatar nationalists.

I know a Persian guy who's called "Eskander". It's weird. Alexander literally destroyed a Persian Empire.

[Böri]

Or from Anatolian Turkic states that emerged after fall of Rum Seljuk.

But that 40% East Eurasian sample surprised me. He was either a fresh migrant or somehow he managed to stay "pure Turkmen" since 1071. 20% East Eurasian girl is also interesting. I thought she was mixed with Anatolians but she has elevated south indian ancestry which is found in Central Asians and Indo-Iranians but not in Anatolian Greeks.

Some Karluks (40% EE) also migrated to Anatolia. That sample can be Karluk.
Not only Turkmens came. 20% is low for Turkmens of that era and 40% too much. Right is 25-30 EE.

[Böri]

Yet you Turco-Muslim peoples seem to take pride in the Golden Horde as if it was a Turco-Muslim achievement. Why use names like Cengiz, Batuhan and many I can't remember now. The same ludicrous thing happens among Tatar nationalists. Lol, their Muslim Volga Bulgaria was destroyed and lost its independence after the shamanist Mongol onslaught, nor do they look like Genghis Khan's horseriders did - Tatars are a Bulgar/Volga Finnic mix with some small Mongol contribution, many of them look completely white with light hair and eyes. Even most of their Y-haplogroups are West Eurasian + N. :picard1:

Berke Khan and Nogay Khan who inherited Golden Horde from Batu khan and Subudai İslamized and Turkified themselves.
They subjugated Rus and even launched 'Second Mongol Invasion of Poland' during late 13th century.

Why the heck should we be bothered that some Mongols wanted to assimilate into Turks?

[Leto]

I know a Persian guy who's called "Eskander". It's weird. Alexander literally destroyed a Persian Empire.
South Asians keep saying Alexander brought white genes to them, it's a very widespread myth. They think 2% European on 23andme means Greek blood from 300 BC, lol.

[Leto]

Berke Khan and Nogay Khan who inherited Golden Horde from Batu khan and Subudai İslamized and Turkified themselves.
They subjugated Rus and even launched 'Second Mongol Invasion of Poland' during late 13th century.

Why the heck should we be bothered that some Mongols wanted to assimilate into Turks?
They accepted Islam only about 70 years after Batu raided Rus.

[Leto]

the yellow bar is east eurasian dna
https://i.imgur.com/Y5pGx4B.png
And blue is European HG?

[Böri]

They accepted Islam only about 70 years after Batu raided Rus.

Batu and Berke were both sons of Jochi who was eldest son of Gengis Khan.

Batu Khan invasion of Rus': 1238
Berke conversion to Islam: circa 1248
Berke assuming Golden Horde: 1257

Not 70 years. Only 20 years.

[Hudayar]

And blue is European HG?

Eastern Hunter-Gatherers

[Leto]

Batu and Berke were both sons of Jochi who was eldest son of Gengis Khan.

Batu Khan invasion of Rus': 1238
Berke conversion to Islam: circa 1248
Berke assuming Golden Horde: 1257

Not 70 years.
I was talking about the official change of state religion


After Uzbeg (Öz-Beg) assumed the throne in 1313, he adopted Islam as the state religion. He proscribed Buddhism and Shamanism among the Mongols in Russia, thus reversing the spread of the Yuan culture. By 1315, Uzbeg had successfully Islamicized the Horde, killing Jochid princes and Buddhist lamas who opposed his religious policy and succession of the throne. Uzbeg Khan continued the alliance with the Mamluks begun by Berke and his predecessors. He kept a friendly relationship with the Mamluk Sultan and his shadow Caliph in Cairo. After a long delay and much discussion, he married a princess of the blood to Al-Nasir Muhammad, Sultan of Egypt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde#Political_evolution

[Lavrentis]

I know a Persian guy who's called "Eskander". It's weird. Alexander literally destroyed a Persian Empire.

Have you ever wondered why Latin Americans use Spanish names?

Even some Turks use Greek names, such as Efe (comes from ‘efivos’, meaning adolescent) or Defne (comes from ‘Dafni’, meaning laurel). Despite the fact that Greeks destroyed the Anatolian civilizations.

Humans accept the culture and customs of the people that enslaved them. This has been repeated many times in history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marmara]

Or from Anatolian Turkic states that emerged after fall of Rum Seljuk.

But that 40% East Eurasian sample surprised me. He was either a fresh migrant or somehow he managed to stay "pure Turkmen" since 1071. 20% East Eurasian girl is also interesting. I thought she was mixed with Anatolians but she has elevated south indian ancestry which is found in Central Asians and Indo-Iranians but not in Anatolian Greeks.

People like the girl were probably making most of the Oghuzes. Are you sure she had South Indian? It's supposed to be South Asian (Gedrosian).

The reason of decreased Mongoloid and increased Gedrosian + Baltic admixture is the mixing between Turkics and Iranics happened in Central Asia. Most Oghuz Turks were like this actually.

[Hudayar]

People like the girl were probably making most of the Oghuzes. Are you sure she had South Indian? It's supposed to be South Asian (Gedrosian).

Yes it's written. Pink is South Indian. South Indian admixture is found in Turkics including the Turks. Peaks in Southwestern Central Asians. Rare in Anatolian populations though.

[Aren]

I like how you don't even mention that the sample which socres 22% East Asian might actually be already mixed. She scores about the same EHG as the other sample despite having half of it's East Asian input.

[Marmara]

I like how you don't even mention that the sample which socres 22% East Asian might actually be already mixed. She scores about the same EHG as the other sample despite having half of it's East Asian input.

Mixed? Yes, mixed with Anatolian? No. That mixing probably occurred in the very beginning of Oghuz ethnogenesis, in Central Asia. She could be considered pure Oghuz Turk.

[Aren]

Some Karluks (40% EE) also migrated to Anatolia. That sample can be Karluk.
Not only Turkmens came. 20% is low for Turkmens of that era and 40% too much. Right is 25-30 EE.
First of the Karluk sample had 45-50% East Asian and this Seljuk is at 45%. The outlier here is the woman who scores only 22% East Asian and on top of that she has too high EHG for that amount of East Asian and a South Asian admix. Modern day Anatolian Turks prefer the 45% EE sample with nMonte.

[Hudayar]

I like how you don't even mention that the sample which socres 22% East Asian might actually be already mixed. She scores about the same EHG as the other sample despite having half of it's East Asian input.

Read my posts. I posted a plot about modern central asians.

[Leto]

I wonder what Turkmenistan_IA is.

[Hudayar]

I wonder what Turkmenistan_IA is.

Iron Age Turkmenistan. Iranian.

[Marmara]

One with high East Eurasian plots near Uzbeks (Karluk), one with lower East Eurasian plots near Turkmens (Oghuz). Since she is not mixed Anatolian, she must be considered the Basal for Seljuk Turcoman invaders. Other one must be an outlier. There were different kinds of migrants, even some Pashtuns migrated in Anatolia, they are the founders of Sufism here.

[Hudayar]

Guys there are literally only 2 samples. We just need more samples. 20-40% sounds average for Seljuk era Turkmens. IMO Uzbekistan Turkmens are the best proxy. They're around 30% mongoloid.

[Aren]

One with high East Eurasian plots near Uzbeks (Karluk), one with lower East Eurasian plots near Turkmens (Oghuz). Since she is not mixed Anatolian, she must be considered the Basal for Seljuk Turcoman invaders. Other one must be an outlier. There were different kinds of migrants, even some Pashtuns migrated in Anatolia, they are the founders of Sufism here.

Yet modern day Anatolian Turks prefer to be modeled with the more EE shifted sample, probably cause the one that plots with modern day Turkmen has too high South Asian and EHG to get a good fit.

[Leto]

Iron Age Turkmenistan. Iranian.
Any data on his haplogroups? He seems to be close to Russians on that plot.

[Hudayar]

Any data on his haplogroups? He seems to be close to Russians on that plot.

Yeah. Her haplogroup is: T2c1a. It's on the paper.

[Leto]

Yeah. Her haplogroup is: T2c1a
She was an Aryan girl. Bronze Age Turkmenistan was culturally Aryan.

The later Iron Age sample Turkmenistan_IA from the same region belongs to the F992/Z93-R1a1a1b2 lineage, which has also been identified in Srubnaya Late Bronze Age Steppe (LBA) populations (47).
In our dataset, this lineage and their subclades have been identified in 4 Altaians, 2 Kyrgyz, 2 Bashkirs, 2 Tajiks, 1 Teleut, and 1 Uyghur individual. In a larger survey of R1a derived males, it was determined that the vast majority of Z93 lineages occur in Central and South Asian groups, while the sister branch Z282 is mostly restricted to Central and Eastern Europe (148). The fact that the Turkmenistan_IA sample shares the Z93 lineage with Srubnaya is in agreement with the increased affinity of the Turkmenistan sample to LBA steppe populations.

[Marmara]

Yet modern day Anatolian Turks prefer to be modeled with the more EE shifted sample, probably cause the one that plots with modern day Turkmen has too high South Asian and EHG to get a good fit.

Why? It's already known fact Turkic admixture elevated South Asian and Baltic in Anatolia alongside Mongoloid.

[Aren]

Why? It's already known fact Turkic admixture elevated South Asian and Baltic in Anatolia alongside Mongoloid.

I said too high, not that it should be absent. You can see yourself, despite having half EE of the other sample, she has about the same EHG meaning that these two samples had mixed with different populations.

[Hudayar]

I said too high, not that it should be absent. You can see yourself, despite having half EE of the other sample, she has about the same EHG meaning that these two samples had mixed with different populations.

too high?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rGL0CczzqQo/WrWj2Lt3vCI/AAAAAAAAA8U/ezZ2_cZ7lfMFz-CxQqmI__Q1c6FmFyQzACLcBGAs/s1600/PuntDNAL-1.png


Central Asians (Southwestern ones aka Uzbeks and Turkmens) have lots of South Indian dna.

[Aren]

too high?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rGL0CczzqQo/WrWj2Lt3vCI/AAAAAAAAA8U/ezZ2_cZ7lfMFz-CxQqmI__Q1c6FmFyQzACLcBGAs/s1600/PuntDNAL-1.png


Central Asians (Southwestern ones aka Uzbeks and Turkmens) have lots of South Indian dna.

