Dodecad k12b south, west and central asian results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaspias

I personally think that my Turkic ancestry is a mix of the early Yörüks, the ones who came with Celali Rebellions and also Tatars. But I agree that it is more than half of Oghuz.

We have been investigating with @Thracian to see if Balkan Turks have Anatolian admixture or not for almost two years. We were able to detect a negligible amount(1-2%) of Anatolian in some, but most scored none. On the other hand, Balkan Turks have a great amount of Iranic-like input comparing to Anatolian Turks. Migration of non-Turk Iranic speaker Alevis following the Celali Rebellion can be an explanation for it. The second option is the migration of Turkic tribes who settled in Iran before entering Anatolia. Whatever it is, all of these admixtures(Early, Late-Celali, Tatar) melted in the same pot.

---

The second option is more raelistic, alevism has many roots, but it came from shia turkomans: Turks were islamizated, but they kept many traditions(tengrism) and were influenced by iranian(zoroasterism). This sects stayed different to sunni ottomans to show their loyality to safevid state and a kind of opposition. Alevism(not alavism) is religion of turkoman tribes. Also before migration to anatolia there were settlements in chorasan(like today) but persia were flooded by oghuz tribes. The biggest crisis in domestic policy of the selcuk stat were the dissatisfaction of the iranians about the high ammount of turkish tribes. Probable turks and iranian mixed there before they conquered anatolia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gecko

The second option is more raelistic, alevism has many roots, but it came from shia turkomans: Turks were islamizated, but they kept many traditions(tengrism) and were influenced by iranian(zoroasterism). This sects stayed different to sunni ottomans to show their loyality to safevid state and a kind of opposition. Alevism(not alavism) is religion of turkoman tribes. Also before migration to anatolia there were settlements in chorasan(like today) but persia were flooded by oghuz tribes. The biggest crisis in domestic policy of the selcuk stat were the dissatisfaction of the iranians about the high ammount of turkish tribes. Probable turks and iranian mixed there before they conquered anatolia.

---

I don't exactly understand what you mean here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

I don't exactly understand what you mean here.

---

When selcuks conquered persia a high amount of oghuz settlers came too. Many of them settled outside the cities also many came to the cities. You can envisage that many persians werent happy that. Thats what i meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gecko

The second option is more raelistic, alevism has many roots, but it came from shia turkomans: Turks were islamizated, but they kept many traditions(tengrism) and were influenced by iranian(zoroasterism). This sects stayed different to sunni ottomans to show their loyality to safevid state and a kind of opposition. Alevism(not alavism) is religion of turkoman tribes. Also before migration to anatolia there were settlements in chorasan(like today) but persia were flooded by oghuz tribes. The biggest crisis in domestic policy of the selcuk stat were the dissatisfaction of the iranians about the high ammount of turkish tribes. Probable turks and iranian mixed there before they conquered anatolia.

---

Well yes, I totally agree that. But one would expect that Balkan Turks have same amount of Iranian admixture with Anatolian Turks because of the common Oghuz root, even perhaps less because of Tatar settlements. But look what reality is:

When I extracted Anatolian admixture of Anatolian Turks this is what remains:

Southwest, South, Central: 25% Iranian, 75% Oghuz
Northwest: 15% Iranian, 85% Oghuz
North: 0% Iranian, 100% Oghuz

And when I extract Balkan admixture from Balkan Turks this is what remains:

Balkan: 0% Anatolian, 50% Iranian, 50% Turkic(Siberian-Ugric shifted compared to Oghuz)

Regarding the output, I can say that not all of the tribes are mixed in Iran who settled in Anatolia afterward. Some mixed and added a bunch of Iranian to gene pool but not all. On the other hand, the case is somewhat different among Balkan Turks. We see the effects of Tatars in the Turkic admixture, but how come these people carry 50% Iranian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaspias

Well yes, I totally agree that. But one would expect that Balkan Turks have same amount of Iranian admixture with Anatolian Turks because of the common Oghuz root, even perhaps less because of Tatar settlements. But look what reality is:

When I extracted Anatolian admixture of Anatolian Turks this is what remains:

Southwest, South, Central: 25% Iranian, 75% Oghuz
Northwest: 15% Iranian, 85% Oghuz
North: 0% Iranian, 100% Oghuz

And when I extract Balkan admixture from Balkan Turks this is what remains:

Balkan: 0% Anatolian, 50% Iranian, 50% Turkic(Siberian-Ugric shifted compared to Oghuz)

Regarding the output, I can say that not all of the tribes are mixed in Iran who settled in Anatolia afterward. Some mixed and added a bunch of Iranian to gene pool but not all. On the other hand, the case is somewhat different among Balkan Turks. We see the effects of Tatars in the Turkic admixture, but how come these people carry 50% Iranian?

