Crimean Tatar autosomal DNA

[Pecheneg]

The Crimean Tatars are descendants of the various Turkic peoples who inhabited the Crimean peninsula and its surroundings. The most notable ones of these Turkic peoples were Cuman-Kypchaks and the Nogai Horde.
Crimean Tatars emerged as a nation at the time of the Crimean Khanate, Crimean Khanate was a Turkic state which was among the strongest powers in Eastern Europe until the beginning of the 18th century.


http://magnusducatus.blogspot.com/2012/09/behind-curtains-mdlp-world-22-showcase.html



Pygmy = 0
West_Asian = 28.8
North-European-Mesolithic = 0.3
Tibetan = 0.4
Mesomerican = 0.2
Arctic-Amerind = 0.5
South-America_Amerind = 0.3
Indian = 0.5
North-Siberean = 0.8
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic = 23.9
Samoedic = 1.8
Proto-Indo-Iranian = 0.9
East-Siberean = 5
North-East-European = 21.2
South-African = 0
North-Amerind = 0.2
Sub-Saharian = 0
East-South-Asian = 3.7
Near_East = 10.4
Melanesian = 0.4
Paleo-Siberean = 0.6
Austronesian = 0.1





Mongoloid Components (including Amerindian)

Tibetan = 0.4
Mesomerican = 0.2
Arctic-Amerind = 0.5
South-America_Amerind = 0.3
North-Siberean = 0.8
Samoedic = 1.8
East-Siberean = 5
North-Amerind = 0.2
East-South-Asian = 3.7
Paleo-Siberean = 0.6



Total = 13.5%

[kabeiros]

Great. Crimean Greeks -even those who speak Turkish- have no Mongoloid components. Share this with Onur so he could stop with his stupid claims that they are Turks...

[Pecheneg]

Great. Crimean Greeks -even those who speak Turkish- have no Mongoloid components. Share this with Onur so he could stop with his stupid claims that they are Turks...


Are you sure? :D



Greek_Azov (Urum) autosomal DNA - from the same study


Pygmy = 0
West_Asian = 34.5
North-European-Mesolithic = 0.7
Tibetan = 0.5
Mesomerican = 0.1
Arctic-Amerind = 0.2
South-America_Amerind = 0.3
Indian = 0.3
North-Siberean = 0.6
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic = 27.7
Samoedic = 0.1
Proto-Indo-Iranian = 0.9
East-Siberean = 0.7
North-East-European = 18.2
South-African = 0
North-Amerind = 0.1
Sub-Saharian = 0
East-South-Asian = 0
Near_East = 14.9
Melanesian = 0.1
Paleo-Siberean = 0.1
Austronesian = 0.3




Total Mongoloid = 2.7%

;)

[Sky earth]

I'm kinda surprised because based on what I've see on the Internet the Crimean Tatars look on average more Mongoloid than Volga Tatars imo. How many samples were used? I hope for a aDNA study from Behar, Yunusbayev or Rasmussen. But when I think more about it. That would make sense because the Crimean Tatar mtDNA is 100 % Caucasoid. This is very atypical for Turkic people.

[Pecheneg]

I'm kinda surprised because based on what I've see on the Internet the Crimean Tatars look on average more Mongoloid than Volga Tatars imo.

Volga/Kazan Tatars, as well as Chuvash people and Nogais of North Caucasus look more mongoloid on average IMO.





How many samples were used?
I've no idea.





I hope for a aDNA study from Behar, Yunusbayev or Rasmussen.
That would be great. We need more studies about Crimean Tatars and other Turkic peoples such as Gagauz, Iraqi Turkmen etc.

[Zmey Gorynych]

... and so the downfall of Turan begins :cry

[wvwvw]

According to this poster many Azov Greeks are tracing their origin to the 'Crimean Gotia' :confused:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/35580-I1-among-Azov-Greeks-Cossacks-and-Tatars


The Crimean Goths were Gothic Tribes which lived in Crimea, lived in and ran the Theodoro principality, and may have lasted well into the 18th 19th century. Though some Linguists insist that the Crimean Gothic Lanaguage may have survived as a very private 'hausprach' as late as 1945!

For a long time in Europe there were rumours of a Germanic Kingdom in the east. Some had even heard that it was the last Gothic Kingdom.The first report of the Crimean Goths was written by Constantine the Philosopher, who went to Crimea in 850 to preach the gospel to the Khazars. He lists "Goths" as people who read and praised the Christian God "in their own language" In the 15th Century there appears one romantic report by the explorer Joachimus Cureus' in which claims that during a voyage in the Black Sea, his ship was forced ashore by storms. There, to his surprise, he found a man singing a song in which he used "German words" When Joachimus asked him where he was from, he answered "That his home was nearby and that his people were goths "

Hearsay evidence of this sort existed for a long time, until, In 1562, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq met two Crimean Goths in Constantinople, there, he recorded over 100 words in Crimean Gothic, and the first lines of a song which he sadly never translated. But feel free to give it a go...
Vvara vvara ingdolou
Seu te gira Galtzou
Hoemisclep dorbiza ea.
The entire online dictionary can be found here it's quite fun to read through. Many of the words and phrases seem very similar to German; "Knauen Tag" for "Guten Tag", "Ich Malthata" for "I say that.." or "Ies Vvarthata" for "He made that" These words, sadly, make up the only corpus of Crimean Gothic words ever complied. Even though other explorers went there and recorded more, In 1690, Kampfer stated
"The language spoke in the Peninsula Crimea, or Taurica Chersonesus, in Asia, still retains many German words, brought thither, as is suppos'd by a colony of Goths, who went to settle there about 850 years after the Deluge. The late Mr.Busbeq, who had been Imperial Ambassador at the Ottoman Port, collected and publish'd a great number of these words in his fourth letter; and in my own travels through that Country I took note of many more"
Though it is thought these may have been washed into the sea during a boating accident on the way to Japan.

