Anatolian Turks are Turkified ancient Anatolians?

[x-class]

If Anatolian Turks are Turkified ancient Anatolians, why do they Score low European scores and high Caucasian scores then?

[RitinNair]

Because Anatolia's indigenous population was of European/Cauasian/Mid-Eastern genetic stock? :P

[Kanuni]

If Anatolian Turks are Turkified ancient Anatolians, why do they Score low European scores and high Caucasian scores then?

They have higher European score than the rest of West Asians.

[StonyArabia]

They have higher European score than the rest of West Asians.

Much more than the "White" Circassians

[orangepulp]

Probably cause the ancient people weren't European. Caucasus aka West Asian component is more of an indigenous component. Turks aren't the only ones who score lower European, Armenians and Kurds also have a low European input, in fact I believe Turks score the highest European component compared to other West Asians.

[x-class]

They have higher European score than the rest of West Asians.

Yes and no. North Western and North Eastern Turks have higher European score. Compare them to the North Caucasian people that can score pretty high Europeans scores too. So you cant really say that they higher European score than the rest of West Asians. There is also Other West Asians with "high European score". I always wondered what projects like Dodecad etc ment by Southern? If Southern = South European, then they have "high European score". Anybody that knows what he means by "Southern".

[Kanuni]

Yes and no. North Western and North Eastern Turks have higher European score. Compare them to the North Caucasian people that can score pretty high Europeans scores too. So you cant really say that they higher European score than the rest of West Asians. There is also Other West Asians with "high European score". I always wondered what projects like Dodecad etc ment by Southern? If Southern = South European, then they have "high European score". Anybody that knows what he means by "Southern".

It doesn't matter really whether they score Euro or not since those Indo-European Hittites/Luwians autosomally were not identical with other Europeans.

They score both Med and North Euro which can be sumed up something like 22-25 %.

[Pallantides]

Much more than the "White" Circassians

According to Dodecad v3 K=12, the Turks have much higher Mediterranean score than the Adygei but lower East and West European scores.


......................Adygei/Turkish_D
West European - 15.7%/7%
East European - 6.7%/5.6%
Mediterranean - 8.3%/28.5%


Adygei total 30.2%
Turkish_D total 41.1%

[x-class]

According to Dodecad v3 K=12, the Turks have much higher Mediterranean score than the Adygei but lower East and West European scores.


......................Adygei/Turkish_D
West European - 15.7%/7%
East European - 6.7%/5.6%
Mediterranean - 8.3%/28.5%


Adygei total 30.2%
Turkish_D total 41.1%

Dodecad Southern= South European mediterranean??

[Sikeliot]

Because Anatolians and Caucasians are ethnically closer than either is to Europeans.

[Bozkurt_Karabash]

I believe Chechens or Lezgins might have higher Euro score than Turks.

[Sikeliot]

Turks are, though, the most European (genetically) of all of the "accepted" Middle Eastern groups (the others Levantines, Assyrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Arabians etc whom are all much less European). On 23andme also, Turks cluster parallel to (but outside of) the eastern part of the Southern European cluster.

[Padre Organtino]

I believe Chechens or Lezgins might have higher Euro score than Turks.

Lezgins seem to have some weird North Indian like admix judging by the way some of them look (and it seems to be confirmed in latest genetic runs). Avars are better candidated IMO. They and Chechens are the most Euro Caucasus natives autosomally.

[x-class]

. On 23andme also, Turks cluster parallel to (but outside of) the eastern part of the Southern European cluster.

Thats because 23andme include them as being European.

[Arch Hades]

They're about 15% Central-Asian 'Turkic'.

[cmd_]

Yes. We are Turkified Anatolians for sure. If we were to be real Turks, we would score way much more East Asian. Our genetics overall would look a lot different than it does now. But science today tells us that we are simply Turkified Anatolians no matter what the Turanists say.

When speaking of ancient Anatolians, how far do you want to go back in time?

[Arch Hades]

Yes. We are Turkified Anatolians for sure. If we were to be real Turks, we would score way much more East Asian. Our genetics overall would look a lot different than it does now. But science today tells us that we are simply Turkified Anatolians no matter what the Turanists say.

When speaking of ancient Anatolians, how far do you want to go back in time?

There's still a pretty significant Central Asian "Turkic" Component in the Anatolian Turks, it's by no means negligible.

