Orangepulp's DNA tribes results.

[orangepulp]

I got a high Caucasus/Anatolian score and I match first with Georgians and Armenians.


http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/255/admixtureanalysis3.png
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/5550/admixtureanalysis.png
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7546/admixtureanalysis2.png
Total similarity shaded:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4985/totalsimilarityshaded.png

Total similarity:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2778/totalsimilarity.png
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6018/40296383.png

Total similarity, diasporic populations:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9903/similaritydisapora.png

Total similarity, top match Caucasus/Anatolia:

http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/1310/totalsimilaritycaucasus.png

Europe:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3048/totalsimilarityeuropean.png
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/218/similarityeurope2.png

Middle East:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2042/totalsimilaritymepop.png

South Asia:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/855/similaritysa.png

North Asia:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/175/similarityea.png

East Asia

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/8035/northasia.png

Africa:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8304/totalsimilarityafrica.png

[Mortimer]

90% Caucasus-Anatolian. Seems to peak in Turks the component.

Congrats.

[Osprey]

That tiny Asian component (Manchuria)must have come through Genghis Khan's Soldiers.

[orangepulp]

That tiny Asian component (Manchuria)must have come through Genghis Khan's Soldiers.

You left out the Siberian component. The Asian is form the Turkic input.

[orangepulp]

90% Caucasus-Anatolian. Seems to peak in Turks the component.

Congrats.

Thanks but what is the average Anatolian score for Turks, do you know?

[Mortimer]

Thanks but what is the average Anatolian score for Turks, do you know?

i have no clue, but the name anatolian gives me a hint it must be high in turks. i also suspect the indus valley is from mixing with kurdish people, im sure they have some % indus valley

[orangepulp]

i have no clue, but the name anatolian gives me a hint it must be high in turks. i also suspect the indus valley is from mixing with kurdish people, im sure they have some % indus valley

The Anatolian/Caucasus component would be highiest in the Caucasus, it probably peaks with Georgians not Turks. Indus probably came with the Turkic input, I don't think its mixing with Kurdish people. I wonder if Armenians and Assyrians score and Indus?

[cmd_]

Congratulations. Orange scores the highest Anatolian components among all Anatolian Turks I've seen. Therefor, she very native.

My 'bat.par'

60.40% Anatolia
27.20% Balkans
12.40% Turkic

Did you pay for this test or did you get it for free by Eupedia(?)

[orangepulp]

Congratulations. Orange scores the highest Anatolian components among all Anatolian Turks I've seen. Therefor, she very native.

My 'bat.par'

60.40% Anatolia
27.20% Balkans
12.40% Turkic

Did you pay for this test or did you get it for free by Eupedia(?)

I got the test for free, participants of the Eurogenes project got the test done for free.

I also scored Siberian it means I have Turkic input.

[cmd_]

I got the test for free, participants of the Eurogenes project got the test done for free.

I also scored Siberian it means I have Turkic input.I am a member of Eurogenes. How do I get this test done?

[orangepulp]

I am a member of Eurogenes. How do I get this test done?

It's for a limited time.Didn't you read Polakos post on ABF, Mr. John?

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/free-dna-tribes-snp-analysis-for.html

Fill out the grandparent question then e-mail them your raw file along with your Eurogenes number.
Btw, whats you Euro number?

[cmd_]

It's for a limited time.Didn't you read Polakos post on ABF, Mr. John?

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/free-dna-tribes-snp-analysis-for.html

Fill out the grandparent question then e-mail them your raw file along with your Eurogenes number.
Btw, whats you Euro number?No, I did not see it. I'm TR18. Thanks for the URL, by the way.

[orangepulp]

No, I did not see it. I'm TR18. Thanks for the URL, by the way.

Okay thanks, You seem to have significant Turkic input when looking at your admixtures.

[xajapa]

I got a high Caucasus/Anatolian score and I match first with Georgians and Armenians.



Orange Pulp, how does this analysis compare to what you know about your ancestry and the other tools with which you have tested? Is it accurate?

[Onur]

Okay thanks, You seem to have significant Turkic input when looking at your admixtures.
Orangepulp, cmd_ cannot speak Turkish and he keeps swearing at Turks here for some reason. Türkü also knows this imposter named cmd_.

I have no idea who he is and where he is from but i am sure that he cannot speak any Turkic language. Maybe he is an Armenian imposter, i don't know.

[orangepulp]

Orange Pulp, how does this analysis compare to what you know about your ancestry and the other tools with which you have tested? Is it accurate?

Well I have always known myself as a Turk nothing else but I am not shocked by my results considering my ancestral region. My results just show I am more preTurkic genetically. I never thought Anatolian Turks were fully of Central Asian origin, of course there is an input but it is not dominant.


As for other tests I always seem to have an affinity with Georgians and Armenians so nothing very knew with this test except that my Asian score seems to be less with this one for some reason??

Orangepulp, cmd_ cannot speak Turkish and he keeps swearing at Turks here for some reason. Türkü also knows this imposter named cmd_.

I have no idea who he is and where he is from but i am sure that he cannot speak any Turkic language. Maybe he is an Armenian imposter, i don't know.
I know cmd_ from ABF he is MR. John, he did a DNA test and it shows he is a Turk but is he an impostor?? I don't know, it could be

[Loki]

You left out the Siberian component. The Asian is form the Turkic input.

No... the Turkic input's Asian influence was magnified by the Mongol invasions when the Oghuz Turks were still located somewhere north of the Caspian Sea.

[Pallantides]

That tiny Asian component (Manchuria)must have come through Genghis Khan's Soldiers.

evon's uncle who is West Norwegian got 2% Manchurian...

[orangepulp]

evon's uncle who is West Norwegian got 2% Manchurian...

More than me? Did he score Siberian??

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

when are we getting married?

also your more caucus than I imagined, I would have thought you were more arab

[Pallantides]

He got 2.41% Manchurian, he did not get any Siberian.

[StonyArabia]

Orangeplup I think your ancestors were either Armenians or Georgians who converted recently and took up the Turkic identity. This clearly what seems to be the case based on your genetic results, and the Turkic is rather very minor and might indicate such a result, this is not attack on your ethnicity:p. but it also proves that a large number of Turks are just Anatolians who shfited culture and absorbed some Turkic elements. Congrats:)

[orangepulp]

also your more caucus than I imagined, I would have thought you were more arab

Am I Arab that you would imagine me more Arab?

[Sikeliot]

I think if anything it shows she has a lack of Balkan admixture present in other Turks and is thus more native to Anatolia and without recent Balkan input.

[PeacefulCaribbeanDutch]

Am I Arab that you would imagine me more Arab?

by arab I mean like genetically not culturally

also turkey is not really arabic they speak turkish, they are muslim though,


anyway I thought you were more mediteranean, how is that?

[orangepulp]

Orangeplup I think your ancestors were either Armenians or Georgians who converted recently and took up the Turkic identity. This clearly what seems to be the case based on your genetic results, and the Turkic is rather very minor and might indicate such a result, this is not attack on your ethnicity:p. but it also proves that a large number of Turks are just Anatolians who shfited culture and absorbed some Turkic elements. Congrats:)

Converted recently, are you serious!!!I am sure my family were Muslims for centuries and still there is no proof that I have recent Armenian or Georgian ancestry, there seems to be a strong affinity but that would be natural since all Turks are not that different from Armenians. I mean I guess many Armenians in the beginning probably intermingled with the original Turks. For sure we don't know of any recent Georgian or Armenian ancestry, we always knew ourselves to be Turks. I can trace back my ancestors to about 5-6 generations back. I remember reading somewhere that the people of Erzurum were Muslim even before the Turks came because of the Arabs that came to Erzurum, I guess since the people of Erzurum were already Muslims they easily accepted The Turks as the rulers therefore, less troops were needed in that region meaning less Turkic input.