Anyway I will jump forward a bit. Their capital city; Mangup was completely destroyed by the Ottoman Empire in their invasion of Crimea, by a massive artillery bombardment - it also suffered an Earthquake in which many of the last inhabitants were expected to have fled. The last ever reference to the Goths in Crimea was in 1780, by Archbishop of Mohilev; Stanislas Sestrencewicz de bohusz who visited Crimea at the end of the 18th Century, and noted the existence of people whose language and customs differed greatly from their neighbors and who he concluded must be "Goths". In the 1900s however, the explorer Brovonius climbed up the mountains to Mangup, to try and find evidence of some Goths, but claims that all he could find were Tartars and Greeks in the ruins of what was once a city.

In the late 1880s, Russian Linguist and Ethnologist V.E. Vozgrin was convinced that some small communities of Goths must have still existed in regions in the Crimea. He, unfortunately, was unable to find the Linguistic data he was after but found peoples who were "Considerably taller" and had "alien cultural traditions" to those people around them. He concluded that the Goths interbred with the Crimean Tartars and converted to Islam. In "The Crimean Tatars: the diaspora experience and the forging of a nation" By Brian Glyn Williams they quote Vozgrin as saying; 'In all probability their decendents are the particular tartars of a series of small villages in the Crimea, who are sharply deliniated from the inhabitants of neighboring villages by their tall height and other features characteristic of Scandinavians'

It is clear that the Goths had begun to speak Tartar and Crimean Greek from long before the arrival of Busbeque thus they may well have integrated into the wider population, as later visitors to Mangup were unable to discover "any trace" of Gothic peoples.
http://historum.com/european-history/26919-crimean-goths.html

[Sikeliot]

I am surprised they are not more Asiatic than that.

[Insuperable]

Are you sure? :D



Greek_Azov (Urum) autosomal DNA - from the same study


Pygmy = 0
West_Asian = 34.5
North-European-Mesolithic = 0.7
Tibetan = 0.5
Mesomerican = 0.1
Arctic-Amerind = 0.2
South-America_Amerind = 0.3
Indian = 0.3
North-Siberean = 0.6
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic = 27.7
Samoedic = 0.1
Proto-Indo-Iranian = 0.9
East-Siberean = 0.7
North-East-European = 18.2
South-African = 0
North-Amerind = 0.1
Sub-Saharian = 0
East-South-Asian = 0
Near_East = 14.9
Melanesian = 0.1
Paleo-Siberean = 0.1
Austronesian = 0.3




Total Mongoloid = 2.7%

;)

But, you do know that because of this specific model used that is quite small since a vast majority of European population there gets "a lot" of Mongoloid;)

[Pallantides]

Total Mongoloid = 2.7%

;)

That's almost exactly the same amount as I am on MDLP World-22, however mine is all North Eurasian/Arctic:

Samoedic 2.58
Arctic-Amerind 0.37
North-Amerind 0.01

= 2.96%

[Pecheneg]

But, you do know that because of this specific model used that is quite small since a vast majority of European population there gets "a lot" of Mongoloid;)

I agree that there is something weird about this study. Even Greeks seem to have more mongoloid (+Amerindian) admixture than some Northern Europeans.

[wvwvw]

That's almost exactly the same amount as I am on MDLP World-22, however mine is all North Eurasian/Arctic:

Samoedic 2.58
Arctic-Amerind 0.37
North-Amerind 0.01

= 2.96%

Ah, that explain your good looks :)

[kabeiros]

Are you sure? :D



Greek_Azov (Urum) autosomal DNA - from the same study


Pygmy = 0
West_Asian = 34.5
North-European-Mesolithic = 0.7
Tibetan = 0.5
Mesomerican = 0.1
Arctic-Amerind = 0.2
South-America_Amerind = 0.3
Indian = 0.3
North-Siberean = 0.6
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic = 27.7
Samoedic = 0.1
Proto-Indo-Iranian = 0.9
East-Siberean = 0.7
North-East-European = 18.2
South-African = 0
North-Amerind = 0.1
Sub-Saharian = 0
East-South-Asian = 0
Near_East = 14.9
Melanesian = 0.1
Paleo-Siberean = 0.1
Austronesian = 0.3




Total Mongoloid = 2.7%

;) Still, very small compared with Crimean Tatars, and some of it related with Slavs or North Europeans :D
Anyway, they're mixed Greeks, Goths, Slavs and apparently Tatars

[kabeiros]

Pecheneg, how much did the Rumei score in the same study?