Summary


"Turkey has experienced major population movements. Population structure and genetic relatedness of samples from three regions of Turkey, using over 500,000 SNP genotypes, were compared together with Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) data. To obtain a more representative sampling from Central Asia, Kyrgyz samples (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) were genotyped and analysed. Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians; however, the Turkish genetic structure is unique. FRAPPE, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic analyses support the PC analysis depending upon the number of parental ancestry components chosen. For example, supervised STRUCTURE (K= 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42–49), 40% European (95% CI, 36–44) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13–16), whereas at K= 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 35–42), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 33–38), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 16–19) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 7–11). PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity. Thus, this study demonstrates admixture of Turkish people reflecting the population migration patterns."
LINK (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x/abstract)



"In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations."

LINK (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20772/abstract)

[brunette]

If Anatolian Turks are Turkified ancient Anatolians, why do they Score low European scores and high Caucasian scores then?

Define ''Anatolia''? Anyway, Western Anatolians don't have much of a Central Asian component not compared to the rest of South Eastern Europe. Eastern Anatolians do have more of a Central Asian component.

Also Caucasian Caucasus people are part of the Pontic Steppe. If they're Caucasians, they are European.

[Azalea]

Define ''Anatolia''? Anyway, Western Anatolians don't have much of a Central Asian component not compared to the rest of South Eastern Europe. Eastern Anatolians do have more of a Central Asian component.

Also Caucasian Caucasus people are part of the Pontic Steppe. If they're Caucasians, they are European.

It's the contrary actually. Western Turks but also Southern Mediterranean Turks have more Central Asian admixture. It's those Turks in Northeastern Turkey who have very little Asian admix.

And I would ignore cmd__. The guy has a obvious agenda against Turks so most of what he writes is biased.

And we are not 'Ancient Anatolians'. No one in Anatolia is. Armenians aren't ancient Anatolian nor are Greeks, Assyrians, Laz etc. The only way to tell who has the most 'ancient Anatolian' ancestry is when we find thousands of years old graves of the ancient Anatolians so that we can compare modern populations with them. Untill then, no one is 'ancient Anatolian'. I mean, just look at the remainds found in Europe. Untill now, most men turned out to belong to haplogroup G while haplogroup G is very rare in modern European populations. So I believe that you can't use modern populations as a proxy for ancient peoples.

[Ar-Man]

It's the contrary actually. Western Turks but also Southern Mediterranean Turks have more Central Asian admixture. It's those Turks in Northeastern Turkey who have very little Asian admix.


Because those people are hidden Armenians or Kurds generally:)

[Azalea]

Donme (hidden) Armenians are found among Kurds mostly, not among Turks. Eastern Turks have a by far more complex history than that. ;)

[Ar-Man]

Donme (hidden) Armenians are found among Kurds mostly, not among Turks. Eastern Turks have a by far more complex history than that. ;)

No one from so called "turks" have an easy and clear ancestry, you're one of the most intermixed populations :)

[Azalea]

How is that? I mean, sure, when you compare us to Armenians, we are definitely more mixed. However when you compare us to Greeks, not so much. The more succesfull in history, the more wide-spread the people live, and the more mixed they are. But like I said, this also goes for Greeks. :)

[Onur]

Also, whats the fuss about being mixed? This is not something to be worried at all. On the contrary, it`s a proof and a demonstration of how successful the civilization is by absorbing several different group among inside.

This also means that the particular civilization doesn't rely on stupid bloodlines and primitive tribal means but instead it relies on it`s own cultural values, like language, history and all other elements.

This is a prime stage of a certain civilization which can only be achieved by cultures who were able to create several states, empires and ruled over different peoples. This has been done by only few nations in the world and Turks are one of them.

[brunette]

It's the contrary actually. Western Turks but also Southern Mediterranean Turks have more Central Asian admixture. It's those Turks in Northeastern Turkey who have very little Asian admix.

And I would ignore cmd__. The guy has a obvious agenda against Turks so most of what he writes is biased.

And we are not 'Ancient Anatolians'. No one in Anatolia is. Armenians aren't ancient Anatolian nor are Greeks, Assyrians, Laz etc. The only way to tell who has the most 'ancient Anatolian' ancestry is when we find thousands of years old graves of the ancient Anatolians so that we can compare modern populations with them. Untill then, no one is 'ancient Anatolian'. I mean, just look at the remainds found in Europe. Untill now, most men turned out to belong to haplogroup G while haplogroup G is very rare in modern European populations. So I believe that you can't use modern populations as a proxy for ancient peoples.