The sample is not on gedmatch, but as you can see despite some Anatolian Turkish regions having strong E Asian input their South Asian scores don't go up in comparision with the lower E Asian scoring regions. The image in TS shows higher South Asian and considering the fact that Anatolian Turks rather wants to get modelled with the sample with higher East Asian affinity on nMonte is just making me think that the components are not matching for her to be a contributor to modern day Anatolian Turks.

[Hudayar]

The sample is not on gedmatch, but as you can see despite some Anatolian Turkish regions having strong E Asian input their South Asian scores don't go up in comparision with the lower E Asian scoring regions. The image in TS shows higher South Asian and considering the fact that Anatolian Turks rather wants to get modelled with the sample with higher East Asian affinity on nMonte is just making me think that the components are not matching for her to be a contributor to modern day Anatolian Turks.

I love how you completely ignored the fact that Turkmens have 5-10% South Asian in them and Turks half of what Turkmens have. Central Anatolian Greeks have 1% and Armenians have 3%.

And reminder that we have only 2 samples. They're only useful to compare the East Eurasian dna. Not the other components. We will just have to wait for new samples. And your nMonte analysis is ridiculous because Turks have more Armenian heritage than Anatolian Greek heritage according to your results. Why? Because you think there were Armenians in the very Western part of Turkey and you have no Western Anatolian Greek sample. So shut up for once and let people browse this thread in peace you stubborn keyboard warrior.

[Aren]

I love how you completely ignored the fact that Turkmens have 5-10% South Asian in them and Turks half of what Turkmens have. Central Anatolian Greeks have 1% and Armenians have 3%.

And reminder that we have only 2 samples. They're only useful to compare the East Eurasian dna. Not the other components. We will just have to wait for new samples. And your nMonte analysis is ridiculous because Turks have more Armenian heritage than Anatolian Greek heritage according to your results. Why? Because you think there were Armenians in the very Western part of Turkey and you have no Western Anatolian Greek sample. So shut up for once and let people browse this thread in peace you stubborn keyboard warrior.

I don't ignore anything. Why care about Turkmens now that you have actual medieval Ottoman Turks? For all we know Turkmens could have gotten their extra South Asian from absorbing neighbouring people.
There's no point in arguing with you, in fact you are not even arguing with me but with nMonte and the result it shows. The point was to single out Turkish input not to show what modern day Turks look like overall genetically speaking. Even if we had Western Anatolian Greeks the Turkish input would still be the same.
No I will not shut up and be silenced, TheApricity is not Erdogans' Turkey, get used to it.

[Hudayar]

I'm tired of explaining the same things to this guy. He really has a thick head. Or maybe he doesn't understand English. Maybe he understands Kurdish but i don't speak Kurdish. So it's impossible to communicate with this guy.

[Marmara]

I don't ignore anything. Why care about Turkmens now that you have actual medieval Ottoman Turks? For all we know Turkmens could have gotten their extra South Asian from absorbing neighbouring people.
There's no point in arguing with you, in fact you are not even arguing with me but with nMonte and the result it shows. The point was to single out Turkish input not to show what modern day Turks look like overall genetically speaking. Even if we had Western Anatolian Greeks the Turkish input would still be the same.
No I will not shut up and be silenced, TheApricity is not Erdogans' Turkey, get used to it.

Mongoloid admixture is the direct result of Turkic admixture. nMonte leaves out some of Turkic admix hence the distance. Simply calculate how much % of Mongoloid admixed. Western Turk is 15% Mongoloid and one Seljuk sample is 45%, it means 1/3 Turkic admixture simple and reliable, and i believe that sample is exceptionally high in Mongoloid. Average Turkic admixture for a Western Turk would be slightly below half and for a Yörük it would be well above it.

[Hudayar]

Btw can someone upload these Ottomans' dna to Gedmatch? Would love to play with calculators.

[Aren]

Mongoloid admixture is the direct result of Turkic admixture. nMonte leaves out some of Turkic admix hence the distance. Simply calculate how much % of Mongoloid admixed. Western Turk is 15% Mongoloid and one Seljuk sample is 45%, it means 1/3 Turkic admixture simple and reliable, and i believe that sample is exceptionally high in Mongoloid. Average Turkic admixture for a Western Turk would be slightly below half and for a Yörük it would be well above it.

Why would it leave out Turkic admix? Turkic admixture sticks out and can't be mixed up with anything else when modelling Turks as Turkic + West Eurasians. And nMonte shows around 30% Turkic for the most East Eurasian scoring regions(Aydin and Balikesir). Btw we don't need your beliefs, we have an actual Ottoman Turk from the middle ages.
9-10th century Karluk sample was also around 50% EE, the four other Oghuz Turks who were from the early Middle Ages ranged between 30-60% EE. So this sample which is around 45% does make sense.

[Hudayar]

Why would it leave out Turkic admix? Turkic admixture sticks out and can't be mixed up with anything else when modelling Turks as Turkic + West Eurasians. And nMonte shows around 30% Turkic for the most East Eurasian scoring regions(Aydin and Balikesir). Btw we don't need your beliefs, we have an actual Ottoman Turk from the middle ages.
9-10th century Karluk sample was also around 50% EE, the four other Öghuz Turks who were from the early Middle Ages ranged between 30-60% EE. So this sample which is around 45% does make sense.

Are you still talking? We only have 2 samples. Shut the hell up already. And your own nMonte results don't even make sense. Your ridiculous "Balkan Turk" claim was also debunked.

IMO the Turkic heritage on average should be around 25-35%. Western Turks are above average and Eastern ones are below average. so the Turkic percentage should be around 5-52% if we include these Turks.

and the Turkmens of Anatolia were from many different countries. Some were from Azerbaijan, some from Iran, some from Turkmenistan, some from Kazakhstan/Afghanistan/Uzbekistan etc. They were obviously genetically not the same. Not even these 2 samples are the same there's huge genetic difference lmao. They were diverse. So one sample, including the 20% one, cannot be the ultimate average. We need at least 100 samples.

[Aren]

Are you still talking? We only have 2 samples. Shut the hell up already. And your own nMonte results don't even make sense. Your ridiculous "Balkan Turk" claim was also debunked.

IMO the Turkic heritage on average should be around 25-35%. Western Turks are above average and Eastern ones are below average. so the Turkic percentage should be around 5-52%

and the Turkmens of Anatolia were from many different countries. Some were from Azerbaijan, some from Iran, some from Turkmenistan, some from Kazakhstan/Afghanistan/Uzbekistan etc. They were obviously genetically not the same. They were diverse. So one sample, including the 20% one, cannot be the ultimate average. We need at least 100 samples.

You are talking out of your ass trying desperately to hold to some straws whilst I'm using actual samples from a scientific study. You are blaming nMonte for results that you are too complexed and biased to understand. Nothing more needs to be said. You should not get involved in these discussions and insteead just downvote people, that's what you're good at.

[Leto]

Azerbaijanis are like 5-6% mongoloid on average and that's one of the places from which the Seljuks launched their conquest of Anatolia.

From the Eurogenes K13 spreadsheet

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 34.81
2 East_Med 28.48
3 South_Asian 7.13
4 West_Med 6.92
5 North_Atlantic 5.54
6 Red_Sea 5.51
7 Baltic 4.68
8 Siberian 2.92
9 East_Asian 2.28
10 Amerindian 0.54
11 Oceanian 0.54
12 Northeast_African 0.35
13 Sub-Saharan 0.29

[Marmara]

We can see the diversity among conquering Turcomans from the irregularities on admixture. Siberian + East Asian + South Asian ratios are very inconsistent. Some Turks score about equal Siberian + East Asian while some score one much more than another. Some Turks score as much as 5% South Asian while some very low even with significant Mongoloid admixture. I've seen one Balkan Turk sample here which scored about 8% Mongoloid but 0% South Asian.

[Hudayar]

You are talking out of your ass trying desperately to hold to some straws whilst I'm using actual samples from a scientific study. You are blaming nMonte for results that you are too complexed and biased to understand. Nothing more needs to be said.

You're trying to manipulate the data but I doubt you're capable of manipulating anything. No i'm not "blaming" nMonte results i'm blaming your ridiculous proxies. Why? Because Western Turks are more related to Armenians than to Anatolian Greeks according to your results. Why? Because you don't have good proxies. You don't have any medieval sample from Byzantine Western Anatolia. Hence we get funny results like 25% Turkmen 35% Armenian 20% Bulgarian and only 10% Anatolian Greek. You are just posting nonsense for the last 5 hours. I also saw your racist comments about Turks so you're the biased guy here.

I hope we get more samples from every part of Anatolia from different eras.

[Marmara]

Azerbaijanis are like 5-6% mongoloid on average and that's one of the places from which the Seljuks launched their conquest of Anatolia.

There is very little time passed between Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and Azerbaijan, besides, it was about the decision of Turkic tribes migrating, they preferred Anatolia over Azerbaijan because Central Anatolia was largely unhabited open field, made perfect place for the pastoralists.

[Hudayar]

Azerbaijanis are like 5-6% mongoloid on average and that's one of the places from which the Seljuks launched their conquest of Anatolia.

From the Eurogenes K13 spreadsheet

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 34.81
2 East_Med 28.48
3 South_Asian 7.13
4 West_Med 6.92
5 North_Atlantic 5.54
6 Red_Sea 5.51
7 Baltic 4.68
8 Siberian 2.92
9 East_Asian 2.28
10 Amerindian 0.54
11 Oceanian 0.54
12 Northeast_African 0.35
13 Sub-Saharan 0.29

I think Azerbaijanis mostly descend from Anatolian Turks. Not directly from Turkmens. Shia/Alevi Turkish migration into Azerbaijan from Anatolia and Safavid conquests completely Turkified Azerbaijan (both Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan). This is also visible in their gedmatch oracle results, they're between Turks and Iranians.

[Aren]

You're trying to manipulate the data but I doubt you're capable of manipulating anything. No i'm not "blaming" nMonte results i'm blaming your ridiculous proxies. Why? Because Western Turks are more related to Armenians than to Anatolian Greeks according to your results. Why? Because you don't have good proxies. You don't have any medieval sample from Byzantine Western Anatolia. Hence we get funny results like 25% Turkmen 35% Armenian 20% Bulgarian and only 10% Anatolian Greek. You are just posting nonsense for the last 5 hours. I also saw your racist comments about Turks so you're the biased guy here.

I hope we get more samples from every part of Anatolia from different eras.