[Pecheneg]

Pecheneg, how much did the Rumei score in the same study?

Well it only says "Greek_Azov" so i'm not sure if it's "Rumei" or "Urums". But i don't think there is a big difference between Rumei and Urums when it comes to autosomal dna, perhaps the latter is more Turkic influenced since their language is Turkic & they were known as "Graeco-Tatars".


Here are all the Greek populations from the same study.


Greek_Azov / Greek_Center / Greek_Cretan / Greek_East / Greek_North / Greek_South

Pygmy = 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0 / 0
West_Asian = 34.5 / 22.8 / 28.1 / 23.7 / 22.3 / 20.6
North-European-Mesolithic = 0.7 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.2 / 0
Tibetan = 0.5 / 0.3 / 0.3 / 0.3 / 0.2 / 0.3
Mesomerican = 0.1 / 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1
Arctic-Amerind = 0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1
South-America_Amerind = 0.3 / 0.2 / 0 / 0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1
Indian = 0.3 / 0 / 0.2 / 0 / 0.4 / 1.5
North-Siberean = 0.6 / 0.3 / 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1
Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic = 27.7 / 37.8 / 35.2 / 37 / 35.1 / 35
Samoedic = 0.1 / 0.4 / 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.4
Proto-Indo-Iranian = 0.9 / 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.2 / 0.2 / 0.5
East-Siberean = 0.7 / 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.2 / 0
North-East-European = 18.2 / 21.4 / 13.1 / 20.2 / 25.4 / 25
South-African = 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0 / 0 / 0
North-Amerind = 0.1 / 0.3 / 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0
Sub-Saharian = 0 / 0 / 0.3 / 0 / 0.1 / 0
East-South-Asian = 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0.1 / 0
Near_East = 14.9 / 16 / 21.4 / 17.3 / 14.8 / 15.9
Melanesian = 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.2 / 0.2 / 0.2 / 0.2
Paleo-Siberean = 0.1 / 0.1 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.3
Austronesian = 0.3 / 0 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 / 0.2

[Sky earth]

Volga/Kazan Tatars, as well as Chuvash people and Nogais of North Caucasus look more mongoloid on average IMO.




I've no idea.




That would be great. We need more studies about Crimean Tatars and other Turkic peoples such as Gagauz, Iraqi Turkmen etc.

Yes we need also the aDNA of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz. I've never seen one. It looks to me that they use always the same Turkic people like Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Chuvashs, Yakuts, Turkmens and Turks. I also never see Azeris in spreadsheets

[Pallantides]

Yes we need also the aDNA of Kazakhs and Kyrgyz. I've never seen one. It looks to me that they use always the same Turkic people like Uzbeks, Uyghurs, Chuvashs, Yakuts, Turkmens and Turks. I also never see Azeris in spreadsheets

I have seen results of Kazakhs, there is one who post on ABF.

[wvwvw]

Here are all the Greek populations from the same study.

Do you have the source?

[Pecheneg]

Do you have the source?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0

http://magnusducatus.blogspot.com/2012/09/behind-curtains-mdlp-world-22-showcase.html

[wvwvw]

Pecheneg, how much did the Rumei score in the same study?

mine mdlp world 22:
http://s9.postimg.org/d79arr9jj/image.jpg

[Pecheneg]

mine:
http://s9.postimg.org/d79arr9jj/image.jpg

Are you Rumei?

[wvwvw]

Greek

[evon]

I have not seen any Crimean Tatars on 23andme, but my guess is they would be more Eastern then Volga Tatar groups, but there are also very few Crimean Tatars left, and very few of them live in Crimea today.. I doubt Crimean Tatars would have stronger ties to Turks then other Tatars though, as so far ive not seen any Tatar group that are strongly connected to Turks in general..

I posted this regarding Ancestry Finder results and Ancestry composition results from various Central Asians and Tatars groups before, but there are no Crimeans among those Tatar groups:


Some 23andme data on Tatars and various Central Asians,
Settings are 4gp+ 5cM and no colonials:

http://imageshack.us/a/img708/5274/45889397.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img33/8853/26724142.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img6/317/44871174.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img854/4144/53842090.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img9/4940/34680268.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img442/8343/23667156.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img812/6134/50533540.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img94/8067/50721196.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img40/6004/42310104.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/4908/35251474.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img5/4651/91639880.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/4611/23304795.jpg

[kabeiros]

/ Greek_Center / Greek_Cretan / Greek_East / Greek_North / Greek_South
Do they explain what Greek East mean?

[Pecheneg]

Do they explain what Greek East mean?

Nope, apparently. Probably mainland Greeks from east of the country.

[Annihilus]

I have not seen any Crimean Tatars on 23andme, but my guess is they would be more Eastern then Volga Tatar groups, but there are also very few Crimean Tatars left, and very few of them live in Crimea today.. I doubt Crimean Tatars would have stronger ties to Turks then other Tatars though, as so far ive not seen any Tatar group that are strongly connected to Turks in general..

My MDLP results...

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/mdlp22-2.jpg

[evon]

My MDLP results...