I think if anything it shows she has a lack of Balkan admixture present in other Turks and is thus more native to Anatolia and without recent Balkan input.
Who said the other Turks have Balkan admixture?? The normal Anatolian Turks are not that different from me. Turks who have Balkan ancestry usually know it.

by arab I mean like genetically not culturally

also turkey is not really arabic they speak turkish, they are muslim though,



Turks are not genetically Arab at all, they have a better affinity with the people of the Caucasus.


anyway I thought you were more mediteranean, how is that?

Who said I was completely med?? Yea I have med admixture as all Turks and people of that region but I was never completely med. Though I don't know why the med admixture doesn't show in this test?

[Su]

Converted recently, are you serious!!!I am sure my family were Muslims for centuries and still there is no proof that I have recent Armenian or Georgian ancestry, there seems to be a strong affinity but that would be natural since all Turks are not that different from Armenians. I mean I guess many Armenians in the beginning probably intermingled with the original Turks. For sure we don't know of any recent Georgian or Armenian ancestry, we always knew ourselves to be Turks. I can trace back my ancestors to about 5-6 generations back. I remember reading somewhere that the people of Erzurum were Muslim even before the Turks came because of the Arabs that came to Erzurum, I guess since the people of Erzurum were already Muslims they easily accepted The Turks as the rulers therefore, less troops were needed in that region meaning less Turkic input.

Who said the other Turks have Balkan admixture?? The normal Anatolian Turks are not that different from me. Turks who have Balkan ancestry usually know it.

Turks are not genetically Arab at all, they have a better affinity with the people of the Caucasus.



Who said I was completely med?? Yea I have med admixture as all Turks and people of that region but I was never completely med. Though I don't know why the med admixture doesn't show in this test?

The point is since, we dont have many samples from your part of Turkey, it's hard to judge if your family is from fully Armenian/Georgian background and freshly converts etc.

But since you can go back like 6 generations, you are just a Turk. You might have also similarities or some clusterings with Armenians/Goergians since these countries are the neighbourhood countries of one of your parents city. So this is also not a big shock.

[Pecheneg]

11.04% Balkans
83.23% Anatolia
5.73% Turkic


according to this result, "Turkic" considered as full mongoloid?
What's your total asian admixture?

[orangepulp]

according to this result, "Turkic" considered as full mongoloid?
What's your total asian admixture?

This calculator probably only means the mongoloid part, actually I am not sure but you can see my 23andme results, I scored 2.69% Asian and around 5% Asian with Eurogenes and Dodecad projects:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39254

[evon]

For comparison:


TR2:

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7138/tr21.png

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8941/tr22.png

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6233/tr23.png

[Su]

^Who's TR2 ?

[evon]

^Who's TR2 ?

TR2 from Eurogenes...(my ex)..

[orangepulp]

The point is since, we dont have many samples from your part of Turkey, it's hard to judge if your family is from fully Armenian/Georgian background and freshly converts etc.

But since you can go back like 6 generations, you are just a Turk. You might have also similarities or some clusterings with Armenians/Goergians since these countries are the neighbourhood countries of one of your parents city. So this is also not a big shock.

Don't forget I am only half from Erzurum, my father is from Konya. So my results aren't a very good example of the people of the North East. I will have my maternal uncle tested then I can know.

I am pretty sure my family are Muslims for a long time. My family was shocked when I told them we are similar to Armenians, as you know in my grandmothers village the Armenians attacked many times. So Armenians aren't really good in their book. Its actually interesting that my grandmother village has an Armenians name ''Shiganos''

[Su]

TR2 from Eurogenes...(my ex)..

What's her balkan vat calculator? More different than Orangepulp? Probably more Turkich than Orange based on the results within this thread.

[orangepulp]

For comparison:


TR2:

Wow, there is quite a difference. She is from Konya right?? I am half from konya.
TR2
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7138/tr21.png
Me
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/255/admixtureanalysis3.png

TR2
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8941/tr22.png
Me
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7546/admixtureanalysis2.png

[evon]

He got 2.41% Manchurian, he did not get any Siberian.

This test is not to be taken too seriously though from my perspective, i mean the Manchurian in my family is real, but at what level is hard to say, but looking at our overall results one can easily spot the error's, my paternal aunt should have much higher Iberian then me, yet she dosnt, my grandmother should have Middle eastern/Caucasus, yet she dosnt, and i should have Manchurian, yet i dont have it...and dont get me started on my grandmothers African score :confused:

[evon]

Wow, there is quite a difference. She is from Konya right?? I am half from konya.


From what i can tell via all the accumulated 23andme ect results, she has "recent" Chinese ancestry, likely from the same source as my family, that being North East China, here represented as Manchuria...

Both her ancestry lines are from the wider Konya region, but not Konya itself...

[poiuytrewq0987]

I also just sent in my information to DNAtribes and got a reply back from them. I have to wait 3-5 business days for results to be sent. Can't wait. :)

[orangepulp]

From what i can tell via all the accumulated 23andme ect results, she has "recent" Chinese ancestry, likely from the same source as my family, that being North East China, here represented as Manchuria...

Both her ancestry lines are from the wider Konya region, but not Konya itself...

Recent Chinese lol!! I think its from the Turkic input. Central and Western regions of Turkey have the most Turkic input.

I am surprised that my Asian score is very little in this test, you think this is accurate??

[Onur]

I know cmd_ from ABF he is MR. John, he did a DNA test and it shows he is a Turk but is he an impostor?? I don't know, it could be
He might be a Turk genetically but for his mindset, he is not at all and thats what matters most. I think he is writing the tag "Turk" just because of his dna results. Thats why i guessed he is an Armenian or something.



Orangeplup I think your ancestors were either Armenians or Georgians who converted recently and took up the Turkic identity.
Did you know that there was Georgians all over Anatolia and Istanbul during Byzantine empire era? Just read the notes of travelers from 13-14th century and you will see that they mention Georgian speaking people in Istanbul and Anatolia.


I remember reading somewhere that the people of Erzurum were Muslim even before the Turks came because of the Arabs that came to Erzurum
Are you from Erzurum? Did you know that the Turkish accent of "Ahıska Turks of western Georgia" is exactly same as people from Erzurum and Kars?

There was a big Turkish minority group in western Georgia, inhabiting close to our Georgian border. They were living there for centuries, maybe 1000 years `till Stalin killed them and expelled the rest to Siberia.



according to this result, "Turkic" considered as full mongoloid?
Yes, these modern geneticists only considers mongolic dna as Turkic, other Anatolian or Caucasus haplotypes are either classified as armeniod or hellenic. They do this purposely with unproven claim of "Turks=Mongols".

This is ofc not something scientific but purely politics.

[evon]

Recent Chinese lol!! I think its from the Turkic input. Central and Western regions of Turkey have the most Turkic input.

I am surprised that my Asian score is very little in this test, you think this is accurate??

Chinese as here being within China, dont know what ethnic group this belongs to, but its hard to say given i dont have too much data to work with, but i would not immediately assume its down to ancient Turkic speaking migrations, it can be from a wide range of historical events, also "recent" here meaning within the last 1000-500 years or so..

You do traditionally score lower Far Asian then other Turkish Eurogenes members right? but i would say that this analysis is over-simplified, it seems it is unable to incorporate too many components at one time, i think DNA tribes have become too "conservative" in the calculation process, much like 23andme is.. but with less euro-centrism from DNA tribes..

[orangepulp]

He might be a Turk genetically but for his mindset, he is not at all and thats what matters most. I think he is writing the tag "Turk" just because of his dna results. Thats why i guessed he is an Armenian or something.

Could be, I don't know what he is? I agree he does post some anti-Turkish posts but still he could just be a traitor to his own kind. Its funny that he has a high Turkic score yet posts anti-Turk.

Are you from Erzurum?




I am half from Erzurum ( Ispir), my father is from Konya.


I just know that my mothers side are from Erzurum for many generations we don't know of any other ancestry???? My great ancestors re-established Ispir after the Armenians attacked and destroyed it.