Why are you lying? I posted this in the other thread, showing the distance with nMonte and Western Turks are closer to Greeks not Armenians. No actually you're not lying you just don't understand all of this. You think just because nMonte doesn't label the Turkish sample as mostly Anatolian Greek that they somehow aren't related. Just ignorance.

Turkish_Balikesir

Greek_Crete Greek_Central_Anatolia
7.790174 9.475611 9.844926
Armenian Greek_Trabzon Bulgarian
10.178597 10.467761 10.635658
Macedonian Ottoman(45%)
11.517070 21.680495

[Marmara]

I think Azerbaijanis mostly descend from Anatolian Turks. Not directly from Turkmens. Shia/Alevi Turkish migration into Azerbaijan from Anatolia and Safavid conquests completely Turkified Azerbaijan (both Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan). This is also can be seen in their gedmatch oracle results, they're between Turks and Iranians.

Azerbaijanis of Turkey also score significant Mongoloid, as much as Western Turks.

[Hudayar]

Why are you lying? I posted this in the other thread, showing the distance with nMonte and Western Turks are closer to Greeks not Armenians. No actually you're not lying you just don't understand all of this. You think just because nMonte doesn't label the Turkish sample as mostly Anatolian Greek that they somehow aren't related. Just ignorance.

Turkish_Balikesir

Greek_Crete Greek_Central_Anatolia
7.790174 9.475611 9.844926
Armenian Greek_Trabzon Bulgarian
10.178597 10.467761 10.635658
Macedonian Ottoman(45%)
11.517070 21.680495

This is the second nMonte results not the first results.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?243642-Turkey-opens-genealogy-database-fascinates-and-frightens-Turks/page15&p=5127940#post5127940

these are the first results

Turkish_Balikesir

Armenian,35.4
Ottoman,27.6
Bulgarian,25.4
Greek_Central_Anatolia,11.6


Even a 5 year old can see that this is wrong.

[Leto]

I think Azerbaijanis mostly descend from Anatolian Turks. Not directly from Turkmens. Shia/Alevi Turkish migration into Azerbaijan from Anatolia and Safavid conquests completely Turkified Azerbaijan (both Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan). This is also can be seen in their gedmatch oracle results, they're between Turks and Iranians.
I think they largely trace their origins back to Caucasian Albania whose population was first Persianized/Iranicized, then Turkified with some genetic admixture. They still have Tat and Talysh people who speak Western Iranian languages but genetically barely differ from Turkish-speaking Azeris. Also, in the North of the republic many obviously have Lezgin/North Caucasian admixture.

[Aren]

This is the second nMonte results not the first results.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?243642-Turkey-opens-genealogy-database-fascinates-and-frightens-Turks/page15&p=5127940#post5127940

these are the first results

Turkish_Balikesir

Armenian,35.4
Ottoman,27.6
Bulgarian,25.4
Greek_Central_Anatolia,11.6


Even a 5 year old can see that this is wrong.

Wow you are dumber than I thought. The one I posted was the distance of the Balikesir sample to the populations used, not the actual nMonte run(which is the one you just posted now). Lower number means closer. Are you actually this dumb?

[Hudayar]

I think they largely trace their origins back to Caucasian Albania whose population was first Persianized/Iranicized, then Turkified with some genetic admixture. They still have Tat and Talysh people who speak Western Iranian languages but genetically barely differ from Turkish-speaking Azeris. Also, in the North of the republic many obviously have Lezgin/North Caucasian admixture.

Depends on the Azeri.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3539-Eurogenes-K13-Results/page74

One Azeri here posted his grandfather's results and he's very different from Caucasians. He also comes up as a mixture between Armenians and Turkmens/Turkics.

[Leto]

Azerbaijanis of Turkey also score significant Mongoloid, as much as Western Turks.
Really? I've never seen an Azerbaijani getting over 8% mongoloid. Other than that, is there a distinct Azer(baijan)i identity in Turkey? I think they simply identify as Türk. Azerbaijani is the term heavily promoted by the Soviet Union. As far as I know, in Iran they are still popularly called tork.

[Hudayar]

Prove it. When i asked you this in other thread why didn't you say this? 1- You're either making this distance thing up because i proved you wrong 2- You don't know what you're talking about


anyway it's 3 PM here i'll discuss this later.

[Leto]

Depends on the Azeri.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3539-Eurogenes-K13-Results/page74

One Azeri here posted his grandfather's results and he's very different from Caucasians. He also comes up as a mixture between Armenians and Turkmens/Turkics.
Such people must be a small minority. Most Azerbaijanis look very West Asian. They are your typical 'fruit seller' types like Hadouken.

[Aren]

Prove it. When i asked you this in other thread why didn't you say this? 1- You're either making this distance thing up because i proved you wrong 2- You don't know what you're talking about


anyway it's 3 PM here i'll discuss this later.

Prove what? You don't even know what nMonte is or how it works. I'm wasting my time.

[Marmara]

Really? I've never seen an Azerbaijani getting over 8% mongoloid. Other than that, is there a distinct Azer(baijan)i identity in Turkey? I think they simply identify as Türk. Azerbaijani is the term heavily promoted by the Soviet Union. As far as I know, in Iran they are still popularly called tork.

Maybe i remember their admixture wrong, but the Mongolid admixture re-elevates in the far-east of the country. Main reason is the Turkic community living there who were under Safavid control and sphere opposed to Ottoman, Shia Jafari muslims and linguistically closer to Azerbaijanis, that's why they are more related to Azerbaijanis.

Here is one from Iğdır, very famous Nationalist politician, his Mong admix is very visible.

http://www.turksam.org/resimler/u/138874926321824.jpg

[Leto]

Maybe i remember their admixture wrong, but the Mongolid admixture re-elevates in the far-east of the country. Main reason is the Turkic community living there who were under Safavid control and sphere opposed to Ottoman, Shia Jafari muslims and linguistically closer to Azerbaijanis, that's why they are more related to Azerbaijanis.

Here is one from Iğdır, very famous Nationalist politician, his Mong admix is very visible.

I wouldn't say he looks very mong. Some Turanid influence is present, yes. However I bet he's 10% at best.

[Marmara]

I wouldn't say he looks very mong. Some Turanid influence is present, yes. However I bet he's 10% at best.

He still looks pretty Turkic for a non-Yörük Turkish and especially Azerbaijani person.

[Gangrel]

I wouldn't say he looks very mong. Some Turanid influence is present, yes. However I bet he's 10% at best.

Way over 10%. Can easily pass in Central Asia

[Yaglakar]

Closest nominal Oghuz kin of Anatolian Turks, Turkmens are not a good proxy. Also historically, Turkmen does not necessarily equal Oghuz. Caspian/Aral Oghuz were one of the most decentralized and fragmented Turkic groups.

Turkmens:

https://i.imgur.com/0FR0AbP.png
Peter B. Golden. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Harrassowitz Verlag. Page 400

Turks:

https://i.imgur.com/xCZDqc1.png
Peter B. Golden. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Harrassowitz Verlag. Page 383

One needs a sample of the upper tribal Kaya-Kinik line.

[Hudayar]

Btw can someone upload these Ottomans' dna to Gedmatch? Would love to play with calculators.

.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Anatolia_MLBA samples (~2000–1500 BCE) on GEDmatch
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?244165-Kaman-Kaleh%F6y%FCk-Turkey-(1750-BC)-GEDmatch-results

[Böri]

Maybe i remember their admixture wrong, but the Mongolid admixture re-elevates in the far-east of the country. Main reason is the Turkic community living there who were under Safavid control and sphere opposed to Ottoman, Shia Jafari muslims and linguistically closer to Azerbaijanis, that's why they are more related to Azerbaijanis.

Here is one from Iğdır, very famous Nationalist politician, his Mong admix is very visible.

http://www.turksam.org/resimler/u/138874926321824.jpg

Yep reelevation around Iğdır and surroundings. Interestingly zone between Cappadocia and that area has lower.

[Hudayar]

bump

[Hudayar]

GEDmatch results of the Ottoman Turk that scores 40% East Eurasian



Medieval Ottoman Turk

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Siberian 31.03
2 West_Asian 22.41
3 Baltic 15.21
4 North_Atlantic 13.01
5 East_Asian 8.76
6 East_Med 4.74
7 West_Med 2.52
8 Amerindian 1.17
9 Red_Sea 0.83
10 Sub-Saharan 0.31

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Afghan_Turkmen 11.78
2 Uzbeki 17.18
3 Kazakh 18.81
4 Shors 19.35
5 Nogay 19.55
6 Aghan_Hazara 20.35
7 Hazara 20.84
8 Kirgiz 21.89
9 Hakas 22.27
10 Uygur 22.77
11 Tatar 26.62
12 Altaian 27.45
13 Mari 29.79
14 Turkmen 30.05
15 Afghan_Tadjik 30.06
16 Tadjik 30.45
17 Chuvash 30.52
18 Mongolian 34.09
19 Kabardin 35.22
20 Balkar 35.56

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 73.4% Nogay + 26.6% Dolgan @ 7.13
2 50.3% Shors + 49.7% Nogay @ 7.23
3 67.7% Shors + 32.3% Chechen @ 7.38
4 68.2% Shors + 31.8% Lezgin @ 7.39
5 68% Shors + 32% Ossetian @ 7.41
6 65.8% Shors + 34.2% Kabardin @ 7.42
7 67.5% Shors + 32.5% North_Ossetian @ 7.45
8 66.9% Nogay + 33.1% Selkup @ 7.45
9 64.5% Hakas + 35.5% Tabassaran @ 7.46
10 65.9% Nogay + 34.1% Ket @ 7.48
11 68.1% Shors + 31.9% Tabassaran @ 7.49
12 66.1% Shors + 33.9% Balkar @ 7.53
13 75.2% Nogay + 24.8% Evenki @ 7.66
14 68.5% Shors + 31.5% Adygei @ 7.68
15 64.8% Hakas + 35.2% Lezgin @ 7.71
16 64.2% Hakas + 35.8% Chechen @ 7.78
17 75.9% Nogay + 24.1% Evens @ 7.79
18 51.8% Tuvinian + 48.2% Tabassaran @ 7.96
19 53.8% Nogay + 46.2% Hakas @ 7.98
20 66.9% Shors + 33.1% Kumyk @ 7.99

[Marmara]

Can we compare it with Afghan Turkmen to see what's different?

[Hadouken]

so whats the conclusion for turks ?

[Hudayar]

so whats the conclusion for turks ?

For Turks?

