Orangepulp's DNA tribes results.

[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:

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:

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.

[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)

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:

Spoiler!

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.