[Pecheneg]

Yes, these modern geneticists only considers mongolic dna as Turkic, other Anatolian or Caucasus haplotypes are either classified as armeniod or hellenic. They do this purposely with unproven claim of "Turks=Mongols".

This is ofc not something scientific but purely politics.
Then 99% of the Turkic peoples on earth are not true Turks , even our closest relatives in central asia, the Turkmens are also only 16-17% Turkic (mongoloid) according to this shit. I'm 100% sure, they would estimate the ancient Seljuks only ~20% Turkic, if they had dna samples from them.

And Mongol are also not-true Altaics, because they aren't full Mongoloids ( there are 15-20% caucasoid admixture in Mongols)

[Peyrol]

"Bergamo"...this is a very interesting similarity, because this is my mom's city of birth.

[orangepulp]

Then 99% of the Turkic peoples on earth are not true Turks , even our closest relatives in central asia, the Turkmens are also only %16-17 Turkic (mongoloid) according to this shit. I'm 100% sure, they would estimate the ancient Seljuks only ~20% Turkic, if they had dna samples from them.

And Mongol are also not-true Altaics, because they aren't full Mongoloids ( there are 15-20% caucasoid admixture in Mongols)

Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.

[Su]

Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.

I think the same :thumb001:

[orangepulp]

"Bergamo"...this is a very interesting similarity, because this is my mom's city of birth.
Yea its 3rd on my list.
I have a few Italian cousins with 23andme, probably Neolithic influence.

[evon]

"Bergamo"...this is a very interesting similarity, because this is my mom's city of birth.

Its likely in connection to Etruscan migrations, which are said to have come from Anatolia, its the best explanation i can think of..

[evon]

Yea its 3rd on my list.
I have a few Italian cousins with 23andme, probably Neolithic influence.

its the first for TR2..

[Peyrol]

Yea its 3rd on my list.
I have a few Italian cousins with 23andme, probably Neolithic influence.

It's the best explanation, but could also be an ancient turkish heritage from some immigrants when Eastern Lombardy was part of the Venetian Republic.
Or etrurian.

[Pecheneg]

Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.

Well,
Karachay-Balkar cluster with Adygei
Nogais cluster with Chechens
Turkmens cluster with n.Iranians
Chuvash cluster with Russians
Turks cluster with Georgian/Armenians
Gagauz cluster with Balkan

Then where are these Turks?
http://i46.tinypic.com/1z56mi8.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/f1b6dw.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/b5llef.jpg

Btw Adygei-(Circassians) are closer to us than Armenians/Georgians according to these graphics. Do you know why? Because of mongoloid admixture among them. Circassians are highly influenced by the Kumans, even we can see this in their names (kazbolat, janbolat, beybars, arslan etc)

[Onur]

Then 99% of the Turkic peoples on earth are not true Turks , even our closest relatives in central asia, the Turkmens are also only 16-17% Turkic (mongoloid) according to this shit. I'm 100% sure, they would estimate the ancient Seljuks only ~20% Turkic, if they had dna samples from them.
Yes, didn't you know that they completely refute our history?

According to their theory, we were turkified iranians/Aryans in central Asia and when we came to Anatolia, we also turkified Armenians and Greeks. But don't ask for proof about how we achieved this, turkifying millions of people without modern education methods because they don't have any answer :)


Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.
Ofc Anatolian Turks cluster to our neighboring groups because we live here for 1000 years. If i put you in Ethiopia and come back after 1000 years, you can be sure that your descendants will cluster with Ethiopian blacks. This is something expected for anyone in the world, this is not something special to Turks. Also, you have to consider that just as we cluster to them, they also cluster to us.

Ofc Anatolian Turkish DNA is different than current central Asians because we left central Asia in 10-11th century and there was a lot of historical events after that like Ghengis Khans advance which completely altered central Asian population in 13th century. It`s been said that he killed 1/3rd of the central Asian people and the rest has been escaped from there.

At least half of the current central Asians migrated to there from further east. For example we know that current Uzbek people migrated there after Timurid era in 14th century and genetics wise they are not that related with Timurids of 14th century in Samarkand. Current Mongolian people also not much related with Ghengis Khan`s mongols.

[orangepulp]

Well,
Karachay-Balkar cluster with Adygei
Nogais cluster with Chechens
Turkmens cluster with n.Iranians
Chuvash cluster with Russians
Turks cluster with Georgian/Armenians
Gagauz cluster with Balkan

Then where are these Turks?
http://i46.tinypic.com/1z56mi8.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/f1b6dw.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/b5llef.jpg

Btw Adygei-(Circassians) are closer to us than Armenians/Georgians according to these graphics. Do you know why? Because of mongoloid admixture among them. Circassians are highly influenced by the Kumans, even we can see this in their names (kazbolat, janbolat, beybars, arslan etc)

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.

[Pecheneg]

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.
ok then, do you really believe that you are only 5.73% Turkic? Just because you have only 5% asian admixture?

[Su]

We can compare admixtures based on K7b by Dienekes:
Samples//SA//////WA//////Sib/////Af////Southern//Atl_Bal//EA
Turkmens_Y 11 9.3 44.9 8.2 0.2 17.2 13.5 6.9
Turkish_D D 27 1 42.7 3.6 0 31.4 18.8 2.5
Turks Behar 19 1.4 43 4.6 0 30.3 18.3 2.4

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR 2c#gid=0

[orangepulp]

ok then, do you really believe that you are only 5.73% Turkic? Just because you have only 5% asian admixture?

No, I believe I am at least 10-15% Turkic in total because the Turks were not fully mongolid when they came to Anatolia, they brought other admixtures with them, now the exact percentage we can not know. I assume this also cause I and other Turks cluster with West Asians so the Turkic impact can't be more than that.

[Onur]

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.
You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

This kind of assimilation done by the minority only became possible after 18-19th century with the mass education methods. Before that times, the majority was always assimilating the minority, never the other way around. If that would be possible, then you can be sure that you wouldn't even find single Germanic speaking people in Europe and all of them would speak Latin today.

Why Latins couldn't achieve this in Europe despite the absolute control of Catholic church for centuries and their strict Latinization policies? Because they were minority and Germanic peoples were majority and unfortunately for them, they had no modern mass education methods.

[Pecheneg]

We can compare admixtures based on K7b by Dienekes:
Samples//SA//////WA//////Sib/////Af////Southern//Atl_Bal//EA
Turkmens_Y 11 9.3 44.9 8.2 0.2 17.2 13.5 6.9
Turkish_D D 27 1 42.7 3.6 0 31.4 18.8 2.5
Turks Behar 19 1.4 43 4.6 0 30.3 18.3 2.4

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR 2c#gid=0
according to this,, Turkmens(15,1%) are only x~2 times more mongoloid than Turks (7%)
(note that we are surrounded by non-Altaic neigbours for ~1000 years.)



You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?
the Hazara people (descendants of the Mongol conquerors) lost their true idendity in Afghanistan, because they were less in numbers.

[Su]

according to this,, Turkmens(15,1%) are only x~2 times more mongoloid than Turks (7%)

Is that the just one difference you have recognized ? :eek:

Do you actually believe that Turks admixtures are identical or very similar to the Central Asian people?

[Kanuni]

You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

This kind of assimilation done by the minority only became possible after 18-19th century with the mass education methods. Before that times, the majority was always assimilating the minority, never the other way around. If that would be possible, then you can be sure that you wouldn't even find single Germanic speaking people in Europe and all of them would speak Latin today.

Why Latins couldn't achieve this in Europe despite the absolute control of Catholic church for centuries and their strict Latinization policies? Because they were minority and Germanic peoples were majority and unfortunately for them, they had no modern mass education methods.

The same thing as Hittites imposed themselfs upon native Hattian people.According to the Battle of Kadesh description the Hattians and their Hittite masters looked different, the former were native Anatolians while the latter Indo-European invaders.Also Armenians who speak Indo-European language have 5% descent from Indo-European speakers who brought the Armenian language.