Check the third comment in this thread. The Turkic impact seems to be around 30%. Can rise up to 50% (Muğla samples). On average it's around 20-35%.

By the way updated map

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-301b7cc3b36392aecc97c9bf625af636

[Hudayar]

Can we compare it with Afghan Turkmen to see what's different?

Difference is South Asian DNA.

The Ottoman Turkish guy for some reasons scores no South Asian (probably some calculator error). Afghan Turkmen samples on GEDmatch score 8.31% according to the spreadsheet.

And the Ottoman Turk is 4% more mongoloid than Afghan Turkmens.

[Hadouken]

so is that ottoman turk you posted above what we can assume of the selcuks before they mixed with native anatolians ? or is he just 1 example of it and there was variation ?

[Hudayar]

so is that ottoman turk you posted above what we can assume of the selcuks before they mixed with native anatolians ? or is he just 1 example of it and there was variation ?

There are 2 samples. Didn't you read the study that I posted? One Ottoman scores 20% mongoloid and the other Ottoman scores 40%.

We can't say anything about what Seljuks were like though. We need more samples. Because there's a huge diversity between Turkmens themselves. And even between these 2 Ottoman samples.

[Hadouken]

There are 2 samples. Didn't you read the study that I posted? One Ottoman scores 20% mongoloid and the other Ottoman scores 40%.

We can't say anything about what Seljuks were like though. We need more samples. Because there's a huge diversity between Turkmens themselves. And even between these 2 Ottoman samples.

which population today would be the closest to the turks that invaded anatolia ? I am guessing turkmenistani with some north shift ? like turkmen + chuvash or something like that or a more caucasoid form of nogais

[Hudayar]

which population today would be the closest to the turks that invaded anatolia ? I am guessing turkmenistani with some north shift ? like turkmen + chuvash or something like that or a more caucasoid form of nogais

Turkmens from Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are the best proxies imo.

[Babak]

I think Azerbaijanis mostly descend from Anatolian Turks. Not directly from Turkmens. Shia/Alevi Turkish migration into Azerbaijan from Anatolia and Safavid conquests completely Turkified Azerbaijan (both Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan). This is also visible in their gedmatch oracle results, they're between Turks and Iranians.

Iranian azeris? No they're mostly caucasian+iranian+minor turkic. Republic azeris seem to learn more towards anatolian turks and armos

[Böri]

Iranian azeris? No they're mostly caucasian+iranian+minor turkic. Republic azeris seem to learn more towards anatolian turks and armos

Azeris were Persians. Azerbaijanis is the correct term.
Caucasian Albanian theory doesn't make any sense, since the center of Turkic people from Azerbaijan isn't what's today the Republic of Az. but Tabriz which is in N-W Iran and Caucasian Albanians were never there. Beside, it's said that Arabs converted them by force before Turks showed up, so logically they would be Arab-speaker or Farsi-speaker. That doesn't make sense.
The Persian theory also sucks. Persians have strong local culture. Why would some Turkify while others, like in Fars province (Firuzabad, Shiraz etc) didn't Turkify?

Hudayar is right, all Turks in Eastern Turkey moved to Ardabil region during Safavid era. The area was heavily Turkified.

[Pribislav]

Sorry Turks... HUGE disappointment is coming your way.

It's not that that concerns me at any level... it's just how it is.

10 mil Anatolians lived in Anatolia 1071 confirmed from multiple sources.

So how many Turks came?

Of course.. FAR LESS.

The fact Anatolians became Turkified as a typical example of modern 100 million French speaking Africans.

About 250 000.

[Böri]

About 250 000.

That is after 1071. That is right. Rum was a non-desired area by the Turks. That's why it wasn't directly taken by Sultan Alp Arslan or his son Malik Shah (ruling descent of Great Seljuk, who descended from Mikail ibn Seljuk) but their less favored cousin Suleyman (descending from Arslan ibn Seljuk) was charged with conquest of Rum.
Turks didn't want Anatolia in the beginning. They wanted to get into Egypt. Egypt was a mythical land for Turks since plenty of mercenaries were describing it as a rich paradise once they were back home.

That's the Mongol invasion of Kwharezm that Turkified Anatolia since the all the nomad Turkic population of south Central Asia were forced to flee to Turkey as Mongols were advancing. Turks became majority in Anatolia as early 14th century.

[Pribislav]

That is after 1071. That is right. Rum was a non-desired area by the Turks. That's why it wasn't directly taken by Sultan Alp Arslan or his son Malik Shah (ruling descent of Great Seljuk, who descended from Mikail ibn Seljuk) but their less favored cousin Suleyman (descending from Arslan ibn Seljuk) was charged with conquest of Rum.
Turks didn't want Anatolia in the beginning. They wanted to get into Egypt. Egypt was a mythical land for Turks since plenty of mercenaries were describing it as a rich paradise once they were back home.

That's the Mongol invasion of Kwharezm that Turkified Anatolia since the all the nomad Turkic population of south Central Asia were forced to flee to Turkey as Mongols were advancing. Turks became majority in Anatolia as early 14th century.

Marority of Turks settled to Anatolia after 1071, is not it?

I know, some Turkic tribes/clans came to Anatolia in 12th and 13th century (such as with Ertuğrul), but they were not so numerous.

[Bosniensis]

Marority of Turks setlted to Anatolia after 1071, is not it?

I know, some Turkic tribes/clans came to Anatolia in 12th and 13th century (such as with Ertuğrul), but they were not so numerous.

You can't explain that to brainwashed Turks, they believe that Turks are Historical people who settled in Empty Anatolia.

Anatolia is Greko-Persian territory settled with Syrians as well, Turks came MUCH later in small numbers.

Even Ottoman Emperors were Anatolian Greeks (Komnenos) not Turks as Turanist imagine.. but hey.. let them live in lies.. Genetics will reveal everything in time.

[Böri]

Marority of Turks settled to Anatolia after 1071, is not it?

I know, some Turkic tribes/clans came to Anatolia in 12th and 13th century (such as with Ertuğrul), but they were not so numerous.

Nope. Majority came in first half of 13th century from Khwarezm, just as Ertuğrul. My clan is also from that wave :)
Were it not for Mongol onslaught, the nomadic pastoralist Turks would have never left the pastures of south Kazakhstan for the dry land of Asia Minor. Circumstances force you sometimes.

[Pribislav]

You can't explain that to brainwashed Turks, they believe that Turks are Historical people who settled in Empty Anatolia.

Anatolia is Greko-Persian territory settled with Syrians as well, Turks came MUCH later in small numbers.

Even Ottoman Emperors were Anatolian Greeks (Komnenos) not Turks as Turanist imagine.. but hey.. let them live in lies.. Genetics will reveal everything in time.

Turks were not settled in empty Anatolia, of course. They were less numerous than native Anatolians.
But you claim that there was only few Turks in Anatolia. 250 000 is not "few" for that period. In Serbian great migration from Raška, Kosovo, southern Serbia and northern Macedonia 150 000 - 180 000 Serbs with patrijarh Arsenije Čarnojević 1690 migrated to Syrmia, Banat, eastern Slavonia, Baranya and southern Hungary. This migration in Serbian history was cataclysmic because is considered that huge number of Serbs left the therritories which i mentioned. After this migration Albanians were colonized Kosovo and part of Raška.
My point is if 150 000 - 180 000 was huge number 328 year ago, even more huge number is 250 000 in 11th century.

[Hudayar]

About 250 000.

From wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification#Number_of_Pastoralists_of_Turkic_ori gin_in_Anatolia

Number of nomads of Turkic origin that migrated to Anatolia is a matter of discussion. According to Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi, there were 200,000 Turkmen tents in Denizli and its surrounding areas, 30,000 in Bolu and its environment, and about 100,000 in Kastamonu and its environment.[17] [18]. According to a Latin source at the end of the 12th century there were 100,000 nomadic tents in the regions of Denizli and Isparta.[19]


If one tent means one family, one family means probably 8 members in the middle ages. So waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than 250.000. More like 2-3 million. Not even counting the Turkic tribes in Southern and Central Anatolia. Also in Northeastern Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia.

[Bosniensis]

Turks were not settled in empty Anatolia, of course. They were less numerous than native Anatolians.
But you claim that there was only few Turks in Anatolia. 250 000 is not "few" for that period. In Serbian great migration from Raška, Kosovo, southern Serbia and northern Macedonia about 150 000 - 180 000 Serbs with patrijarh Arsenije Čarnojević 1690 migrated to syrmia, Banat, eastern Slavonia, Baranya and southern Humgary. This migration in Serbian history was cataclysmic because is considered that huge number of Serbs left the therritories which i mentioned. After this migration Albanian were colonized Kosovo and part of Raška.
My point is if 150 000 - 180 000 wasw huge number 328 year ago, even more huge numbeer is 250 000 in 11th century.

Anatolia had 10 million Anatolians in 1071, those numbers are confirmed.

Anatolia was a Heart of Europe and Hellenic civilization.

250.000 on 10 mil... = very small impact.

[Bosniensis]

From wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification#Number_of_Pastoralists_of_Turkic_ori gin_in_Anatolia

Number of nomads of Turkic origin that migrated to Anatolia is a matter of discussion. According to Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi, there were 200,000 Turkmen tents in Denizli and its surrounding areas, 30,000 in Bolu and its environment, and about 100,000 in Kastamonu and its environment.[17] [18]. According to a Latin source at the end of the 12th century there were 100,000 nomadic tents in the regions of Denizli and Isparta.[19]


If one tent means one family, one family means probably 8 members in the middle ages. So waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than 250.000. More like 2-3 million.

Even 3 mil isn't enough to absorb genetically 10 million Greko-Persians

But there wasn't 3 mil of course, that's ridiculous.

[Hudayar]

Even 3 mil isn't enough to absorb genetically 10 million Greko-Persians

But there wasn't 3 mil of course, that's ridiculous.

"Even 3 mil isn't enough to absorb genetically 10 million Greko-Persians"

What makes you think that Turks settled in every corner of Anatolia? Eastern Anatolia was mostly Armenian. It was later dominated by Kurds.

Also the Turks raided a lot of cities and the countryside in Anatolia. Those raids lead to deaths and famines which results in deaths, also migrations to Byzantine controlled areas (princes' Islands in Turkey was settled by Greeks who escaped from Anatolia)

Also we don't claim that the Turks absorbed natives. Turkics didn't even absorb Iranians in Central Asia. But the intermarriages created a very different people. different from Turkics and natives.