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/mdlp22-2.jpg

That is not how to read Oracle tools, when you get scores from a region like that it means you have many similar components in that direction, in this case its obvious that its Balkan/Ukraine related shared ancestry by looking at the other top populations on the list, and not something exclusive to Crimean Tatars, hence its not a ethnic bond, but a regional..

[Onur]

That is not how to read Oracle tools, when you get scores from a region like that it means you have many similar components in that direction, in this case its obvious that its Balkan/Ukraine related shared ancestry by looking at the other top populations on the list, and not something exclusive to Crimean Tatars, hence its not a ethnic bond, but a regional..
I am not sure what you mean by saying "not ethnic but regional" because both means same thing to me but if thats the case, then explain to me why the list doesn't match with the geographical proximity? Why Sicilian or Greek-East are listed higher than a Turk?

[evon]

I am not sure what you mean by saying "not ethnic but regional" because both means same thing to me but if thats the case, then explain to me why the list doesn't match with the geographical proximity? Why Sicilian or Greek-East are listed higher than a Turk?

Oracle is essentially a tool that shows you rough estimates of which directions your ancestry is build up from, in this case the Crimean matches up with others such as Greek Azov which is also based in Crimean, and allot of other populations from around the Black sea region, hence its regional, had it been something exclusive to say Crimeans, you would not have seen these other populations in this pattern, then you would likely see various other populations that match the Crimean Tatars eastern components, such as various other Tatar groups from further north or east ect, as they likely all share a common North Eurasian genepool, at least that would be logical from what the above data i have supplied show, and from what ive seen via Tatars in Gedmatch, i could have run various Mishar Tatars in gedmatch had it not been down, but if you remind me later when its back up i can do it for sure..

I can also ask the Tatars i share with ect if they know of any Crimean Tatars on 23andme or on gedmatch, but it will have to wait until gedmatch is back up also, so as to avoid confusion as they are not that good in English and my Russian is basically limited to Google translator:P

[wvwvw]

Annihilus you are from which country exactly?

[wvwvw]

---

[wvwvw]

My MDLP results...

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/mdlp22-2.jpg

Your results are similar to mine :p

http://i50.tinypic.com/2h52vyt.jpg

[d3cimat3d]

I have not seen any Crimean Tatars on 23andme, but my guess is they would be more Eastern then Volga Tatar groups, but there are also very few Crimean Tatars left, and very few of them live in Crimea today.. I doubt Crimean Tatars would have stronger ties to Turks then other Tatars though, as so far ive not seen any Tatar group that are strongly connected to Turks in general..

I posted this regarding Ancestry Finder results and Ancestry composition results from various Central Asians and Tatars groups before, but there are no Crimeans among those Tatar groups:

Here's a "Turk" with Family Locations: Crimea, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey.... He also happens to be my 4th cousin

http://i34.tinypic.com/n5pnh1.png

[evon]

Here's a "Turk" with Family Locations: Crimea, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey.... He also happens to be my 4th cousin

http://i34.tinypic.com/n5pnh1.png

Well he is Clary not Turkish by any standards (where in turkey is his family from?), as was my point, the Turkish match is likely a regional one, witch fit in with turkeys strong Balkan connection, you see the affinity is Polish and Russian, plus lots of other Eastern European matches, which indicate a clear region for ancestry, you also see the many eastern Asian matches, which are not common in Turks, if he identifies as Crimean Tatar i would like to also see his ancestry composition, my guess is it would be above 5% East Asian and 2-5% South Asian at least, with a minor Middle eastern % and lots of Eastern European % judging by the results ive seen from other Tatar groups.

[d3cimat3d]

Well he is Clary not Turkish by any standards (where in turkey is his family from?), as was my point, the Turkish match is likely a regional one, witch fit in with turkeys strong Balkan connection, you see the affinity is Polish and Russian, plus lots of other Eastern European matches, which indicate a clear region for ancestry, you also see the many eastern Asian matches, which are not common in Turks, if he identifies as Crimean Tatar i would like to also see his ancestry composition, my guess is it would be above 5% East Asian and 2-5% South Asian at least, with a minor Middle eastern % and lots of Eastern European % judging by the results ive seen from other Tatar groups.


As you know, 23andme fails at detecting Asian. I'm sure it would be more than 4.3 %

[evon]

http://i38.tinypic.com/15rb7ep.png

As you know, 23andme fails at detecting Asian. I'm sure it would be more than 4.3 %

Its not that it fails to detect Asian ect %, but it usually detects less due to a over-fitting issue, it will be fixed soon i hope, as iknow they are working on it, but i doubt they will release the update until they are near 100% sure its working, as last update gave people elevated African ancestry, when people had none...

[Annihilus]

That is not how to read Oracle tools, when you get scores from a region like that it means you have many similar components in that direction, in this case its obvious that its Balkan/Ukraine related shared ancestry by looking at the other top populations on the list, and not something exclusive to Crimean Tatars, hence its not a ethnic bond, but a regional..

As you can see my Y-dna is a young clade that originated in Crimea about the time of the Khazar Empire.