Well yeah minus Eastern Thrace if that's what you mean. Various ethnicities have inhabited Anatolia in the past and present day. Pontic Greeks, Goths, Armenians, Kurds, etc. Anyone who has immigrated there to Anatolia or Turkey or any other part of Asia is a immigrant. Depends how far you want to go back. But if all the other ethnicities aren't native to Anatolia then neither are Turks because the name Turk came during the Ottoman Empire.

[Ar-Man]

How is that? I mean, sure, when you compare us to Armenians, we are definitely more mixed. However when you compare us to Greeks, not so much. The more succesfull in history, the more wide-spread the people live, and the more mixed they are. But like I said, this also goes for Greeks. :)

I can't speak for Greeks because I don't know what are you talking about, but there's a simple truth an ethnicity is a product of Nature which is forged during centuries & millenias, so naturally you have a creation of collective unconsciousness, ie Archetypes, ie unique culture with his own Mythology etc.
In the other hand you have populations forming artificial nations, those "nations" are mostly a product of rape(sorry for honesty) where you have imposed language, culture, beliefs etc. :)

[brunette]

If you mean the tribes are native and the ''Turkish people'' who are related to those tribes in present day then yes. But everyone elese who isn't called a Turk and has ancestry from Anatolia like an Armenian, Goths ( Slavics ) Kurds, Circassians, Pontic Greeks, Crimeans, etc has the right to call themselves Anatolian.

[Azalea]

Well yeah minus Eastern Thrace if that's what you mean. Various ethnicities have inhabited Anatolia in the past and present day. Pontic Greeks, Goths, Armenians, Kurds, etc. Anyone who has immigrated there to Anatolia or Turkey or any other part of Asia is a immigrant. Depends how far you want to go back. But if all the other ethnicities aren't native to Anatolia then neither are Turks because the name Turk came during the Ottoman Empire.

I don't know about the Turks from Eastern Thrace but you should keep in mind that Eastern Thrace is mostly populated by Balkan Turks, other Balkan populations and Gypsies. I think the 'native Turks' from those regions are a minority. We don't have any data from 'native' Eastern Thrace Turks either so can't say much more about it.

And yes, I agree with you. Also most of the time it's other people claiming that Turks are 'native Anatolians'. Even if the pre-Turkic ancestry in Anatolian Turks was mostly Anatolian, it's still false to say that Turks are Anatolians since we Turks don't live in Anatolia only. We have millions of Turks living outside or having roots outside of Anatolia. :)

[Onur]

But if all the other ethnicities aren't native to Anatolia then neither are Turks because the name Turk came during the Ottoman Empire.
No. If we are talking about Anatolia only, the name Turks came with the Seljuk empire in 11th century but if we are talking about Europe, the name Turks came with the ancestors of present day Hungarians and Bulgars, much earlier than Anatolian Turks.

Hungarians has been called as Turks by whole world for about ~200 years and they have been crowned as "kings of Tourkia". It was same for the Bulgars. In the autobiography of St. Cyrill&Methodious brothers written in 9th century, Methodious was calling Bulgars as Huns and akin to the Turks of Khazar empire.

[Azalea]

I can't speak for Greeks because I don't know what are you talking about, but there's a simple truth an ethnicity is a product of Nature which is forged during centuries & millenias, so naturally you have a creation of collective unconsciousness, ie Archetypes, ie unique culture with his own Mythology etc.
In the other hand you have populations forming artificial nations, those "nations" are mostly a product of rape(sorry for honesty) where you have imposed language, culture, beliefs etc. :)

I knew that you would talk around it and start about something else. I didn't expect anything else from you. I am not going to repeat everything I already discussed with you many times. We have a saying in Turkish 'Konusma cahille, olursun cahil'. It means 'Don't talk with the ignorant, you'll become ignorant yourself'.

If you learn to engage in a proper discussion by showing actual anthropological facts, genetic studies and sources, then we can discuss these matters with you. So, 'You are not Turks, Turkish ethnicity doesn't exist and you guys are the result of rape' are not arguments. :)

[brunette]

No. If we are talking about Anatolia only, the name Turks came with the Seljuk empire in 11th century but if we are talking about Europe, the name Turks came with the ancestors of present day Hungarians and Bulgars, much earlier than Anatolian Turks.

