Dodecad k12b south, west and central asian results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gecko

It seems that the less turkic azerbaijanis are those one of and of the near of dagestan. They are more caucasian shifted.



Azerbaijanis and Anatolian turks have most times nearly the same east asian admixture. Just anatolian turks are more western and azerbaijani turks are more iranian shifted. Western azerbaijanis and eastern A.turks are nearly the same, caucasian shifted turks. i believe there are many azerbaijanis who score 10-15% east asian, maybe more.

---

I believe isolated Azerbaijanis score much more east asian such as Afshars and Qarapapaqs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babak

I believe isolated Azerbaijanis score much more east asian such as Afshars and Qarapapaqs.

---

I don't understand the importance of 5-10% Central Asian admixture if 95-90% is genetically identical or at least very similar. Actually I would be shocked if some East Eurasian admixture didn't exist on the Plateau as far back as the earliest Iranic empires. I believe to remember that even some Bronze/Iron Age East Anatolian samples (most likely Iranic because of very high Gedrosia percentages too) showed few percentages of East Eurasian admixture (3-4%). I know that there are some Azeris and Turkmens who can score as high as 15% Central Asian but I think they are rather exception than norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

What I am asking myself who actually gives much about 5-10% Central Asian admixture if 95-90% is genetically identical or at least very similar. Actually I would be shocked if some East Eurasian admixture didn't exist on the Plateau as far back as the earliest Iranic empires. I believe to remember that even some Bronze/Iron Age East Anatolian samples (most likely Iranic because of very high Gedrosia percentages too) showed few percentages of East Eurasian admixture (3-4%). I know that there are some Azeris and Turkmens who can score as high as 15% Central Asian but I think they are rather exception than norm.

---

I agree with this. It's not necessarily a mark of Turkic ancestry. It may very much be from the early Iranic empires which makes sense given that the first Iranic tribes originate from that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halgurd

I agree with this. It's not necessarily a mark of Turkic ancestry. It may very much be from the early Iranic empires.

---

Actually I was not trying to disprove the Turkic origin of this East Eurasian admixture in them. Most of it in Azeris and Turkmens indeed derives very likely from Turkic tribes in Central Asia.

I just don't agree with this notion of East Eurasian being such a "foreign" aspect of the West Asian let alone overal Iranic landscape. The way how it is filtered out to prove or disprove something. I see some Iranians trying to filter it out as some "undesireable" thing as if it didn't exist in their history while it was found in some of the earliest Iranic speakers. While some Turks catching it up to prove their Turkic-ness as if without it they couldn't claim Turkish identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

Actually I was not trying to disprove the Turkic origin of this East Eurasian admixture in them. Most of it in Azeris and Turkmens indeed derives very likely from Turkic tribes in Central Asia.

I just don't agree with this notion of East Eurasian being such a "foreign" aspect of the West Eurasian let alone overal Iranic landscape. They way how it is filtered out to prove or disprove something. I see some Iranians trying to filter it out as some "undesireable" thing as if it didn't exist in their history. While some Turks catching it up to prove their Turkic-ness as if without it they couldn't claim Turkish identity.

---

I think it could be a steppe thing. We know that Scythians and other Iranic steppe people have sometimes been found within mongoloid DNA. Therefore if you are an R1a descendant of one of these it’s possible that you could carry it I suppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

Actually I was not trying to disprove the Turkic origin of this East Eurasian admixture in them. Most of it in Azeris and Turkmens indeed derives very likely from Turkic tribes in Central Asia.

I just don't agree with this notion of East Eurasian being such a "foreign" aspect of the West Eurasian let alone overal Iranic landscape. They way how it is filtered out to prove or disprove something. I see some Iranians trying to filter it out as some "undesireable" thing as if it didn't exist in their history. While some Turks catching it up to prove their Turkic-ness as if without it they couldn't claim Turkish identity.

---

Yes I know. I meant it more from the view that I have high east Eurasian results compared to the average Kurd and people usually try to point this out as Turkic ancestry. But I can name my ancestors back about 7/8 generations and there is not a single known Turk (whether Anatolian Turk, Azeri or Turkmen) amongst my ancestors.

I believe it is much more ancient linked to early migration of Iranic tribes. In my city it is well known that when Cyaxares liberated Erbil from the Assyrians he allowed the Iranic Sagartian tribe to settle the city and the whole district. It may very well be from this period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr_Maul

I think it could be a steppe thing. We know that Scythians and other Iranic steppe people have sometimes been found within mongoloid DNA. Therefore if you are an R1a descendant of one of these it’s possible that you could carry it I suppose

---

Possibly. I really think this idea that East Eurasian in Iranic populations=Turkic is very ridiculous. If our original forefathers had it then it makes sense for us to have it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demhat

I don't understand the importance of 5-10% Central Asian admixture if 95-90% is genetically identical or at least very similar. Actually I would be shocked if some East Eurasian admixture didn't exist on the Plateau as far back as the earliest Iranic empires. I believe to remember that even some Bronze/Iron Age East Anatolian samples (most likely Iranic because of very high Gedrosia percentages too) showed few percentages of East Eurasian admixture (3-4%). I know that there are some Azeris and Turkmens who can score as high as 15% Central Asian but I think they are rather exception than norm.

---

I completely agree, but I wasn't talking about Iranics specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halgurd

Yes I know. I meant it more from the view that I have high east Eurasian results compared to the average Kurd and people usually try to point this out as Turkic ancestry. But I can name my ancestors back about 7/8 generations and there is not a single known Turk (whether Anatolian Turk, Azeri or Turkmen) amongst my ancestors.

I believe it is much more ancient linked to early migration of Iranic tribes. In my city it is well known that when Cyaxares liberated Erbil from the Assyrians he allowed the Iranic Sagartian tribe to settle the city and the whole district. It may very well be from this period.

---

You should add your Dodecad to this thread otherwise your posts are deemed off-topic :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

You should your Dodecad to this thread otherwise your posts are deemed off-topic :p

---

I’ve been trying to find my results for a while but without luck. I may just have to upload my 23andme to gedmatch again.