[Pecheneg]

I have not seen any Crimean Tatars on 23andme, but my guess is they would be more Eastern then Volga Tatar groups, but there are also very few Crimean Tatars left, and very few of them live in Crimea today.. I doubt Crimean Tatars would have stronger ties to Turks then other Tatars though, as so far ive not seen any Tatar group that are strongly connected to Turks in general..



I don't remember anyone saying Crimean Tatars are closer to this or that so i don't really get what you are trying to prove. Crimean Tatars have strong "West_Asian" and "Atlantic_Med" component -unlike other Tatar groups- and if you mean mongoloid admixture by saying "eastern" then Crimean Tatars aren't more "eastern" as you can see in the chart below.


http://i35.tinypic.com/16hq1t.jpg


Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0








Well he is Clary not Turkish by any standards (where in turkey is his family from?)
How do you know that?





as was my point, the Turkish match is likely a regional one, witch fit in with turkeys strong Balkan connection, you see the affinity is Polish and Russian, plus lots of other Eastern European matches, which indicate a clear region for ancestry, you also see the many eastern Asian matches, which are not common in Turks, if he identifies as Crimean Tatar i would like to also see his ancestry composition

Let me quote your comment from Orangepulp's thread, her aunt seems to have Hemshin roots.


DNA alone does not determine her ethnicity, neither does religion, ethnicity is largely a cultural construct, so she is just as much Turkish as the next person..


Now please tell me what makes you change your mind when it comes to Crimean Tatars? There is something fishy here.

The term "ethnic Turk" covers all the Turkic subgroups in Turkey; Manav, Yörük, Avshar, Karapapak, Terekeme, Qizilbash, Crimean Tatar, Sırach, Balkan Turk, Gacal, Tahtacı (Tachtadji), Ahıska etc.









my guess is it would be above 5% East Asian and 2-5% South Asian at least, with a minor Middle eastern % and lots of Eastern European % judging by the results ive seen from other Tatar groups.

2-5% south asian? Crimean Tatars?? :rolleyes2:

[evon]

As you can see my Y-dna is a young clade that originated in Crimea about the time of the Khazar Empire.

I dount your mtDNA clade is that young, please show some data supporting such an idea? as most such basic clades are 1000s of years old, its also found in a wide region, which suggest an old origin rather then something connected to a modern linguistic group:
http://ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/n1b_genbank_sequences.htm


Those standards being what?

Having multiple Turkish matches in Ancestry Finder.



I don't remember anyone saying Crimean Tatars are closer to this or that so i don't really get what you are trying to prove. Crimean Tatars have strong "West_Asian" and "Atlantic_Med" component -unlike other Tatar groups- and if you mean mongoloid admixture by saying "eastern" then Crimean Tatars aren't more "eastern" as you can see in the chart below.


Eastern here meaning East Asia and so on yes, and as you can see in the Ancestry finder result, this person has matches in East and south East Asian countries, which is uncommon for Turkish people to have, so if this person is Crimean Tatar it would prove my theory, although this is weak due to one sample of course, but i was just guessing based on the singular results.
I would put my money on segment matches over admixture results that i dont know the source of in this regard, if you are going to link a result, you should also list whom produced them and their page, as right now i just see a table with data and no context.






How do you know that?


Because as i said to Altay, he has only one Turkish match in Ancestry finder, which would be very strange if he was Turkish, as Turks match eachother, as a ethnic and regional population in Anatolia (its natural, just like say a Swede would match Swedes more then any other population). I have seen the result of a few mixed Turks, one is part Tatar, and even she has multiple Turkish matches, and turkey is her number 3 on the Ancestry finder list.





Let me quote your comment from Orangepulp's thread, her aunt seems to have Hemshin roots.

Now please tell me what makes you change your mind when it comes to Crimean Tatars? There is something fishy here.

The term "ethnic Turk" covers all the Turkic subgroups in Turkey; Manav, Yörük, Avshar, Karapapak, Terekeme, Qizilbash, Crimean Tatar, Sırach, Balkan Turk, Gacal, Tahtacı (Tachtadji), Ahıska etc.


Turkish identity is not determined by DNA, its a cultural and linguistic identity, one could also say that Turkish ethnicity is such, but i prefer to at least link ethnicity partly with DNA if possible. This debate is based on DNA, posted in a sub-section of the forum dedicated to DNA, and the whole thread topic is about DNA, hence one in this context can say that a person is not Turkish, if that person does not belong to the same genepool as Turks,
now on the matter of definition, Tatars are per my definition not Turks, they are a Turkic speaking peoples, but not Turks, but this definition is one i myself use, as if we start saying all peoples are Turks, it gets very hard to know whom or what someone is talking about, thus i say Turks for people from Anatolia, while using other ethnic identities such as Crimean Tatar, Turkmen, Yakut ect for other groups whom speak a Turkic language, but whom have their own separate identity. Now please stop trying to win an argument based on rhetoric, i dont care for that stuff, if you have data then thats fine, but dont go fishing for flaws in my statements, as thats not very professional.




2-5% south asian? Crimean Tatars?? :rolleyes2:


It was a guess based on other Tatars data ive seen, look at the data i posted before, some show South Asian %, and iknow from history in Scandinavia that Tatars and Roma mixed when serving as mercenaries during the 16-1700's.
If you could read swedish this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?71459-Kan-n%E5gon-hj%E4lpa-mig) might be of interest for you, i have not found any sources for this in English.