[Böri]

What's the proof that there was 10 million natives? Your Ass? There was barely 2 million natives if not lesser.

Proof is here:
Turks were in eastern Turkey (Manzikert battle) in 1071. Then after victory, Sultan wasnt interested in poor Anatolia (he wanted Egypt), only irregular forces led by Suleyman (a cousin of the sultan, not main ruling imperial family) conquered all of Anatolia and reached Izmir (far west Turkey) in 1076.
Only in 5 years, how come 10 million people are taken over by some thousands of horse archers?


Proof 2:
Plagues which decimated Europe and killed half of her population never reached Turkey. There were also never mass genocides over last 1000 years. With a natural multiplication, Turkey would be 1 billion (like India) if it had 10 million population 1000 years ago.

[Pribislav]

Anatolia had 10 million Anatolians in 1071, those numbers are confirmed.

Anatolia was a Heart of Europe and Hellenic civilization.

250.000 on 10 mil... = very small impact.

In 11th century Anatolia probably had 7-8 million.

[Bosniensis]

In 11th century Anatolia probably had 7-8 million.

Ok let's say it's 8.. some say 9.. some say 10.. But let's say its 8....

It's clearly those are Turkified Greeks, Persians, Syrians etc... = Anatolians.

Majority of Greeks are muslims, because majority of Romans (Hellenes) are Turkified in Anatolia :D :D :D

That's a fact. :D

[Pribislav]

Ok let's say it's 8.. some say 9.. some say 10.. But let's say its 8....

It's clearly those are Turkified Greeks, Persians, Syrians etc... = Anatolians.

Majority of Greeks are muslims, because majority of Romans (Hellenes) are Turkified in Anatolia :D :D :D

That's a fact. :D

Not all native Anatolians were islamized and turkifed.
100 years ago in Anatolia there was few million Christians.

[Hudayar]

Not all native Anatolians were islamized and turkifed.
100 years ago in Anatolia there was few million Christians.

don't argue with him

he's for some reasons obsessed with pre-turkic Anatolia and claims that we're 100% same as them. Even though that's debunked by literally every source from personal results to scientific results.

[Bosniensis]

Not all native Anatolians were islamized and turkifed.
100 years ago in Anatolia there was few million Christians.

True then they exchanged Anatolian Christians for Cretan Greeks, Epirote Greeks, Peleponesian Greeks, Thracian Greeks

then they said: "We imported ALL Greeks from Anatolia" <- which is false because Greeks converted to Islam.

Then they exchanged Muslim Greeks from Greece with Anatolian Christians.

They gave 200.000 Cretan Muslims (Founders of Hellenic World) in exchange for Syrian Christians

HAHAHAHHAA

[Bosniensis]

don't argue with him

he's for some reasons obsessed with pre-turkic Anatolia and claims that we're 100% same as them. Even though that's debunked by literally every source from personal results to scientific results.

Which scientific results.

You think if you have 5-10% Turkic admixture that's something?

Call me when you find 50 million Turks with 60%+ East and Central Asian admixture.

[Yaglakar]

a few million max like in medieval Iran.

[Hudayar]

Which scientific results.

You think if you have 5-10% Turkic admixture that's something?

Call me when you find 50 million Turks with 60%+ East and Central Asian admixture.


1- "Turkic admixture" itself is larger than your country. Turkics are very diverse people.

2- As mentioned in my second post, if the Turks who came to Anatolia were around 30% mongoloid, then the Turkic impact should be around 20-40%. This is also supported by GEDmatch results.

3- Stop being obsessed with Anatolians.

[Böri]

...

[Pribislav]

don't argue with him

he's for some reasons obsessed with pre-turkic Anatolia and claims that we're 100% same as them. Even though that's debunked by literally every source from personal results to scientific results.

He is obsessed with Illyrians, Thracians, Vlachs, Romans, ancient Greeks, ancient Anatolians... He does not want to accept the fact that his haplogroup is Slavic, and that he is autosomally far away from Greeks, Albanians and Vlachs.

[Bosniensis]

He is obsessed with Illyrians, Thracians, Vlachs, Romans, ancient Greeks, ancient Anatolians... He does not want to accept the fact that his haplogroup is Slavic, and that he is autosomally far away from Greeks, Albanians and Vlachs.

Ancient Romans were not Greeks exclusively nor Romans had Greek Autosomal ffs...

I've never denied that we have mixed with Slavs, but no I2 can't be Slavic theoretically cause I2 migrations came from completely different direction that R1a.

R1a and I2 have absolutely nothing in common except that R1a assimilated I2 people.

[Hudayar]

a few million max like in medieval Iran.

Plus, the concentration of the Anatolian population is also important. To my knowledge, Arabs depopulated South Anatolia (Adana, Hatay) and Central Anatolia. So the bulk of the population was in Western Anatolia and Northern Anatolia. Central Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia were probably as populated as Ottoman Syria (1 million people total)

[Pribislav]

Ancient Romans were not Greeks exclusively nor Romans had Greek Autosomal ffs...

I've never denied that we have mixed with Slavs, but no I2 can't be Slavic theoretically cause I2 migrations came from completely different direction that R1a.

R1a and I2 have absolutely nothing in common except that R1a assimilated I2 people.

You know very well that I2a1b2a1 (I-CTS10228) is Slavic. I2 is not same as I2a1b2a1. I2 was +10 000 years ago.
I2a1b2a1 together with R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 participated in ethno-genesis of proto-Slavs in Polesia (modern Belarus). I2a1b2a1 is more diverse in Belarus amd Ukraine than in Balkans. Also I2a1b2a1 is 18% in Belarus and 20-21% in Ukraine. In Polesia I2a1b2a1 is about 25%.
You and DarknessWins don't undersand (or pretend to don't understand) the difference between I2 and I2a1b2a1.

[Bosniensis]

You know very well that I2a1b2a1 (I-CTS10228) is Slavic. I2 is not same as I2a1b2a1. I2 was +10 000 years ago.
I2a1b2a1b together with R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 participated in ethno-genesis of proto-Slavs in Polesia (modern Belarus). I2a1b2a1 is more diverse in Belarus amd Ukraine than in Balkans. Also I2a1b2a1 is 18% in Belarus and 20-21% in Ukraine. In Polesia I2a1b2a1 is about 25%.
You and DarknessWins don't undersand (or pretend to don't understand) the difference between I2 and I2a1b2a1.

Slavs did not exist before 7th century, they were called Scythians and were mixed with Steppe people.

In 8th century B.C in between Ukraine and Belarus Balkan/Anatolian group of people existed called Cimmerians who were guess who: Thracians (how Late 12th century Byzantines called Serbs)

Cimmerians fled from those territories under assault of Scythians or even mixed with them.

That's why Niketas Choniates called Serbs = Triballians, a people who are mixed with Celts, Illyrians and Scythians.

and that explains I2 haplogroup among the Slavs, but Slavs (previously Scythians) are exclusively R1a

You can't be a Slav I2 and belong to the same Haplogroup as Sardinians, Sicilians etc...

I2 is Slavic but originally were someone else.

[Pribislav]

Slavs did not exist before 7th century, they were called Scythians and were mixed with Steppe people.

In 8th century B.C in between Ukraine and Belarus Balkan/Anatolian group of people existed called Cimmerians who were guess who: Thracians (how Late 12th century Byzantines called Serbs)

Cimmerians fled from those territories under assault of Scythians or even mixed with them.

That's why Niketas Choniates called Serbs = Triballians, a people who are mixed with Celts, Illyrians and Scythians.

and that explains I2 haplogroup among the Slavs, but Slavs (previously Scythians) are exclusively R1a

You can't be a Slav I2 and belong to the same Haplogroup as Sardinians, Sicilians etc...

I2 is Slavic but originally were someone else.

Sardinian I2a is distant from Slavic I2a over 10 000 years. Scythians were pred. R1a-Z93 with G2a and probably some branch of R1b minority. They had nothing to do with Slavic branches of R1a (M458 and Z280)

I2-CTS10228 is clearly Slavic
https://forum.krstarica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=488453&1524610170

Don't argue about this here to me anymore.
Open the thread about origin of I2-CTS10228, this is the wrong thread.

[Sora]

Interesting results! But 40% Mongoloid guy can be Karluk/Uzbek who came to Anatolia, so he should be outlier. I think 22% Mongoloid girl more represents Seljuk Turks, though we're modelled as 50% Turkmen/Nogai + 50% Cypriot/Greek/Levantine. Also I think that our Turkic ancestry is between 45%-55% on average

[Pahli]

Interesting results! But 40% Mongoloid guy can be Karluk/Uzbek who came to Anatolia, so he should be outlier. I think 22% Mongoloid girl more represents Seljuk Turks, though we're modelled as 50% Turkmen/Nogai + 50% Cypriot/Greek/Levantine. Also I think that our Turkic ancestry is between 45%-55% on average

Take a DNA test (if you even can at your age) and lets see, average Turkic admix among ethnic Turks is lower than 50% though, more like 35 - 40% max, there's a lot of ethnic Turks that barely get 25% Turkic.

[Aren]

Interesting results! But 40% Mongoloid guy can be Karluk/Uzbek who came to Anatolia, so he should be outlier. I think 22% Mongoloid girl more represents Seljuk Turks, though we're modelled as 50% Turkmen/Nogai + 50% Cypriot/Greek/Levantine. Also I think that our Turkic ancestry is between 45%-55% on average

The gilr with the 22% EE admix is a bad fit when trying to model modern day Anatolian Turks. She was mixed before arriving to Anatolia probably.

[Sora]

Take a DNA test (if you even can at your age) and lets see, average Turkic admix among ethnic Turks is lower than 50% though, more like 35 - 40% max, there's a lot of ethnic Turks that barely get 25% Turkic.

I want to take, but my age doesn't let it :( I wonder that how Turkic am I. Also I saw many sample who are around 40%-50% Uzbek/Afghan Turkmen. Also my mom told me that I can come out 45%-50% Turkic because of my features and my father's paternal side. My mom also told me that my almond eyes came from my paternal grandfather's slantness

[Pahli]

I want to take, but my age doesn't let it :( I wonder that how Turkic am I. Also I saw many sample who are around 40%-50% Uzbek/Afghan Turkmen. Also my mom told me that I can come out 45%-50% Turkic because of my features and my father's paternal side. My mom also told me that my almond eyes came from my paternal grandfather's slantness

Looks don't always fit fully with genetics, but lets see, I've seen samples that came out less than 50% Turkmen, like 20 - 30%, it all comes down to specific regions and the concentration of Turkmen migrations.