[Pecheneg]

Is that the just one difference you have recognized ? :eek:

Do you actually believe that Turks admixtures are identical or very similar to the Central Asian people?
Of course we are closer to west asian populations than central asians. Nobody denies that.
I'm only trying to say that Turkic input is not that much less (15% ??), even we don't have any dna samples from the new-comer Seljuks of 1000 years ago. Most researchers assuming that Seljuks were predominantly Mongoloids without any evidence.


The same thing as Hittites imposed themselfs upon native Hattian people.According to the Battle of Kadesh description the Hattians and their Hittite masters looked different, the former were native Anatolians while the latter Indo-European invaders.Also Armenians who speak Indo-European language have 5% descent from Indo-European speakers who brought the Armenian language.
Just like the Spaniards then? Who were Romanicized by the Roman governors.

[Su]

Let's compare it:
+++++++SouthA/WestA/Siberian/Africa/Southern/Atl_Baltic/EastA
Turkmen:9.3/44.9/8.2/0.2/17.2/13.5/6.9
TurksBeh:1.4/43.0/4.6/30.3/18.3/2.4
TurkishDi:1.0/42.7/3.6/31.4/18.8/2.5

Now let's look closer:
South Asian = Turkmens have got 8% more
Siberian= Turkmens have got 3.5-4.5 % more
Atlantic-Baltic= Turkmens have got 13-14% less than us
East Asia= Turkmens have got 4.4-/4.5 more than us

So my conclusion is we got our own percentages of admixtures.

If the definition of Turkic is just plain mongoloid admixture then our average is: something like 6-7, Orange has got less than 6 and I have got more than 6, it's depending on the region of Turkey etc. I have seen a fellow Turk that scored under 2 %.

[Pallantides]

according to this result, "Turkic" considered as full mongoloid?
What's your total asian admixture?

My "Turkic" on this calculator is fairly simillar to Orangegulp

BAT(Balkans-Anatolia-Turkic)

62.08% Balkans
32.10% Anatolia
5.82% Turkic


I'll note that that the calculator was not designed for people from my region.

[Pecheneg]

My "Turkic" on this calculator is fairly simillar to Orangegulp

BAT(Balkans-Anatolia-Turkic)

62.08% Balkans
32.10% Anatolia
5.82% Turkic


I'll note that that the calculator was not designed for people from my region.

Your asian admixture is quite high for an average european, isn't it? What's the percentage of asian/mongoloid admixture in scandinavia?

[orangepulp]

You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

This kind of assimilation done by the minority only became possible after 18-19th century with the mass education methods. Before that times, the majority was always assimilating the minority, never the other way around. If that would be possible, then you can be sure that you wouldn't even find single Germanic speaking people in Europe and all of them would speak Latin today.

Why Latins couldn't achieve this in Europe despite the absolute control of Catholic church for centuries and their strict Latinization policies? Because they were minority and Germanic peoples were majority and unfortunately for them, they had no modern mass education methods.
Look I told you this before, I don't know the percentage of Turkic people that arrived to Anatolia nor did I give a percentage but I am just saying from what I observed from DNA results and I think DNA is the best scientific way to have a clue about our past and origins, that current Anatolian Turks are better related to other ethnic Anatolian populations, our only difference is our Turkic input.

Besides, I don't know why you are exaggerating the percentage so much. If the Turkic migration was a small percentage It could be possible that a smaller group over powers a greater group. Why not?? Natives assimilated with the ruling class doesn't sound so surprising to me.

[Pallantides]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q7pHFIHCgUs/TmU0dwR2rmI/AAAAAAAAAlU/-56YraPgjIE/s1600/bat.png


Your asian admixture is quite high for an average european, isn't it? What's the percentage of asian/mongoloid admixture in scandinavia?

It's fairly average for an East Norwegian, also there was another East Norwegian I believe who got almost 7% Turkic on the Bat calculator


Here in East Norway I'd say Mongoloid(East Asian+Northeast Asian) is in the 1-3% range(some might have more or less as well)

[Arsen_]

Orangeplup I think your ancestors were either Armenians or Georgians who converted recently and took up the Turkic identity.

Most likely at some period of history all her ancestors were brutally killed and only little remains of survived children were forcibly turkified.

For example this 80-year-old woman called Fatma Yavuz only by chance learned her real Armenian name at the age of 78. All her family were killed and she was given to a Turkish family.

http://i.radikal.com.tr/644x385/2012/05/14/fft5_mf981465.Jpeg

Recently Fatma Yavuz sent a letter to the Turkish parliament and wrote about the suffering she endured, and demanded an apology for all this.

Here is the whole story (http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=HaberYazdir&ArticleID=1088032) and it's horrific.

Only God knows how many today's Turks living in Turkey are actually descendants of those people who were victims of invading from Central Asia tribes of genocidal killers.

[orangepulp]

Most likely at some period of history all her ancestors were brutally killed and only little remains of survived children were forcibly turkified.

For example this 80-year-old woman called Fatma Yavuz only by chance learned her real Armenian name at the age of 78. All her family were killed and she was given to a Turkish family.

http://i.radikal.com.tr/644x385/2012/05/14/fft5_mf981465.Jpeg

Recently Fatma Yavuz sent a letter to the Turkish parliament and wrote about the suffering she endured, and demanded an apology for all this.

Here is the whole story (http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=HaberYazdir&ArticleID=1088032) and it's horrific.

Only God knows how many today's Turks living in Turkey are actually descendants of those people who were victims of invading from Central Asia tribes of genocidal killers.

Excuse me!!! If anything the Armenians killed many of my ancestors and it did happen in my grandmothers village. I am not Armenians just because I have an affinity with Caucasus people. Please stop spreading bull shit. People of Erzurum were already Muslim when the Turks came to Anatolia due to the Arabs and thats why they easily accepted the Turkish identity cause the Turks were Muslims like them.

[Pecheneg]

Most likely at some period of history all her ancestors were brutally killed and only little remains of survived children were forcibly turkified.

For example this 80-year-old woman called Fatma Yavuz only by chance learned her real Armenian name at the age of 78. All her family were killed and she was given to a Turkish family.

http://i.radikal.com.tr/644x385/2012/05/14/fft5_mf981465.Jpeg

Recently Fatma Yavuz sent a letter to the Turkish parliament and wrote about the suffering she endured, and demanded an apology for all this.

Here is the whole story (http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=HaberYazdir&ArticleID=1088032) and it's horrific.

Only God knows how many today's Turks living in Turkey are actually descendants of those people who were victims of invading from Central Asia tribes of genocidal killers.

Armenians of Byzantium welcomed the Seljuk conquest with celebrations and thanksgivings to God for having rescued them from Byzantine oppression. The Seljuk Turks gave protection to an Armenian Church, which the Byzantines had been trying to destroy. They abolished the oppressive taxes which the Byzantines had imposed on the Armenian churches, monasteries and priests, and in fact exempted such religious institutions from all taxes. The Armenian community was left free to conduct its internal affairs in its own way, including religious activities and-education, and there never was any time at which Armenians or other non-Muslims were compelled to convert to Islam. The Armenian spiritual leaders in fact went to Seljuk Sultan Melikshah to thank him for this protection. The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa relates that,

"Melikshah's heart is full of affection and good will for Christians; he has treated the sons of Jesus Christ very well, and he has given the Armenian people affluence, peace, and happiness."

After the death of the Seljuk Sultan Kılıch Arslan, the same historian wrote,


"Kılıch Arslan's death has driven Christians into mourning since he was a charitable person of high character. "


i wonder when will you stop crying? when will you stop spreading your bullshit?
and btw, those so-called victims Kurdified, not Turkified.
You can search your blood-brothers among Kurds.

[Grumpy Cat]

Interesting results. But Manchurian? Where did that come from?