[Pecheneg]

Eastern here meaning East Asia and so on yes, and as you can see in the Ancestry finder result, this person has matches in East and south East Asian countries, which is uncommon for Turkish people to have, so if this person is Crimean Tatar it would prove my theory, although this is weak due to one sample of course, but i was just guessing based on the singular results.
I would put my money on segment matches over admixture results that i dont know the source of in this regard, if you are going to link a result, you should also list whom produced them and their page, as right now i just see a table with data and no context.

I've already posted sources. Take a look at the thread before telling me what to do, genius.

http://magnusducatus.blogspot.com/2012/09/behind-curtains-mdlp-world-22-showcase.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0


I don't know how many samples are used in this study though but i'm sure it's more accurate than few individuals' results.








Because as i said to Altay, he has only one Turkish match in Ancestry finder, which would be very strange if he was Turkish, as Turks match eachother, as a ethnic and regional population in Anatolia (its natural, just like say a Swede would match Swedes more then any other population). I have seen the result of a few mixed Turks, one is part Tatar, and even she has multiple Turkish matches, and turkey is her number 3 on the Ancestry finder list.

Turkish identity is not determined by DNA, its a cultural and linguistic identity, one could also say that Turkish ethnicity is such, but i prefer to at least link ethnicity partly with DNA if possible. This debate is based on DNA, posted in a sub-section of the forum dedicated to DNA, and the whole thread topic is about DNA, hence one in this context can say that a person is not Turkish, if that person does not belong to the same genepool as Turks


Do you change your mind too often? What you are saying here is completely different compared to your previous posts in orangepulp's aunt's thread.



DNA alone does not determine her ethnicity, neither does religion, ethnicity is largely a cultural construct, so she is just as much Turkish as the next person..


Her aunt seems to have a very different autosomal dna than Turkish average. But to you, she is just as much as Turkish as the next person. How Pollyanna of you. It seems to me that you are eager to make some non-Turkic minorities "Turks", but as said earlier, when it comes to "Turkic" Crimean Tatars you change your mind like a chameleon changes its colour.

The difference between Crimean Tatars and Anatolian Turks is like difference between Azov Greeks and mainland Greeks, in fact much less than that, an Azov Greek may be genetically closer to neighboring Black-Sea populations but it doesn't change the fact that Azov Greeks still have more in common with mainland Greeks since they have historical, linguistic & religious ties with them. Same goes for Balkan Turks and Anatolian Turks.






now on the matter of definition, Tatars are per my definition not Turks, they are a Turkic speaking peoples, but not Turks, but this definition is one i myself use, as if we start saying all peoples are Turks, it gets very hard to know whom or what someone is talking about, thus i say Turks for people from Anatolia, while using other ethnic identities such as Crimean Tatar, Turkmen, Yakut ect for other groups whom speak a Turkic language, but whom have their own separate identity.


I'm talking about the Crimean Tatars in Turkey, who are a part of Turkish ethnicity, whether you like it or not. Actually, Turkic immigrants from Crimea & Balkans make up a significant percentage of Turkish nation. Go ask my maternal relatives (who are Crimean Tatars themselves) if they see themselves as a different ethnicity, they will laugh in your face.











Now please stop trying to win an argument based on rhetoric, i dont care for that stuff, if you have data then thats fine, but dont go fishing for flaws in my statements, as thats not very professional.

Rhetoric?
I'm trying to be polite because whenever i say something that hurt your fragile feelings you delete my posts and accuse me of being a troll. So you better not complain about it. I'm not interested in having a conversation with a "Tatar" fetishist, stop wasting my time & derailing my thread if you have nothing to contribute to topic, apart from your unhealthy "Tatar" obsession.













It was a guess based on other Tatars data ive seen, look at the data i posted before, some show South Asian %, and iknow from history in Scandinavia that Tatars and Roma mixed when serving as mercenaries during the 16-1700's.
If you could read swedish this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?71459-Kan-n%E5gon-hj%E4lpa-mig) might be of interest for you, i have not found any sources for this in English.


I guess this is also a part of your Tatar obsession. You do have some South Asian admixture and now you're trying to associate it with Volga Tatars, but too bad, Tatars in general have very small amount of South Asian admixture, most likely 1-2%. It's Uzbeks and Turkmens who have significant amount of it. You were blaming Partizan for romanticizing his south asian admixture & associating it with "sacred" Turkoman-Oghuz migrations from Khorasan region (which was actually very realistic), yet, you are worse. :D

[Annihilus]

I dount your mtDNA clade is that young, please show some data supporting such an idea? as most such basic clades are 1000s of years old, its also found in a wide region, which suggest an old origin rather then something connected to a modern linguistic group:
http://ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/n1b_genbank_sequences.htm

I was talking about my Y-dna, not my mtdna:confused:

[wvwvw]

Originally Posted by Inquiring Mind

i was once in a Strip Club and a blonde russian prostitute didnt wanted to fuck me instead she wanted to fuck a 60 year old White germanic austrian and i ended up with a mullato prostitute, the mullato prostitute touched my cock and said she will give me Special prise.