[Sora]

The gilr with the 22% EE admix is a bad fit when trying to model modern day Anatolian Turks. She was mixed before arriving to Anatolia probably.

I don't think so. Also I saw modern Anatolian Turk result from Ankara, he came out 22% Mongoloid like her. Also I think that his ancestors(at least his paternal or maternal side) didn't mix with locals. Though there's a case like that, the 22% Mongoloid girl is best sample for Seljuk Turks for me. 40% Mongoloid may be Uzbek or Karluk sample who came to Anatolia cuz' of Mongol invasion.

[Sora]

Looks don't always fit fully with genetics, but lets see, I've seen samples that came out less than 50% Turkmen, like 20 - 30%, it all comes down to specific regions and the concentration of Turkmen migrations

Maybe. Also those results are mostly from Eastern provinces of Turkey to me. Because they heavily mixed with Kurds, Arabs and Assyrians, so it's normal that they came out 20%-30% Turkmen

[Seya]

so what happened to those 40% east asian? why do modern turks score 4-6% only? what's your explanation if not assimilation? what happened to the magyars? why they left behind only the language but no genetic proof?

[Pahli]

Maybe. Also those results are mostly from Eastern provinces of Turkey to me. Because they heavily mixed with Kurds, Arabs and Assyrians, so it's normal that they came out 20%-30% Turkmen

We can't say for sure, Turkmens mixed into Greek like populations, Kurds, Armenians and whatever lived in modern day Turkey back then. You can't expect them all to come out 50% Turkmen though, its just the diversity of the country, same principle works for Iranians.

[Aren]

I don't think so. Also I saw modern Anatolian Turk result from Ankara, he came out 22% Mongoloid like her. Also I think that his ancestors(at least his paternal or maternal side) didn't mix with locals. Though there's a case like that, the 22% Mongoloid girl is best sample for Seljuk Turks for me. 40% Mongoloid may be Uzbek or Karluk sample who came to Anatolia cuz' of Mongol invasion.

You don't understand. Modern Anatolian Turks prefer the 40%+ EE sample when modeled with say nMonte over the younger girl with lower EE admix. Doesn't matter that her Mongoloid scores are closer to modern day Turks. Her other numbers seem a bit off, like too high EHG.

An example with the Kayseri average

"distance%=0.732"

Turkish_Kayseri

Armenian,65.8
Ottoman(44%),13
Bulgarian,11.8
Greek_Central_Anatolia,7.2
Ottoman(22%),2.2

[Thanas Django]

I want to take, but my age doesn't let it :( I wonder that how Turkic am I. Also I saw many sample who are around 40%-50% Uzbek/Afghan Turkmen. Also my mom told me that I can come out 45%-50% Turkic because of my features and my father's paternal side. My mom also told me that my almond eyes came from my paternal grandfather's slantness

phenotype is irrelevant.

Just wait it out, take the test and you will know.

[Gangrel]

I looked at 44% sample, it's not ottoman. Probably uyghur.

[Böri]

so what happened to those 40% east asian? why do modern turks score 4-6% only? what's your explanation if not assimilation? what happened to the magyars? why they left behind only the language but no genetic proof?

Honey, some Uzbeks (Karluk) also came with Oghuz as the advancing Mongol forces cleansed them too. 22% EA + Siberian is more representative for Oghuz Turks (Turcomans). Modern coastal Turks score up 18%.

[Bosniensis]

I wonder if Anatolians were this crazy before Turkification as well, so much stubborn people. They want to be Turan at all costs :D

[Sora]

so what happened to those 40% east asian? why do modern turks score 4-6% only? what's your explanation if not assimilation? what happened to the magyars? why they left behind only the language but no genetic proof?

No. We're more than 4%-6% Mongoloid according to Gedmatch results. We're more like 7%-12% on average. For example: this Turkish result from Aydin...

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 26.81
2 West_Asian 26.69
3 North_Atlantic 11.78
4 West_Med 9.92
5 Siberian 8.04
6 East_Asian 5.21
7 Red_Sea 4.53
8 Baltic 3.52
9 South_Asian 2.41
10 Oceanian 1.07
11 Amerindian 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 8.28
2 Azeri 12.02
3 Turkmen 14.53
4 Kurdish 17.59
5 Lebanese_Muslim 17.93
6 Armenian 17.99
7 Assyrian 18.14
8 Georgian_Jewish 18.27
9 Iranian 18.46
10 Kumyk 18.66
11 Syrian 18.88
12 Central_Greek 18.95
13 South_Italian 19.34
14 East_Sicilian 19.43
15 Italian_Abruzzo 19.65
16 Iranian_Jewish 19.78
17 Nogay 19.85
18 Cyprian 19.86
19 Kurdish_Jewish 20.03
20 Sephardic_Jewish 20.2

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 86.9% Turkish + 13.1% Kazakh @ 5.06
2 89.7% Turkish + 10.3% Mongolian @ 5.06
3 87.3% Turkish + 12.7% Kirgiz @ 5.09
4 89.4% Turkish + 10.6% Altaian @ 5.21
5 90.6% Turkish + 9.4% Tuvinian @ 5.21
6 59% Turkmen + 41% Sephardic_Jewish @ 5.23
7 92.3% Turkish + 7.7% Oroqen @ 5.27
8 91% Turkish + 9% Buryat @ 5.27
9 91.9% Turkish + 8.1% Hezhen @ 5.52
10 61.7% Turkmen + 38.3% Italian_Jewish @ 5.55
11 89.2% Turkish + 10.8% Hakas @ 5.55
12 91.9% Turkish + 8.1% Xibo @ 5.55
13 88.7% Turkish + 11.3% Shors @ 5.56
14 92.6% Turkish + 7.4% Yakut @ 5.6
15 93.1% Turkish + 6.9% Evenki @ 5.72
16 53.6% Nogay + 46.4% Lebanese_Druze @ 5.74
17 92.8% Turkish + 7.2% Dolgan @ 5.76
18 93.3% Turkish + 6.7% Evens @ 5.79
19 85% Turkish + 15% Uygur @ 5.87
20 92.6% Turkish + 7.4% Koryak @ 5.9
---

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Sephardic_Jewish +50% Turkmen @ 6.514019


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +25% Italian_Abruzzo +25% Kazakh @ 5.009918

[Gangrel]

I wonder if Anatolians were this crazy before Turkification as well, so much stubborn people. They want to be Turan at all costs :D

You calling people crazy? Lol the irony

[Böri]

I wonder if Anatolians were this crazy before Turkification as well, so much stubborn people. They want to be Turan at all costs :D

Muzzie how can you so pro-bastard? I am sad for you but I don't want to be dragged where you are. As Islamic person, you must know even Kuran calls to protect bloodlines. Word races/ethnicities (qavm) mentioned hundreds of times. And reading chapters about sons of Israel (a race), you understand some races are made ahead of others in attributes by Allah. When you read how Israelis were gifted against Egyptians (Coptes) and Canaanites (Palestinians) based on race, and not even faith, you see in Kuran and Muslim faith, much revolves around races and ethnicities.
Turks are one of those ;)

[Bosniensis]

Muzzie how can you so pro-bastard? I am sad for you but I don't want to be dragged where you are. As Islamic person, you must know even Kuran calls to protect bloodlines. Word races/ethnicities (qavm) mentioned hundreds of times. And reading chapters about sons of Israel (a race), you understand some races are made ahead of others in attributes by Allah. When you read how Israelis were gifted against Egyptians (Coptes) and Canaanites (Palestinians) based on race, and not even faith, you see in Kuran and Muslim faith, much revolves around races and ethnicities.
Turks are one of those ;)

https://i.imgur.com/ikgHQzq.jpg

[Böri]

Neo-Islamism is a Communist ideology. That recognizes neither races nor bloodlines.
Islam wasn't like that, actually it calls on to save race. See in early Islam how Umayyads were pro Quraish Arabs. Turks teamed up together too after their converstion.
Islamists like Bosniensis are FETÖ and Tito-Communist influenced in their minds.

They dream of classless, raceless Sharia system xD

[Bosniensis]

Neo-Islamism is a Communist ideology. That recognizes neither races nor bloodlines.
Islam wasn't like that, actually it calls on to save race. See in early Islam how Umayyads were pro Quraish Arabs. Turks teamed up together too after their converstion.
Islamists like Bosniensis are FETÖ and Tito-Communist influenced in their minds.

They dream of classless, raceless Sharia system xD

I am not Islamist nor do I support Islamic government or Sharia lol xD

You invent things :)

[Pausanias]

Sure. That's why turks kidnapped Greek childrens and made them their elite infantry and the most brave warriors in the ottoman history (Janissaries).

[Hudayar]

I looked at 44% sample, it's not ottoman. Probably uyghur.

No. He's closest to Afghan Turkmens. He's slightly more mongoloid though. Which is understandable.

[Böri]

Sure. That's why turks kidnapped Greek childrens and made them their elite infantry and the most brave warriors in the ottoman history (Janissaries).

Canon fodder slaves sent to death in the vanguard of the army.

[Hudayar]

so what happened to those 40% east asian? why do modern turks score 4-6% only? what's your explanation if not assimilation? what happened to the magyars? why they left behind only the language but no genetic proof?

4-6% mongoloid?

Haven't you checked what I sent?

https://abload.de/img/eastjouzky8uw7.png


Turks score between 10-15% on average, it can even reach 22% (saw it in a study) or 20% (muğla samples).

The contribution is around 25-35% which is normal because this is also the case in Central Asia

[Gangrel]

No. He's closest to Afghan Turkmens. He's slightly more mongoloid though. Which is understandable.

Uyghur back then and uyghur now are different. Either that or uzbek. Did afghan Türkmens even exist back then

[Hudayar]

You don't understand. Modern Anatolian Turks prefer the 40%+ EE sample when modeled with say nMonte over the younger girl with lower EE admix. Doesn't matter that her Mongoloid scores are closer to modern day Turks. Her other numbers seem a bit off, like too high EHG.