[Onur]

If the definition of Turkic is just plain mongoloid admixture then our average is: something like 6-7, Orange has got less than 6 and I have got more than 6, it's depending on the region of Turkey etc. I have seen a fellow Turk that scored under 2 %.
Yes it is just a mongoloid admixture because geneticists are stupidly call mongoloid admixture as "Turkic" and all others as armenoid, hellenic like if there is any data for the 11th century Turkish migrates and they were supposedly pure mongoloids. This is just plain stupid.


I think DNA is the best scientific way to have a clue about our past and origins, that current Anatolian Turks are better related to other ethnic Anatolian populations, our only difference is our Turkic input.
No it`s not the best way because modern geneticists are adhering DNA values to ethnic groups without any proof. How come we know that 11th century Turks were pure mongoloid or how come we know that our neighbors admixture doesn't contain any Turkish input?


Besides, I don't know why you are exaggerating the percentage so much. If the Turkic migration was a small percentage It could be possible that a smaller group over powers a greater group. Why not?? Natives assimilated with the ruling class doesn't sound so surprising to me.
I am not exaggerating at all. What i am saying is they cant be a small minority and couldn't possibly assimilate the majority. If that would be the case, Byzantines, Arabs, Iranians, western Romans would write down something about that. Why we don't have any document from Byzantine chronicles mentioning converted christians en masse? Do you possibly think they wouldn't write down such an event if they would loose people from their orthodox community? Why Armenians didn't write anything at all?

Anatolia is not some kind of isolated place. Whatever happened here, it`s been written down by 4-5 different sources like Byzantines, Arabs, western Romans, Iranians, Chinese etc.

Just tell me, if we exactly know when Volga Bulgars converted as muslims and if we know when Khazars converted to judaism as early as 8th century then WHY THE HELL no one wrote anything about the local Anatolians forcefully converting to islam en masse?? why why why? Hell we even exactly know when Germanics became christians but why there is no record for Anatolia?

If anyone can give proper answers to my questions, i will wholeheartedly believe that 5% Turks mass converted 95% Anatolians. I am just waiting a logical answer, couldn't find yet.

[Onur]

Most likely at some period of history all her ancestors were brutally killed and only little remains of survived children were forcibly turkified.
This is your imagination. If such a massacre would have happen, at least Armenian church himself would have note it but there is no such a thing. For example, we know that Timur massacred some Armenians in late 14th century and we know it in every detail. If Turks would have do that, we would known in every detail too.


For example this 80-year-old woman called Fatma Yavuz only by chance learned her real Armenian name at the age of 78. All her family were killed and she was given to a Turkish family.
This case is totally unrelated with our subject. These people are just Armenians who impostered as alevi kurds in Turkey to be able to escape from 1915 expulsions.

There are about 12 million Kurds in Turkey today and about one million of them are these Armenian imposters who claims to be alevi Kurds. It`s estimated that around ~100k Armenians pretended to be alevi Kurds to be able to escape from 1915 Armenian expulsion. Their numbers should be around 800k-1000k today. They prefer to call themselves as alevis to escape from going to mosques. Most of them knows their Armenian roots but they are just acting like Kurds to hide their true identity

[Pecheneg]

Here is the whole story (http://www.radikal.com.tr/Radikal.aspx?aType=HaberYazdir&ArticleID=1088032) and it's horrific.



Dersim katliamının tanıklarından biri Ermeni kızı Aslıhan'dı. Konya'ya sürgüne yollandığında 5-6 yaşındaydı ve adı artık 'Fatma'ydı. Çocukları dahil herkes onu Kürt biliyordu. O, Dersim'in yıllar sonra ortaya çıkan ilk kayıp Ermeni kızı...
Do you know what it says? She is Kurdish of armenian origin from Dersim! a region populated by Alevi Kurds in eastern anatolia!
At least 10-20% of the today's Kurdish population are hidden armenians!

[Arsen_]

People of Erzurum were already Muslim when the Turks came to Anatolia due to the Arabs and thats why they easily accepted the Turkish identity cause the Turks were Muslims like them.

That is not true! There was no even a single Muslim in Erzurum when the Turks came.

Just one quote:

In ancient times, Erzurum existed under the Armenian name of Karin. During the reigns of the Artaxiad and Arsacid kings of Armenia, Karin served as the capital of the eponymous canton of Karin. After the partition of Armenia between the Roman Empire and Sassanid Persia in 387 AD, the city passed into the hands of the Romans. They fortified the city and renamed it Theodosiopolis, after Emperor Theodosius I.[1] As the chief military stronghold along the eastern border of the empire, Theodosiopolis held a highly important strategic location and was fiercely contested in wars between the Byzantines and Persians. Emperors Anastasius I and Justinian I both refortified the city and built new defenses during their reigns.[2]

Theodosiopolis was conquered by the Umayyad general Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik in 700/701. It became the capital of the emirate of Kalikala and was used as a base for raids into Byzantine territory. Though only an island of Arab power within Christian Armenian-populated territory, the native population was generally a reliable client of the Caliph's governors. As the power of the Caliphate declined, and the resurgence of Byzantium began, the local Armenian leaders preferred the city to be under the control of powerless Muslim emirs rather than powerful Byzantine emperors.[3]

In 931, and again in 949, Byzantine forces led by Theophilos Kourkouas, grandfather of the future emperor John I Tzimiskes, captured Theodosiopolis. Its Arab population was expelled and the city was resettled by Greeks and Armenians.[4] Emperor Basil II rebuilt the city and its defenses in 1018 with the help of the local Armenian population.[5] In 1071, after the decisive battle at Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks took possession of Theodosiopolis.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzurum)

[Loki]

That was like, 1,000 years ago. Lots of people movements took place.

[orangepulp]

Yes it is just a mongoloid admixture because geneticists are stupidly call mongoloid admixture as "Turkic" and all others as armenoid, hellenic like if there is any data for the 11th century Turkish migrates and they were supposedly pure mongoloids. This is just plain stupid.


No it`s not the best way because modern geneticists are adhering DNA values to ethnic groups without any proof. How come we know that 11th century Turks were pure mongoloid or how come we know that our neighbors admixture doesn't contain any Turkish input?

We cant know the genetics of the ancient populations but as I said before we can at least compare ourselves with todays ethnic populations. Our neighbors logically do not have Turkic input becuse they do not score any Asian at all, why are Anatolian Turks the only ones from the region to score Asian?? Balkan Turks also score Asian yet their neighbors don't. Obviously the first Turks to settle to Asia Minor had some percentage of Mongoloid genes. Anatolian Turks do have Turkic genes but it does not over come the preTurkic part.


I am not exaggerating at all. What i am saying is they cant be a small minority and couldn't possibly assimilate the majority. If that would be the case, Byzantines, Arabs, Iranians, western Romans would write down something about that. Why we don't have any document from Byzantine chronicles mentioning converted christians en masse? Do you possibly think they wouldn't write down such an event if they would loose people from their orthodox community? Why Armenians didn't write anything at all?




Anatolia is not some kind of isolated place. Whatever happened here, it`s been written down by 4-5 different sources like Byzantines, Arabs, western Romans, Iranians, Chinese etc.

Just tell me, if we exactly know when Volga Bulgars converted as muslims and if we know when Khazars converted to judaism as early as 8th century then WHY THE HELL no one wrote anything about the local Anatolians forcefully converting to islam en masse?? why why why? Hell we even exactly know when Germanics became christians but why there is no record for Anatolia?

If anyone can give proper answers to my questions, i will wholeheartedly believe that 5% Turks mass converted 95% Anatolians. I am just waiting a logical answer, couldn't find yet

Because being Turk meant being Muslim back then, there was no need to seperately note that people converted to Islam. So obviously if you were a Turk it meant you were a Muslim. As people went through Turkification by intermingling they became Muslims. .

[orangepulp]

That is not true! There was no even a single Muslim in Erzurum when the Turks came.