:lol:

[evon]

I've already posted sources. Take a look at the thread before telling me what to do, genius.

http://magnusducatus.blogspot.com/2012/09/behind-curtains-mdlp-world-22-showcase.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0


I don't know how many samples are used in this study though but i'm sure it's more accurate than few individuals' results.


You should post the source under the tables you use, not just somewhere in the thread, do you think i re-read everything each time?

I wount take his analysis at face value like that, i would want to see other analysis of the same individuals, as results differ greatly from calculator to calculator, but yes i agree, its better then one individual, but the data is very different in nature. But i will hold on to my opinion until i see more data on the matter.




Do you change your mind too often? What you are saying here is completely different compared to your previous posts in orangepulp's aunt's thread.

Her aunt seems to have a very different autosomal dna than Turkish average. But to you, she is just as much as Turkish as the next person. How Pollyanna of you. It seems to me that you are eager to make some non-Turkic minorities "Turks", but as said earlier, when it comes to "Turkic" Crimean Tatars you change your mind like a chameleon changes its colour.


Let me repeat myself with highlight this time:



Turkish identity is not determined by DNA, its a cultural and linguistic identity, one could also say that Turkish ethnicity is such, but i prefer to at least link ethnicity partly with DNA if possible.

This debate is based on DNA, posted in a sub-section of the forum dedicated to DNA, and the whole thread topic is about DNA, hence one in this context can say that a person is not Turkish, if that person does not belong to the same genepool as Turks.


Do you get it? if not let me explain it using modern day immigration in Norway:

If you immigrate to Norway and have a child there with another woman from turkey, then if the child is born there most Norwegians would count that child as Norwegian, (if it saw itself as such is also a major part of it), but the child would not be Norwegian in terms of DNA, only in identity. The same with An armenian whom see themselves as turkish, they are turkish, but they are not turkish in terms of DNA. This is the last time i re-peat myself on this.




The difference between Crimean Tatars and Anatolian Turks is like difference between Azov Greeks and mainland Greeks, in fact much less than that, an Azov Greek may be genetically closer to neighboring Black-Sea populations but it doesn't change the fact that Azov Greeks still have more in common with mainland Greeks since they have historical, linguistic & religious ties with them. Same goes for Balkan Turks and Anatolian Turks.


I cant speak for all Crimean Tatars since i have only seen one potential person from this regions ancestry finder data, but the idea of a pan-turkic DNA link has yet to be proven, hence while Balkan Turks have obvious ties to turkey as shown by Ancestry finder, and turks have obvious ties to Balkan, the same cannot be said for Volga Tatars, Mishar Tatars and various other Turkic speaking peoples in central Asia and Russia, as is what the Ancestry finder data i posted before show, as had there been such a tie between them and Turks, one would see segment matches between these peoples, more so then between non-turkic peoples from the same regions and turks, which you dont.







I'm talking about the Crimean Tatars in Turkey, who are a part of Turkish ethnicity, whether you like it or not. Actually, Turkic immigrants from Crimea & Balkans make up a significant percentage of Turkish nation. Go ask my maternal relatives (who are Crimean Tatars themselves) if they see themselves as a different ethnicity, they will laugh in your face.


I dont care about this, as i said, its my opinion, and its based on the data ive seen, that all Turkic speaking peoples dont share anything else then a linguistic group, same as all Germanic speaking peoples, and the culture and way of life is radically different, even more so then between Germanic peoples, whom i dont either consider as all Germans. To call all Turkic speaking peoples as Turks in any academic debate would be to make unnecessary confusion.





Rhetoric?
I'm trying to be polite because whenever i say something that hurt your fragile feelings you delete my posts and accuse me of being a troll. So you better not complain about it. I'm not interested in having a conversation with a "Tatar" fetishist, stop wasting my time & derailing my thread if you have nothing to contribute to topic, apart from your unhealthy "Tatar" obsession.


This is is why i deleted your previous post, because you troll, you try to make people angry so as to loose their cool, its unhealthy in a debate and it does not contribute to the debate. the thread is not yours, the thread is Apricity's as soon as you posted it, and its staff have the rights do to with it as they wish as long as we follow the forum guidelines, accusing me of being two-faced and starting ad hominem attacks towards me is also not helping you, if you have anything to debate about my relation to Tatars i would advice you to post it in my own thread and not here or in any other thread where it does not belong.




I guess this is also a part of your Tatar obsession. You do have some South Asian admixture and now you're trying to associate it with Volga Tatars, but too bad, Tatars in general have very small amount of South Asian admixture, most likely 1-2%. It's Uzbeks and Turkmens who have significant amount of it. You were blaming Partizan for romanticizing his south asian admixture & associating it with "sacred" Turkoman-Oghuz migrations from Khorasan region (which was actually very realistic), yet, you are worse. :D

You should read before you post and try to provoke:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?76455-Crimean-Tatar-autosomal-DNA&p=1522809&viewfull=1#post1522809

As you can see, many show low levels of south Asian %, this is quite consistent, ive also looked at whom many of them match in Balkan, and in some cases it is known Roma from that region, which show a likely link between the populations.
My own South Asian ancestry is not from Tatars, its from Sinti Roma, as i have proven via my own research (http://scandinaviangeneticshq.blogspot.no/), i have actually not seen any DNA indication that my Distant Tatar cousins and i are linked via any South Asian ancestry at all, only one Mishar Tatar cousin of my grandmother, but i have not looked too much into this particular match yet. now please, any further debates on my own ancestry will be moved from this thread to avoid it going OT.