Hungarians has been called as Turks by whole world for about ~200 years and they have been crowned as "kings of Tourkia". It was same for the Bulgars. In the autobiography of St. Cyrill&Methodious brothers written in 9th century, Methodious was calling Bulgars as Huns and akin to the Turks of Khazar empire.

Seljuks? That's Khans era.

[Kanuni]

No. If we are talking about Anatolia only, the name Turks came with the Seljuk empire in 11th century but if we are talking about Europe, the name Turks came with the ancestors of present day Hungarians and Bulgars, much earlier than Anatolian Turks.

Hungarians has been called as Turks by whole world for about ~200 years and they have been crowned as "kings of Tourkia". It was same for the Bulgars. In the autobiography of St. Cyrill&Methodious brothers written in 9th century, Methodious was calling Bulgars as Huns and akin to the Turks of Khazar empire.

Don't want to engage in a debate but what are you exactly trying to prove with Hungarians/Bulgarians being Turkish and them being present in Europe earlier than Seljuks?

[Ar-Man]

I knew that you would talk around it and start about something else. I didn't expect anything else from you. I am not going to repeat everything I already discussed with you many times. We have a saying in Turkish 'Konusma cahille, olursun cahil'. It means 'Don't talk with the ignorant, you'll become ignorant yourself'.

If you learn to engage in a proper discussion by showing actual anthropological facts, genetic studies and sources, then we can discuss these matters with you. So, 'You are not Turks, Turkish ethnicity doesn't exist and you guys are the result of rape' are not arguments. :)

Read a little bit the works of C.G Jung and you will realize your fake nature :)
Turkish Nation is a false concept created a century ago, you're more or less an "ethnicity" like the USA citizens can be, the difference is that your government try to do everything to hide the fake nature of his people.

P.S. I'm in the topic Fatima Khanum !

[Onur]

Don't want to engage in a debate but what are you exactly trying to prove with Hungarians/Bulgarians being Turkish and them being present in Europe earlier than Seljuks?
The guy said that the word Turk came to Europe/Anatolia with the Ottoman empire but that was wrong. I just said that the Turk was present here much earlier than Ottomans.

Bulgars, Hungarians has been called as Turks and also Pechenegs, Cumans too. They were in Balkans, Thrace centuries before Ottoman era.

[Su]

Yes. We are Turkified Anatolians for sure. If we were to be real Turks, we would score way much more East Asian. Our genetics overall would look a lot different than it does now. But science today tells us that we are simply Turkified Anatolians no matter what the Turanists say.

When speaking of ancient Anatolians, how far do you want to go back in time?

Are you pretending to be a Turk and doing these sort of strange comments :(:confused: ^

[Nairi]

And we are not 'Ancient Anatolians'. No one in Anatolia is. Armenians aren't ancient Anatolian nor are Greeks, Assyrians, Laz etc. The only way to tell who has the most 'ancient Anatolian' ancestry is when we find thousands of years old graves of the ancient Anatolians so that we can compare modern populations with them. Untill then, no one is 'ancient Anatolian'. I mean, just look at the remainds found in Europe. Untill now, most men turned out to belong to haplogroup G while haplogroup G is very rare in modern European populations. So I believe that you can't use modern populations as a proxy for ancient peoples.



Genetically Armenians are proven to be originated from Armenian Highland (eastern Anatolia).
Armenian Kingdoms of Armen and Hayasa whose names we carry up to now are mentioned in Summerian,Akkadian and Hittite inscriptions.

But you are right, we are not ancient Anatolians.
Anatolia is a fake word which is used to replace real name of the territory.
We are ancient Armenians/Hays from Armenian Highland.
We have always been Armenian Highlanders, from the dawn of civilization.

[cmd_]

Are you pretending to be a Turk and doing these sort of strange comments :(:confused: ^Hey! I'm glad you found your way here, welcome. I just like science. That's all :)

[Kross]

Anatolian Turks are of Central Asian stock and have nothing to do with Anatolia. Original Western Anatolians were genetically similar to Cypriots, mainland Greeks, and Southern Italians. Original Eastern Anatolians were genetically similar to Armenians and Assyrians. Kurds are not indigenous either but I still support them over Turks anytime.