An example with the Kayseri average

"distance%=0.732"

Turkish_Kayseri

Armenian,65.8
Ottoman(44%),13
Bulgarian,11.8
Greek_Central_Anatolia,7.2
Ottoman(22%),2.2

Funny how your results contrast with actual nMonte results of Cappadocian Turks (Kayseri, Niğde etc)

[1] "distance%=2.8241"

Turk_Cappadocia

Greek_Cappadocia 51.9
Turkmen_Uzbekistan 29.7
Armenian_West 12.2
Turkmen_Ashgabat 6.3
Greek_Pontus 0.0
Kazakh 0.0
Uyghur 0.0
Uzbek 0.0

[Pahli]

Uyghur back then and uyghur now are different. Either that or uzbek. Did afghan Türkmens even exist back then

Afghan Turkmens are recent migrants, so probably no.

[Hudayar]

4-6% mongoloid?

Haven't you checked what I sent?

https://abload.de/img/eastjouzky8uw7.png


Turks score between 10-15% on average, it can even reach 22% (saw it in a study) or 20% (muğla samples).

The contribution is around 25-35% which is normal because this is also the case in Central Asia

Actually that map is outdated

the most recent map here

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-301b7cc3b36392aecc97c9bf625af636

[Hudayar]

Uyghur back then and uyghur now are different. Either that or uzbek. Did afghan Türkmens even exist back then

Obviously they did. Turkmen ethnicity dates back to 9th century. But they were not in Afghanistan. But they're still more mongoloid than other Turkmen populations which makes me think that they're less mixed than other Turkmens or they're mixed with Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

[Gangrel]

Actually that map is outdated

the most recent map here

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-301b7cc3b36392aecc97c9bf625af636

I thought Maras would be higher than that.

[Gangrel]

Obviously they did. Turkmen ethnicity dates back to 9th century. But they were not in Afghanistan. But they're still more mongoloid than other Turkmen populations which makes me think that they're less mixed than other Turkmens or they're mixed with Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

This is the one who is more east Asian than Siberian yes? He also had Chinese y dna iirc

[Hudayar]

I thought Maras would be higher than that.

Dodecad K12b is a shit calculator. Maraş is around 10-11% actually. Gümüşhane sample is also around 19%, not 17%, same as Muğla Yörüks (19.50%). for some reasons Dodecad destroys like 1% or 2% of your mongoloid percentage.

I wish the people who made this map used Puntdnal k15 and/or MDLP k23b instead of Dodecad.

[Böri]

Obviously they did. Turkmen ethnicity dates back to 9th century. But they were not in Afghanistan. But they're still more mongoloid than other Turkmen populations which makes me think that they're less mixed than other Turkmens or they're mixed with Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

Timur moved them there when Timurid armies took the region and together and next to them, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Uzbeks were also moved to far north Afghanistan. Their y-dna (Q mostly) is quite well preserved though they probably mixed on maternal side with Kazakh or Kyrgyz girls. You know how ethnicity works in Muslim societies. I would say Turkmen_Uzbekistan best proxy for medieval Oghuz Turks.

[Babak]

Azeris were Persians. Azerbaijanis is the correct term.
Caucasian Albanian theory doesn't make any sense, since the center of Turkic people from Azerbaijan isn't what's today the Republic of Az. but Tabriz which is in N-W Iran and Caucasian Albanians were never there. Beside, it's said that Arabs converted them by force before Turks showed up, so logically they would be Arab-speaker or Farsi-speaker. That doesn't make sense.
The Persian theory also sucks. Persians have strong local culture. Why would some Turkify while others, like in Fars province (Firuzabad, Shiraz etc) didn't Turkify?

Hudayar is right, all Turks in Eastern Turkey moved to Ardabil region during Safavid era. The area was heavily Turkified.

Azeri and azerbaijan=Same word and same meaning. Theres no persian tribe called Azeris and never has been in the history of mankind.

The azerbaijan part of Iran wasn't completely turkified (Nor was Republic az) just a bit before the soviet union. Even after russians took over, Persian and Tat was being spoken in some pockets of the region before everyone became assimilated.

[Gangrel]

Iranian Azeris and Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis have genetically very little difference.

[Sora]

Iranian Azeris and Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis have genetically very little difference.

From Mongoloid admixture? I heard that Iranian Azerbaijanis have slightly more Mongoloid and Mongoloid haplogroups than Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis. Also North(Azerbaijan) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Caucasian peoples and South(Iran) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Iranians or Kurds

[Gangrel]

From Mongoloid admixture? I heard that Iranian Azerbaijanis have slightly more Mongoloid than Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis. Also North(Azerbaijan) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Caucasian peoples and South(Iran) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Iranians or Kurds

You can check the kits in this thread if you want

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?234484-Does-anybody-have-any-Iranian-Azeri-kits

[Babak]

From Mongoloid admixture? I heard that Iranian Azerbaijanis have slightly more Mongoloid and Mongoloid haplogroups than Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis. Also North(Azerbaijan) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Caucasian peoples and South(Iran) Azerbaijanis more mixed with Iranians or Kurds

Its because of Terekeme's and Qarapapaq's.

[Aren]

Funny how your results contrast with actual nMonte results of Cappadocian Turks (Kayseri, Niğde etc)

[1] "distance%=2.8241"

Turk_Cappadocia

Greek_Cappadocia 51.9
Turkmen_Uzbekistan 29.7
Armenian_West 12.2
Turkmen_Ashgabat 6.3
Greek_Pontus 0.0
Kazakh 0.0
Uyghur 0.0
Uzbek 0.0

Totally different run though. Probably different spreadsheet aswell. Also I get a much better fit than him.

[İrle]

Totally different run though. Probably different spreadsheet aswell. Also I get a much better fit than him.

It's an admixture based run of fully ethnic Turkish samples from Turkish DNA project. You are using Global 25's PCA based spreadsheet. That's the difference between fits. Doesn't mean yours is better.

[Aren]

It's an admixture based run of fully ethnic Turkish samples from Turkish DNA project. You are using Global 25's PCA based spreadsheet. That's the difference between fits. Doesn't mean yours is better.

Different populations aswell. There's no Armenian_West in the PCA 25 spreadsheet, and I'm using the Medieval Ottoman samples not modern Turkmen.
But yes generally speaking individual results give worse fits than averages.

[İrle]

Different populations aswell. There's no Armenian_West in the PCA 25 spreadsheet, and I'm using the Medieval Ottoman samples not modern Turkmen.
But yes generally speaking individual results give worse fits than averages.

PCA coordinats work differently than ADMIXTURE based runs. They give better fit in the software but that doesn't mean they give more logical or accurate results. It's just algorithm.

The ones posted above are not indivudal results, they are averages too.

[Aren]

PCA coordinats work differently than ADMIXTURE based runs. They give better fit in the software but that doesn't mean they give more logical or accurate results. It's just algorithm.

The ones posted above are not indivudal results, they are averages too.

Ofc the fits must make sense aswell.
Though still different populations used, no way to compare.

[Hudayar]

Totally different run though. Probably different spreadsheet aswell. Also I get a much better fit than him.

" I get a much better fit than him."

yes those Bulgarians are obviously native to Kayseri.

Also for some reasons the Kayseri Turk is much more Armenian than Central Anatolian Greek, your Central Anatolian Greek is same as Cappadocian Greek. Armenian_West is just Anatolian Armenian. And as far as I know Kayseri Turks are around 7-8% mongoloid, if that's the case then the contribution must be around 20%. because 8% is 20% of 40%.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

MA2195 Ottoman 1400 - 1600 AD
Hakas + Spanish_Andalucia_IBS + Tajik_Afghan + Tuvinian @ 7.715796

[Aren]

" I get a much better fit than him."

yes those Bulgarians are obviously native to Kayseri.

Also for some reasons the Kayseri Turk is much more Armenian than Central Anatolian Greek, your Central Anatolian Greek is same as Cappadocian Greek. Armenian_West is just Anatolian Armenian. And as far as I know Kayseri Turks are around 7-8% mongoloid, if that's the case then the contribution must be around 20%. because 8% is 20% of 40%.

What are you implying? My run is not the same as yours. I'm using PCA based coordinates, the ones you posted are basically an ADMITURE run oracle like the ones on Gedmatch. Besides I used different populations. Why would 10% Bulgarian be impossible for Kayseri Turks? Ever heard of Balkan Turks?
If you don't think the academic Kayseri average is accurate then that's up to you.

[İrle]

What are you implying? My run is not the same as yours. I'm using PCA based coordinates, the ones you posted are basically an ADMITURE run oracle like the ones on Gedmatch. Besides I used different populations. Why would 10% Bulgarian be impossible for Kayseri Turks? Ever heard of Balkan Turks?
If you don't think the academic Kayseri average is accurate then that's up to you.

Balkan Turks cannot represent Anatolian Turks. The distinction between these two group is clear. Using Bulgarians in a moddeling of Anatolian Turks (Kayseri samples used in Global 25 had no Balkan affinity wahtsoever) makes no sense.

[Aren]

Balkan Turks cannot represent Anatolian Turks. The distinction between these two group is clear. Using Bulgarians in a moddeling of Anatolian Turks (Kayseri samples used in Global 25 had no Balkan affinity wahtsoever) makes no sense.

So there's no Balkan admix at all in Turks despite centuries of joint history and numerous amounts of Balkan Turks and Muslim Balkanites who have settled in Turkey?

[İrle]

So there's no Balkan admix at all in Turks despite centuries of joint history and numerous amounts of Balkan Turks and Muslim Balkanites who have settled in Turkey?

Balkan Turks in Turkey have been in here only recently and they know they have heritage from Balkans. Native Anatolian Turks genetically show no Balkan affinity whatsoever. I don't know where did you get this idea. Just because Balkans were part of the same empire doesn't mean there was a strong genetic shift between two regions.

[Aren]

Balkan Turks in Turkey have been in here only recently and they know they have heritage from Balkans. Native Anatolian Turks genetically show no Balkan affinity whatsoever. I don't know where did you get this idea. Just because Balkans were part of the same empire doesn't mean there was a strong genetic shift between two regions.

Sure the mass exodus happend recently but centuries old ties with eachother cannot be ignored. There were Balkan Turks everywhere in the Ottoman empire, hell for a period the Villayet of Baghdad had a Balkan Turk from Bulgaria as a governor. Mixing must've happend in small but significant numbers throughout a long period. Btw didn't the ancestry database that the Turkish government release online a couple months surprise many people in that they were shown to have previously unknown Turkish/Albanian/Bosniak ancestors?