---

What means iranian in this case? Iran iranians? Or tadjikistani?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaspias

Well yes, I totally agree that. But one would expect that Balkan Turks have same amount of Iranian admixture with Anatolian Turks because of the common Oghuz root, even perhaps less because of Tatar settlements. But look what reality is:

When I extracted Anatolian admixture of Anatolian Turks this is what remains:

Southwest, South, Central: 25% Iranian, 75% Oghuz
Northwest: 15% Iranian, 85% Oghuz
North: 0% Iranian, 100% Oghuz

And when I extract Balkan admixture from Balkan Turks this is what remains:

Balkan: 0% Anatolian, 50% Iranian, 50% Turkic(Siberian-Ugric shifted compared to Oghuz)

Regarding the output, I can say that not all of the tribes are mixed in Iran who settled in Anatolia afterward. Some mixed and added a bunch of Iranian to gene pool but not all. On the other hand, the case is somewhat different among Balkan Turks. We see the effects of Tatars in the Turkic admixture, but how come these people carry 50% Iranian?

---

What means iranian in this case? Iran iranians? Or tadjikistani?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gecko

What means iranian in this case? Iran iranians? Or tadjikistani?

---

Farsi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaspias

Well yes, I totally agree that. But one would expect that Balkan Turks have same amount of Iranian admixture with Anatolian Turks because of the common Oghuz root, even perhaps less because of Tatar settlements. But look what reality is:

When I extracted Anatolian admixture of Anatolian Turks this is what remains:

Southwest, South, Central: 25% Iranian, 75% Oghuz
Northwest: 15% Iranian, 85% Oghuz
North: 0% Iranian, 100% Oghuz

And when I extract Balkan admixture from Balkan Turks this is what remains:

Balkan: 0% Anatolian, 50% Iranian, 50% Turkic(Siberian-Ugric shifted compared to Oghuz)

Regarding the output, I can say that not all of the tribes are mixed in Iran who settled in Anatolia afterward. Some mixed and added a bunch of Iranian to gene pool but not all. On the other hand, the case is somewhat different among Balkan Turks. We see the effects of Tatars in the Turkic admixture, but how come these people carry 50% Iranian?

---

What if Oghuz were even more Iranian than believed and some of the Iranian in Central Anatolia gets eaten by the ancient Anatolian component because the split of Western and Iranian is easier? It looks like the more West you go the more Iranian the input becomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaspias

Farsi.

---

Then thats really interesting. Maybe Someone whos more azerbaijani or chorasani shifted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyp Snow

What if Oghuz were even more Iranian than believed and some of the Iranian in Central Anatolia gets eaten by the ancient Anatolian component because the split of Western and Iranian is easier? It looks like the more West you go the more Iranian the input becomes.

---

This would make sense. But how are we going to explain the process of being more Iranic of Oghuz? Shouldn't they be in the same parallel with Göktürk samples? I mean there should be an interaction with Iranic between the period Göktürk and Oghuz Yabgu. Was there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gecko

Then thats really interesting. Maybe Someone whos more azerbaijani or chorasani shifted?

---

It may be the reason why see no Iranian on North is they didn't take migration after the settlement of the Turks who formed Beyliks. For the rest of the regions, Timurid and Mongol invasions pushed Turkmen tribes who settled in Eastern Anatolia and Iran to the West, this should be a source for Iranian admixture in Anatolia. Or maybe something else. But it is clear to me that there were neither mass Iranian mixing nor first Turk settled was carrying Iranian. That admixture should be introduced to the gene pool with further waves of migrations. Same applies to Balkan Turks:

These Balkan Turks are an average of the who live in the regions only inhabited by first Turkic settlers of Balkans and their village was present before the 1500s. Check their Gedrosia score, they show no Iranian admixture and quite low East Eurasian:

Xanthi + South Komotini

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 31.01
2 North_European 26.74
3 Atlantic_Med 19.79
4 Southwest_Asian 8.48
5 Gedrosia 4.99
6 Siberian 3.77
7 Northwest_African 2.55
8 East_Asian 1.82
9 East_African 0.35
10 Sub_Saharan 0.34
11 Southeast_Asian 0.17


Drama + Northern Kavala

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_European 27.82
2 Caucasus 27.69
3 Atlantic_Med 25.93
4 Southwest_Asian 10.32
5 Gedrosia 4.41
6 Siberian 3.19
7 Southeast_Asian 0.64


And check this result(regular Balkan Turk)

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 26.47
2 North_European 22.23
3 Atlantic_Med 20.59
4 Gedrosia 9.55
5 Southwest_Asian 8.88
6 Siberian 6.27
7 East_Asian 2.64
8 South_Asian 2.31
9 Northwest_African 0.63
10 East_African 0.41


These first Turks should be outnumbered by natives which caused such reduced East Eurasian admixture. This is also one of the reasons why Balkan Turks have a small amount of East Eurasian. On the other hand, I predict almost half of these early Turks already died during wars, because they were the only manpower of Turks in Balkans during that time period. After all further waves brought fresh East Eurasian to the region and introduced Iranic.