I was talking about my Y-dna, not my mtdna:confused:


Sorry about that, bit tired from a long nite out yesterday...Your YDNA linage seems to be found among Tatars based on this most recent YDNA chart:
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/ft-d/Lukasz/R1a-clades_zps983fc836.jpg

But i would not connect that to any Oracle results showing Crimean Tatars, as that would be an error, admixture and Direct linages are not the same thing..

[evon]

/posts moved.

All OT debates on the matter of labeling should be posted here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?76950-split-thread-Biology-and-labeling).

[Rugevit]

Crimean Tatars and selected populations from MDLP 22 : http://postimg.org/image/soxosreiz/full/

http://s17.postimg.org/8hk90gh1p/k30.png

[Speedy Freedy]

Crimean Tatars and selected populations from MDLP 22 : http://postimg.org/image/soxosreiz/full/

http://s17.postimg.org/8hk90gh1p/k30.png

I'm wondering people from which group of Crimean Tatars were tested... They weren't from the northern steppe group, that's for sure.

[Norka]

My Grandfather on my father's side is fully Crimean Tatar. I recently bought a gene test. Will my Kirim Tatarlar side show if I'm only 1/4 Crimean Tatar?

[Not a Cop]

My Grandfather on my father's side is fully Crimean Tatar. I recently bought a gene test. Will my Kirim Tatarlar side show if I'm only 1/4 Crimean Tatar?

Which test you bought? Most likely it will.

[Norka]

23andme got it two days ago. My grandfather had no mongoloid traits, he looked like a Armenian to me more than anything.

[Not a Cop]

23andme got it two days ago. My grandfather had no mongoloid traits, he looked like a Armenian to me more than anything.

Looks don't matter much, crimean tatars have very deffirent genetic make-up compared to russians, plus Kazan tatars are only about 20% mongoloid, crimean i guess even less so, so they can look completly caucasoid. 23andme will show it most likely.

[gültekin]

MDLP World Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

#PopulationPercent
1 Caucaus_Parsia 27.9
2 South_and_West_European 27.02
3 Middle_East 18.44
4 North_and_East_European 11.71
5 East_Asian 5.8
6 North_Asian 4.22
7 Indian 2.29
8 Arctic_Amerind 1.37
9 Mesoamerican 0.63
10 Melanesian 0.63

Single Population Sharing:

#Population (source)Distance
1 Tatar_Crim 7.16
2 Greek_Azov 9.44
3 Turk 11.53
4 Nogai 14.99
5 Cirkassian 15.6
6 Jew_Romania 15.84
7 Greek_Cretan 16.05
8 Ashkenazim 18.29
9 Kumyk 18.41
10 Greek_East 18.48
11 Costanoan 18.52
12 Balkarian 18.59
13 Greek_North 18.62
14 Azeri 18.66
15 Greek_South 18.72
16 Turkmen 18.8
17 Jew_Syria 18.97
18 Greek_Center 19.04
19 Ashkenazim_V 19.07
20 Kabardinian 19.24

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 54.3%Jew_Romania + 45.7%Turkmen @ 2.26
2 76.5%Tatar_Crim + 23.5%Iraqi @ 2.4
3 76.7%Tatar_Crim + 23.3%Syrian @ 2.65
4 79.2%Tatar_Crim + 20.8%Jew_Kurd @ 2.89
5 80.1%Tatar_Crim + 19.9%Jew-Iran @ 2.92
6 79.3%Tatar_Crim + 20.7%Jew_Iraqi @ 2.92
7 75.4%Tatar_Crim + 24.6%Lebanese @ 3.03
8 79.2%Tatar_Crim + 20.8%Jew-Iraqi @ 3.09
9 60.5%Nogai + 39.5%Jew_Tunisia @ 3.12
10 51.7%Turkmen + 48.3%Sicilian @ 3.18
11 77.8%Tatar_Crim + 22.2%Jew_Georgia @ 3.21
12 51.4%Turkmen + 48.6%Italian-Center @ 3.25
13 50.4%Greek_East + 49.6%Turkmen @ 3.25
14 77.5%Tatar_Crim + 22.5%Jew-Uzbekistan @ 3.27
15 89.3%Tatar_Crim + 10.7%Saudi @ 3.28
16 82.1%Tatar_Crim + 17.9%Palestinian @ 3.3
17 59.9%Nogai + 40.1%Jew_Algeria @ 3.31
18 74.7%Turk + 25.3%Colville @ 3.33
19 83.9%Tatar_Crim + 16.1%Samaritian @ 3.37
20 63.2%Nogai + 36.8%Jew_Morocco @ 3.39
.......
seems this Greek_Azov should count as just Tatar

[FilhoV]

Kit number?