Theodosiopolis was conquered by the Umayyad general Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik in 700/701. It became the capital of the emirate of Kalikala and was used as a base for raids into Byzantine territory. Though only an island of Arab power within Christian Armenian-populated territory, the native population was generally a reliable client of the Caliph's governors. As the power of the Caliphate declined, and the resurgence of Byzantium began, the local Armenian leaders preferred the city to be under the control of powerless Muslim emirs rather than powerful Byzantine emperors.[3]In 931, and again in 949, Byzantine forces led by Theophilos Kourkouas, grandfather of the future emperor John I Tzimiskes, captured Theodosiopolis. Its Arab population was expelled and the city was resettled by Greeks and Armenians.[4] Emperor Basil II rebuilt the city and its defenses in 1018 with the help of the local Armenian population.[5] In 1071, after the decisive battle at Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks took possession of Theodosiopolis.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzurum)

See there was an Arab population before and in other sources I remember reading that many people did convert to Islam due to Arab influence.

[Onur]

We cant know the genetics of the ancient populations. Our neighbors logically do not have Turkic input becuse they do not score any Asian at all, why are Anatolian Turks the only ones from the region to score Asian??
You say that we dont know the genetic composition of ancient populations but yet you claim that our neighbors doesn't have any Turkic input. You contradict with yourself.

How come you can classify "Turkic input" as "only Asian"? Where is your proof? Turks had several empires and multicultural states before coming into Anatolia and before becoming muslim. They were not an isolated Amazonian tribe which can be classified with only single phenotype and haplotype. They always had empirical history and most likely they were intermarrying with Asians and Europeans since the domestication of horses.

How come you can classify a group of people who had a big and powerful empirical past with "only Asian"?

I am sure of one thing. Turks were already mixed group in central Asia even 2000 years ago which had both Asian and European DNA and look, therefor you cannot classify Turkic input by only considering Asian and/or Mongolic DNA.


Btw while i ask these questions to you, i am indirectly criticizing the concept of "Turk=Asian Mongol" which was invented in late 19th century and still regarded as supposedly the truth by geneticists.


Because being Turk meant being Muslim back then, there was no need to seperately note that people converted to Islam. So obviously if you were a Turk it meant you were a Muslim. As people went through Turkification by intermingling they became Muslims.
This "muslim=Turk" stereotype in Ottoman era was coming from Balkan christians but Turks themselves were quite aware of who were Turk, Turkish speakers and who were just muslim. Yes, sometimes Ottoman authorities was using that connotation too but in fact, everyone knew who were Arnavut, Bosniak, Pomak, Kurdish and who were the real Turks. If that "Muslim=Turk" concept would be that strong as you think then you can be sure that all the Kurds, Albanians, Pomaks, Bosnians etc. would be Turks today, speaking Turkish only but as you know, this is not the case. These people were muslim, living among Turks but preserving their own languages and identities for centuries.

I am not saying that they didn't intermarry between each other but they were aware of their past heritage, so they weren't automatically becoming ethnic Turk when they accept islam.


Btw you are absolutely wrong about one thing. Yes, maybe Ottoman authorities wouldn't note down the people who converted as muslims but both Armenian and Greek church was still intact and they had their own administration and institutions. Do you possibly think that Armenians wouldn't write down this if they would loose members of their christian community and if Armenians or Greeks would convert to islam en masse?

You are falsely assuming this because you probably never analyzed historical Byzantine and Armenian records. I am a PHD student in medieval history and trust me, they wrote everything, i mean literally everything from expenses of the churches to number of people in their community. The whole world are reading their historical chronicles for centuries but no one saw or read anything about mass conversion of Greeks or Armenians forcefully to islam because such a thing never happened. This is just a myth of our anti-Turkish neighboring christian nationalists.

[evon]

Just need to mention something without getting too involved ;)

Most people under Muslim rule were pagan, Christian ect until quite late in the middle ages, so to say middle eastern peoples = Muslims in 700 is likely very wrong, only the military elite would likely have been Muslims by that time.. Also, another point, Nomadic peoples usually were a minority within any region versus settled peoples, and lastly, most major trading ports in the middle east has merchants from all over the place, cities such as Tabriz (major trading city in around 1300's) even had Tibetans living there as traders, plus many other populations from all over Eurasia, whom had their own quarters (wonder if their admixture can be detected today in modern populations?)...

[Transhumanist]

Just need to mention something without getting too involved ;)

[T]o say middle eastern peoples = Muslims in 700 is likely very wrong..

I agree.


The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/

[orangepulp]

You say that we dont know the genetic composition of ancient populations but yet you claim that our neighbors doesn't have any Turkic input. You contradict with yourself.

How come you can classify "Turkic input" as "only Asian"? Where is your proof? Turks had several empires and multicultural states before coming into Anatolia and before becoming muslim. They were not an isolated Amazonian tribe which can be classified with only single phenotype and haplotype. They always had empirical history and most likely they were intermarrying with Asians and Europeans since the domestication of horses.

How come you can classify a group of people who had a big and powerful empirical past with "only Asian"?

I am sure of one thing. Turks were already mixed group in central Asia even 2000 years ago which had both Asian and European DNA and look, therefor you cannot classify Turkic input by only considering Asian and/or Mongolic DNA.


Btw while i ask these questions to you, i am indirectly criticizing the concept of "Turk=Asian Mongol" which was invented in late 19th century and still regarded as supposedly the truth by geneticists..

Are you telling me that you believe that the first Turks that settled in Asia Minor hardly had any Asian input!!! You're saying that when the Turks first came to Anatolia they were mixed with various Caucasoid's which I agree but even if they were mixed I am sure they had significant mongoloid admixture, even Turks today score notable Asian admixture so you think the Turks of 600 years back did not?!! What I am trying to say is all those who know themselves and identify as Turks today be it Anatolian Turk, Balkan Turk or whatever score at least some percentage of Asian in DNA tests. I believe this is a sign of Turkic input, of course the Turkic is more I am not basing the Turkic input only from the Asian admixture but the Asian admixture does give us a clue to some degree the amount of Turkic we have, therefore I don't think our neighbors really have proper Turkic ancestry.


Also notice portraits of the first Turks such as Alp Arslan, I can clearly see the Asian in his phenotype:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/AlpArslan.PNG




This "muslim=Turk" stereotype in Ottoman era was coming from Balkan christians but Turks themselves were quite aware of who were Turk, Turkish speakers and who were just muslim. Yes, sometimes Ottoman authorities was using that connotation too but in fact, everyone knew who were Arnavut, Bosniak, Pomak, Kurdish and who were the real Turks. If that "Muslim=Turk" concept would be that strong as you think then you can be sure that all the Kurds, Albanians, Pomaks, Bosnians etc. would be Turks today, speaking Turkish only but as you know, this is not the case. These people were muslim, living among Turks but preserving their own languages and identities for centuries.

I am not saying that they didn't intermarry between each other but they were aware of their past heritage, so they weren't automatically becoming ethnic Turk when they accept islam.

Even today in Turkey I see people of recent Pomak, Kurd, Caucasus, Balkan ancestry that have settled in Turkey link themselves to Turks ( culturally), their kids who were born and brought up in Turkey are even more Turkified than them and I am sure the childern of these children will be far more Turkified. Besides the amount of these ethnic minorties that have preserved their identity today is very low, what happened to the locals prior the Turks arrived to Asia Minor? Did they all of a sudden vanish!! No, the assimilated with the ruling class.What I am saying is that when a people live in a land that is ruled by another ethnicity and when the locals accept the leadership of the foregin leaders gradually intermigling takes place, gradually adapting to the language of the rulers take place, gradually in a longer period of time identity and religion change takes place. Like it has happened in the Levant, people of the Levant identify as Arabs but are they proper Arabs, no they are not. Real Arabs conquered those lands brought their religion and gradually identiy and religion shifted.
People have the tendency to adapt to the rulers identity and language. Those who don't accept the leadership of their sovereign stay as an ethnic minority, like the Armenians, Kurds etc..