Also the fact that North European admix doesn't seem to correlate with East Eurasian admix in Turkey. Meaning it cannot just have come with the central Asian Turkic speakers.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1UAc-RTnwCQ/Whr3IPzJiAI/AAAAAAAAAKI/7cdEVZenBc8D1bcGIU9NvIUuh2iGEPTVwCLcBGAs/s1600/North%2BEuropean%2B1.png

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HKjsPDMkfWY/Wh7EfeBL8GI/AAAAAAAAANM/Vo6HpnwN7ow8MCYBh9WZdLokDDsSZrzxgCLcBGAs/s1600/East_Eurasian.png

[İrle]

Sure the mass exodus happend recently but centuries old ties with eachother cannot be ignored. There were Balkan Turks everywhere in the Ottoman empire, hell for a period the Villayet of Baghdad had a Balkan Turk from Bulgaria as a governor. Mixing must've happend in small but significant numbers throughout a long period. Btw didn't the ancestry database that the Turkish government release online a couple months surprise many people in that they were shown to have previously unknown Turkish/Albanian/Bosniak ancestors?

Also the fact that North European admix doesn't seem to correlate with East Eurasian admix in Turkey. Meaning it cannot just have come with the central Asian Turkic speakers.



There is no record of massive population changes between Balkans and Anatolia prior to the collapse of the Empire, so the alleged genetic impact from Balkans cannot be taken into account when making estimations for Anatolian Turks.

North European admix in Turkey comes from Turkic migrants and the natives (Greeks) of Anatolia. It has nothing to do with Balkans. Currently we don't have any Greek samples from West and North West regions of Anatolia but Central Anatolian Greeks already possess NE admix around %4-7 percent. We can easily predict that it was higher in the West.

[Aren]

There is no record of massive population changes between Balkans and Anatolia prior to the collapse of the Empire, so the alleged genetic impact from Balkans cannot be taken into account when making estimations for Anatolian Turks.
Who mentioned a large scale migration? I said small but signnificant mixing over a longer period. There would not be any records of such small movements. Besides my nMonte run gave the Kayseri Turks only 11% Bulgarian, how is that a lot or massive?

North European admix in Turkey comes from Turkic migrants and the natives (Greeks) of Anatolia. It has nothing to do with Balkans. Currently we don't have any Greek samples from West and North West regions of Anatolia but Central Anatolian Greeks already possess NE admix around %4-7 percent. We can easily predict that it was higher in the West.
But we have samples from Greek Aegan Islands close to Western Turkey

From Chios
Dodecad K12b:
# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 37.32
2 Atlantic_Med 24.67
3 Southwest_Asian 13.39
4 North_European 11.86
5 Gedrosia 8.58
6 Northwest_African 3.84
7 Siberian 0.34

This doesn't explain how some inland, central Turkish areas with lower EE input have higher Northern European than say the Aydin region which is not only one of the most East Eurasian shifted but also in Western Turkey meaning it should have more Northern Euro according to your thinking.

[İrle]

Who mentioned a large scale migration? I said small but signnificant mixing over a longer period. There would not be any records of such small movements. Besides my nMonte run gave the Kayseri Turks only 11% Bulgarian, how is that a lot or massive?

But we have samples from Greek Aegan Islands close to Western Turkey

From Chios
Dodecad K12b:
# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 37.32
2 Atlantic_Med 24.67
3 Southwest_Asian 13.39
4 North_European 11.86
5 Gedrosia 8.58
6 Northwest_African 3.84
7 Siberian 0.34

This doesn't explain how some inland, central Turkish areas with lower EE input have higher Northern European than say the Aydin region which is not only one of the most East Eurasian shifted but also in Western Turkey meaning it should have more Northern Euro according to your thinking.

What's so hard to get? Western/North Western provinces appearently had higher North Europe admix before the Turkish incursion. The Turks from those regions naturally have higher NE, also increased with the Turkic input. The highest North Europe admix in Turkey is around %15 average, none of these give you the base for make an assumption over supposed Balkan input.

[Aren]

What's so hard to get? Western/North Western provinces appearently had higher North Europe admix before the Turkish incursion. The Turks from those regions naturally have higher NE, also increased with the Turkic input. The highest North Europe admix in Turkey is around %15 average, none of these give you the base for make an assumption over supposed Balkan input.

How is this hard for you to look at the map I posted created by a Turk himself? Certain Western Turkish regions with the highest EE admix have less Northern Euro than more inland, central regions. How does this make sense with your logic that they would naturally have higher North Euro without Balkan input?

[İrle]

How is this hard for you to look at the map I posted created by a Turk himself? Certain Western Turkish regions with the highest EE admix have less Northern Euro than more inland, central regions. How does this make sense with your logic that they would naturally have higher North Euro without Balkan input?

What you said is seen only in South West (Muğla province) and North East (Giresun province) of Turkey. There is no correlation between EE and NE. I never said that. For North West (which is the highest NE admixed region) it is obviously because of the mixing with native Greeks there who presumably already had higher NE. I can't speak for South West region without having any Greek samples from there. It is clear that Anatolian Greeks were different from each other genetically, you gotta focus on this first before making up theories about Balkans.

[Aren]

What you said is seen only in South West (Muğla province) and North East (Giresun province) of Turkey. There is no correlation between EE and NE. I never said that. For North West (which is the highest NE admixed region) it is obviously because of the mixing with native Greeks there who presumably already had higher NE. I can't speak for South West region without having any Greek samples from there. It is clear that Anatolian Greeks were different from each other genetically, you gotta focus on this first before making up theories about Balkans.

That could be true but still the situation seems more complicated than a simple Anatolian Greek + Turkish mix. Looking at the admixture maps from the Turkish blog it seems like there's not any clear correlations. Some Western regions are less Northern Euro than Central ones. Gedrosia very high in areas with little EE. I simply don't think the answer is that the Anatolian Greeks were highly different autosomally during the medieval period. Maybe in Eastern Thrace they were significantly more Northern shifted.
This is also shown in nMonte in that removing Armenians worsens the fit, removing Balkan Slavs makes it worse too unless adding mainland or Aegan Greeks.

[Yaglakar]

Obviously they did. Turkmen ethnicity dates back to 9th century. But they were not in Afghanistan. But they're still more mongoloid than other Turkmen populations which makes me think that they're less mixed than other Turkmens or they're mixed with Uzbeks in Afghanistan.

All modern Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups formed around 15th-16th centuries following the reshuflement of various Mongolic elements, and continued absorption of Iranic components in places like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

[Hudayar]

That could be true but still the situation seems more complicated than a simple Anatolian Greek + Turkish mix. Looking at the admixture maps from the Turkish blog it seems like there's not any clear correlations. Some Western regions are less Northern Euro than Central ones. Gedrosia very high in areas with little EE. I simply don't think the answer is that the Anatolian Greeks were highly different autosomally during the medieval period. Maybe in Eastern Thrace they were significantly more Northern shifted.
This is also shown in nMonte in that removing Armenians worsens the fit, removing Balkan Slavs makes it worse too unless adding mainland or Aegan Greeks.

Stop talking about your retarded "worses the mix" shit please.

Your western Turk nmonte results itt are also a joke.

[Sora]

Turks didn't mix with Balkan populations, except Balkan Turks. Also North European admixture comes from Turkmens(Seljuk Turks) and Hellenized Anatolians. No Balkan about that. Also I hope this graphic helps:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eM4t_FEFTsY/WohEVxy9tsI/AAAAAAAAAVs/odvrj7VP-jkyUpG1libqTTTdzNlLeZ5wgCLcBGAs/s1600/column.png

[Hudayar]

According to Aren this is the ethnic make up of Western Turks

Armenian,35.4
Ottoman,27.6
Bulgarian,25.4
Greek_Central_Anatolia,11.6


That's right. Ethnic Western Anatolian Turks are more Armenian and Bulgarian than Anatolian Greek according to this retard's method.

I wonder what the results of Bulgarian Turks would look like if i used this retarded method. Maybe they'd get more Armenian and Central Anatolian Greek than Bulgarian.

[Pribislav]

.......

[Sora]

According to Aren this is the ethnic make up of Western Turks

Armenian,35.4
Ottoman,27.6
Bulgarian,25.4
Greek_Central_Anatolia,11.6


That's right. Ethnic Western Anatolian Turks are more Armenian and Bulgarian than Anatolian Greek according to this retard's method.

I wonder what the results of Bulgarian Turks would look like if i used this retarded method. Maybe they'd get more Armenian and Central Anatolian Greek than Bulgarian.

Don't trust him. He's obviously a propagandist. Also that retard method makes no sense. Btw I'll post a Turk's gedmatch results. He's very close to pure Turkic.

MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 34.84
2 European_Early_Farmers 12.71
3 South_Central_Asian 12.68
4 European_Hunters_Gatherers 10.94
5 Near_East 8.76
6 Tungus-Altaic 5.22
7 East_Siberian 3.55
8 Ancestral_Altaic 2.74
9 Arctic 2.34
10 South_East_Asian 2.26
11 North_African 1.80

Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Turk_Aydin @ 5.232917
2 Turk_Balikesir @ 6.370986
3 Turk_Istanbul @ 8.663323
4 Turk @ 9.860601
5 Crimean_Tatar_Mountain @ 11.649318
6 Azov_Greek @ 11.803784
7 Turk_Adana @ 11.933046
8 Turk_Kayseri @ 12.379783
9 Cretan @ 13.949790
10 Crimean_Tatar_Coast @ 14.698227
11 Ashkenazi_Jew @ 15.229277
12 Sicilian_West @ 15.315301
13 Georgian_Jew @ 15.333658
14 Greek_Smyrna @ 15.519457
15 Romanian_Jew @ 15.736240
16 Nogai @ 15.785964
17 Greek @ 15.966936
18 Syrian_Jew @ 16.366724
19 Greek_Athens @ 16.380215
20 Greek_Macedonia @ 16.380232

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +50% Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 4.920366

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek +25% Turkmen_Afghan +25% Uzbek_Tashkent @ 3.047337

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Greek_Thessaly + Turk_Adana + Turk_Aydin + Turkmen_Uzbekistan @ 2.288498

[Peterski]

There are 2 Ottoman samples. First Ottoman Turkish sample is 20% East Eurasian and the second one is 40% East Eurasian.

The less Mongoloid one is MA2196, I uploaded it on GEDmatch Genesis today:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?277434-Ottoman-Turk-on-GEDmatch

The other one (MA2195, more Mongoloid) was on GEDmatch already before.