Btw you are absolutely wrong about one thing. Yes, maybe Ottoman authorities wouldn't note down the people who converted as muslims but both Armenian and Greek church was still intact and they had their own administration and institutions. Do you possibly think that Armenians wouldn't write down this if they would loose members of their christian community and if Armenians or Greeks would convert to islam en masse?

I'll tell you what the Greeks and Armenian say if you are very curious to hear their side of the story, that there has been forced conversion of the locals, that there has been forced identity change of the locals to the Turkic identity etc..(The devsirme) This is their way of explaing how the people became Muslims. Of course as a Muslim and Turk I would never rely on their side of the story.


You are falsely assuming this because you probably never analyzed historical Byzantine and Armenian records. I am a PHD student in medieval history and trust me, they wrote everything, i mean literally everything from expenses of the churches to number of people in their community. The whole world are reading their historical chronicles for centuries but no one saw or read anything about mass conversion of Greeks or Armenians forcefully to islam because such a thing never happened. This is just a myth of our anti-Turkish neighboring christian nationalists
You got a PHD in history yet you find time to get into online debates. Anyhow you being a pro in history doesn't change anything, history books are open to alterations and biased opinions. Everyone elses history says another thing. After the Americans invaded Iraq the first thing they did was burn down all the ancient and old historical artifacts and book in the museums and libraries. History is a mystery, many things we may never get to know but at least we can have a clue of our history by our genetic make up.

[Pecheneg]

Are you telling me that you believe that the first Turks that settled in Asia Minor hardly had any Asian input!!! You're saying that when the Turks first came to Anatolia they were mixed with various Caucasoid's which I agree but even if they were mixed I am sure they had significant mongoloid admixture, even Turks today score notable Asian admixture so you think the Turks of 600 years back did not?!! What I am trying to say is all those who know themselves and identify as Turks today be it Anatolian Turk, Balkan Turk or whatever score at least some percentage of Asian in DNA tests. I believe this is a sign of Turkic input, of course the Turkic is more I am not basing the Turkic input only from the Asian admixture but the Asian admixture does give us a clue to some degree the amount of Turkic we have, therefore I don't think our neighbors really have proper Turkic ancestry.


Also notice portraits of the first Turks such as Alp Arslan, I can clearly see the Asian in his phenotype:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/AlpArslan.PNG



Turkmens of Turkmenistan, we can see the asian influence easily, but their asian admixture is ~15%...It's obvious that we lost much of our asiatic appearance because of intermarriages. But Turkic impact is not that much less. Stop comparing yourself with Yakuts. Seljuk Turks came from Khorasan.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2q2gtvp.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2yuwzdw.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/30llbo9.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2iav3io.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/zum3wm.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/bf3l02.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/2nkrypy.jpg

[orangepulp]

Turkmens of Turkmenistan, we can see the asian influence easily, but their asian admixture is ~15%...It's obvious that we lost much of our asiatic appearance because of intermarriages. But Turkic impact is not that much less. Stop comparing yourself with Yakuts. Seljuk Turks came from Khorasan.


Thats todays Turkmens, what about 600 years ago? Also don't underestimate 15% of mongolid admixture, the average Turk is about 5% mongolid.

I am not denying the Turkic input as I said a billion times but it for sure doesn't overcome the preTurkic part if you take a look at map plots.

[Pecheneg]

Also don't underestimate 15% of mongolid admixture, the average Turk is about 5% mongolid.


wrong.. average Turk is 7% mongoloid.


Thats todays Turkmens, what about 600 years ago?
Turkmens lived as nomads until 20th century. And before them, Oghuz were already intermarried with the central asian caucasoid peoples. Even Oghuz Yabgu State was not homogenous, but cities were populated by soghdian traders, Khazars, slavs, various muslim etc populations. According to Mahmud of Kashgar, the Oghuz(Turkmens) were already mixed in 10th century.
location of the Oghuz - (their neighbours were Kumans and Khazars and various iranian populations to the south)
http://i49.tinypic.com/mhumf9.jpg



I am not denying the Turkic input as I said a billion times but it for sure doesn't overcome the preTurkic part if you take a look at map plots.
you are not denying it, but minimizing.
What about Turkification of syria, iraq, egypt etc? These countries ruled by Turks for centuries, but they aren't Turks today? or the Hazaras, the Mongol conquerors of Afghanistan, they lost their idendity, because they were less in numbers or the Kara-Tatars (Mongols of anatolia)?

ps: and please check, who liked your post? > Manolo, an anti-Turkish user.

[bluesky]

They must count caucasus as european...

[Viljuska]

Because being Turk meant being Muslim back then, there was no need to seperately note that people converted to Islam. So obviously if you were a Turk it meant you were a Muslim. As people went through Turkification by intermingling they became Muslims. .
Yes. I think this fits for the Balkans to.
(All) Muslims were called Turks, and that's what they called themselves also.

[orangepulp]

you are not denying it, but minimizing.
What about Turkification of syria, iraq, egypt etc? These countries ruled by Turks for centuries, but they aren't Turks today? or the Hazaras, the Mongol conquerors of Afghanistan, they lost their idendity, because they were less in numbers or the Kara-Tatars (Mongols of anatolia)?

ps: and please check, who liked your post? > Manolo, an anti-Turkish user.
Because Syria, Iraq etc were Muslim countries even before the Turks, so less troops were needed in those regions, they did not intermingle much with Turks, notice they also kept their language ( Arabic). In Asia Minor the natives that accepted Islam intermingled with the Turks ( ruling class) and identified as Turks because somehow being a Turk in Ottoman also meant being a Muslim. Todays Turks are an Anatolian Turkic mixture, depending on the region the Turkic admixture may be elevated, less or even hardly present at all. I met with Anatolian Turks on 23andme and their results are no different than other Armenians, they don't even score 1% Asian. On the other and there are Turks that score significant Asian.


They must count caucasus as european...

This could be but if that was the case wouldn't my European score in the ''7 continental analysis'' even be higher since I am 90% Caucasus/Anatolian and only score like 6% Arabian? I am not sure how they categorise the Caucasus component?

[Transhumanist]

Because Syria, Iraq etc were Muslim countries even before the Turks...

Orange. When are you suggesting that Iraq became predominantly Muslim? I am asking a genuine question.

This is what the Arab Muslims encountered, when they arrived in Mesopotamia, in the 7th century. These indigenous peoples remained significant in number until the arrival of Tamerlane.

Wikipedia, on Asuristan:


The Sassanid province of Asuristan produced several unique cultural contributions to the world (all using varieties of Mesopotamian Eastern Middle Aramaic for their original scriptures):

It was the center for the Church of the East, which at times (partially due to the vast areas the Sassanid empire covered) was the most widespread Christian church in the world, reaching well into Central Asia, China and India. It sees as its founders the apostle Thomas (Mar Toma), and Saint Thaddeus (Mar Addai), and uses the Syriac version of Aramaic for its scriptures. One of the central scriptures of the Church of the East, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, is one of the oldest Eucharistic prayers in the Christianity, composed around the year 200. The Church of the East went through major consolidation and expansion in 410 during the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, held at the Sassanid capital (in Asuristan). Selucia-Ctesiphon remained the location of the Patriarchate of the Church of the East for over 600 years. (The Church of the East has been sometimes erroneously referred to as Nestorian, although the followers of Nestorius, AD 386-451, actually only relocated into the Persian Empire from the Roman Empire in the 5th century, after the Nestorian Schism.)

The religion of Manichaeism (founded by Mani, 216–276), another Syriac Aramaic phenomenon, originated in 3rd century Asuristan, shortly after the Church of the East, and also spread across vast geographical distances. In some instances, Manicheaism even surpassed the Church of the East in its reach, as it was for a time also widespread in the Roman Empire. While none of the six original Syriac scriptures of the Manichaeans have survived in their entirety, a long Syriac section of one of their works detailing key beliefs was preserved by Theodore Bar Konai (a Church of the East author from Beth Garmaï), in his book "Ketba Deskolion" written in about 792. Like the Church of the East, the traditional center of the Manichaean church was in Seleucia-Ctesiphon (with Abū Hilāl al-Dayhūri sitting there as its head in the late 700s).[5]

Beginning with the Sassanid Empire and up to the 11th century, Sassanid Assyria was the center of Judaism in the world. The major book defining Judaism, the Babylonian Talmud, was written in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic in Asuristan between the 3rd and 5th centuries. The Babylonian Talmudic academies were all established relatively near to Seleucia-Ctesiphon. The first Talmudic academy was founded in Sura by Rav (175–247) in about 220. One of the most influential Talmudic teachers, Rava (270-350), who was influenced by both Manichaean polemic and Zoroastrian theology, studied in another Talmudic academy at Pumbedita.

The Mandaean religion, who according to their traditions are the original followers of John the Baptist, and who are considered to be the only surviving Gnostic group in the world, also originated in Asuristan at this time (or slightly earlier, perhaps during Parthian Assyria). Their language and script was the Mandaic form of Aramaic (closely related to the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud). Two of their central works, both written within the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are the Ginza Rabba and the Mandaean Book of John (preserving original traditions about John the Baptist).

The second king of the Sassanid Empire, Shapur I (215-272), personally knew both Mani (216–276), the founder of Manichaeism, and Shmuel (165-257), another famous contributor to the Babylonian Talmud (head of the academy at Nehardea). Mani dedicated his only Middle Persian writing, the Shāpuragān, to Shapur I. Shapur I is mentioned many times in the Babylonian Talmud, as "King Shabur".

Aside from the original writings of these groups which exist today, archaeological examples of all three of these Aramaic dialects and scripts can be found in the collections of thousands of Aramaic incantation bowls, ceramic artifacts from the time period of Asuristan. While the Jewish Aramaic script retained the original "square" or "block" form of the Aramaic alphabet used in Imperial Aramaic (the "Ashuri alphabet"), the Syriac alphabet and the Mandaic alphabet developed when cursive styles of Aramaic began to appear. The Mandaic script itself developed from the Parthian chancellery script.

After 640 AD the area was taken over by the Arab Islamic conquest and a proportion of the indigenous Assyrian population (known as Ashuriyun by the Arabs) gradually became a minority in their homeland. The region saw a large influx of Arabs, Kurds and later also Turkic peoples. The area became the capital of the Islamic Caliphate and the centre of Islamic civilization for five hundred years; from the 8th to the 13th centuries. However, a Christian culture, Eastern Aramaic language and Assyrian/Mesopotamian identity persisted among a sizeable proportion of native Assyrians (possibly still forming a majority into the 11th century AD), and they remained a significant part of the population until suffering savage massacres at the hands of the Mongols in the 13th and 14th centuries.[6][7][8] However, an Assyrian presence still remains in the region to this day, with a number of Assyrian towns, villages and settlements extant, and Assyrian populations remain in and around cities such as Mosul, Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk and Amadia.

[orangepulp]

Orange. When are you suggesting that Iraq became predominantly Muslim? I am asking a genuine question.

This is what the Arab Muslims encountered, when they arrived in Mesopotamia, in the 7th century. These indigenous peoples remained significant in number until the arrival of Tamerlane.

Wikipedia, on Asuristan:



Edited, misunderstanding.

Link you posted is not showing but anyway,Iraq became a part of the Muslim world around 632 and the the Ottomans took in charge of Iraq around the 16th century. My point is the population of Iraq were Muslims before the Anatolian Turks.

[Transhumanist]

What you posted is not showing but anyway, I don't know what you are talking about by asking me this question? Todays Iraq is predominantly Muslim ( 95% Muslim and there is a 5% Christian minority according to wiki.)

Iraq became a part of the Muslim world around 632 and the the Ottomans took in charge of Iraq around the 16th century. My point is the population of Iraq were Muslims before the Anatolian Turks.

Never mind.

[orangepulp]

Never mind.

Sorry I misread and edited my post before you saw it.

Like I said Iraq was conquerd by Muslims before Turks were Muslims, that is my point.


http://www.liftupjesusonly.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/map-arab-wave.jpg.w560h321.jpg

Regarding the Turks:


Before adopting Islam—a process that was greatly facilitated by the Abbasid victory at the 751 Battle of Talas, which ensured Abbasid influence in Central Asia—the Turkic peoples practiced a variety of shamanism. After this battle, many of the various Turkic tribes—including the Oghuz Turks, who were the ancestors of both the Seljuks and the Ottomans—gradually converted to Islam, and brought the religion with them to Anatolia beginning in the 11th century

[Loki]

http://www.liftupjesusonly.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/map-arab-wave.jpg.w560h321.jpg



It seems Anatolia was Christian for longer than Spain was even ... and some of the very first Christian communities were in Asia Minor.

[orangepulp]

^^

Thats right, the Turks introduced Islam to Asia Minor and defeted the great Byzantine Empire, unlike in Spain where Islam was introduced by the Arabs. I guess Arabs werent strong enough to conquer Asia Minor.

[Loki]

^^

Thats right, the Turks introduced Islam to Asia Minor and defeted the great Byzantine Empire, unlike in Spain where Islam was introduced by the Arabs. I guess Arabs werent strong enough to conquer Asia Minor.

Yes, and part of the reason was that Constantinople was ravaged by Justinian's Plague ... that is an army he could not fight against. The Turks came at just the right time.

[evon]

Yes, and part of the reason was that Constantinople was ravaged by Justinian's Plague ... that is an army he could not fight against. The Turks came at just the right time.

The story of Anatolia Post-Islam is filled with incursions, from Arabs, but mostly by various mixed bands of Ghazi warriors raging holy war on the Byzantine empire.
In most of these incursions the invaders could ravage freely around Anatolia, taking booty and slaves from farmers ect at will, without the Byzantine army being able to do much since they usually were confined to their fortified strongholds, the earliest Arabs even went as far as Constantinople, but unlike Mehmet they could not breach the wall, Mehmet was only able to do it because he used gunpowder..

The Seljuks and Byzantine clash at Mazinkert was the deciding battle that opened up Anatolia to Islam, the irony is that both sides was filled with Turkic speaking peoples, mostly in form of mercenaries..

[Onur]

Arabs conquered Spain so quickly, i guess around early 8th century and they ruled there for about 700 years. They tried to penetrate into the Anatolia too but eastern Romans made a smart political move and allied with Turkic Khazars who were also against the Arabs at that time.

The cooperation between Khazars and Byzantines was the event which blocked islamic incursion to Anatolia. Khazars constantly fought against Arab armies for about 150 years and they kept them away from Anatolia. This was when the Arabs started to call Turks as gog&magog and they wrote fake hadits about that.

[orangepulp]

This was when the Arabs started to call Turks as gog&magog and they wrote fake hadits about that.
These are not fake hadiths made up by Arabs. Gog and Magog being from the Turks is not only prohesized by Islam but also other monotheistic religions where they believe Gog and Magog to be form the descendants of Japeth, Noah's son ( The Asian race ). Besides the Turks mentioned are obviously not the Anatolian Turks.
Anyway, Like I said before in another thread, you should not take these hadiths, criticism, etc.. as an ethnic attack because there are also many authentic hadiths where the Prophets Muhammad and even the Quran criticizes the Arabs, his own people. See this verse in the Quran:


''The Arabs are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which God hath sent down to His Messenger''

[9:97]

There are hadiths that prophesize Arabs going against Muslims near the end of time.
The prophets fought most with the Arabs than any other race.

Islam is not an ethnic based religion.

[Loki]

Islam is not an ethnic based religion.

Neither is Christianity - only some small sects.