Thursday, November 18, 2010

How Turkish are Anatolians? revisiting the question

In 2005, I estimated the Y-chromosome heritage of Turkic speakers on modern Anatolians at 11%.

In the same year, I estimated the Mongoloid admixture in Anatolian Turks at 6.2% on the basis of Y-chromosome and mtDNA. This is not inconsistent with the previous percentage, as the Turks, when they arrived in Anatolia were almost certainly of mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid heritage.

Surprisingly, the maternal contribution from East Eurasia seems higher than the paternal one, on the basis of uniparental markers. But, that is not so surprising if one considers that the Turks who arrived to Anatolia were to a degree descended from Turkicized groups of Iranian steppe nomads bearing Caucasoid patrilineages. Already we have ancient DNA evidence of groups in Central Asia with Caucasoid patrlineages (R1a1) and mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid mtDNA.

In 2007, some Turkish researchers estimated, using Alu polymorphisms, the Central Asian admixture in Turks at 13%, quite close to my own estimate, and, given the observation that there is more Mongoloid mtDNA than Mongoloid Y-chromosomes in modern Anatolians, the slight difference of 2% is probably taken care of.

In October, I estimated the Mongoloid admixture in Turks at 5.5%, quite close to the 6.2% arrived in 2005 using Y-chromosomes and mtDNA. Subsequently, my K=10 Dodecad analysis (spreadsheet) arrived at 6.7% sum of "East Asian" and "Northeast Asian" components. The slight increase is not surprising, as the K=10 analysis included a greater sampling of Mongoloid diversity.

In ISBA4, another group of Turkish researchers arrived at a 13% estimate for the nomadic Turkic element in modern Anatolian Turks.

Finally, my K=15 analysis has revealed 7.9% "eastern" components in Turks. Given that the "Central Siberian" component is equidistant from Caucasoids and Mongoloids, this translates into about 7.2% East Eurasian admixture. Again, the slightly larger result can be accounted by the sampling of even greater Mongoloid diversity, from the previously unsampled Siberia.

Summary

Y-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA analysis by myself and by Turkish researchers all point to 6-7% of Turkish genetic heritage being specifically east Eurasian in origin, and about 1/7 of their genetic heritage coming from Central Asia.

ADMIXTURE analysis

I received an e-mail from a Turkish participant in the project, who wondered whether the K=15 analysis was supportive of much higher demographic influence of Central Asian Turks in the current Turkish population.

In particular, a back-of-the-envelope calculation of "eastern" components in Turks and Uzbeks led him to the conclusion that this was at least 20% and probably more.

Thus, I decided to perform direct ADMIXTURE analysis of Turks and Uzbeks to see what the estimate of Central Asian admixture in Turks actually is.

In the above figure, there are (left-to-right): 1 Dodecad Project 50% Turk-50% Laz showing no Central Asian admixture, 3 Dodecad Project Turks, 19 Turks from Behar et al. (2010), followed by Uzbeks (blue, with some seemingly admixed individuals), followed by 15 Dodecad Project Greeks and Armenians (red).

Behar et al. (2010) Turks have 15.4% Central Asian admixture; if we add the 3 Dodecad Project Turks to the sample, this becomes 14.4%. I'll be happy to tell the three Turks in the Project their individual proportions if they e-mail me.

In conclusion, this analysis too provides an estimate of the Central Asian component in Turks similar to all the ones listed in the beginning.

Conclusion

Estimating the precise genetic identity of nomadic Turks at their time of arrival in Anatolia is difficult to achieve. First of all, modern Anatolian Turks are a subset of recent Anatolians; second, there is the problem of how many Iranian-speakers were absorbed by the westward migrating Turks from Central Asia, and when; also, what was the impact of the Mongol expansion in Central Asia after Turks had already reached the west, and later what were the impacts of Chinese and Russian expansion in the Eurasian heartland.

It's all a big puzzle, but, for the time being 5-7% East Eurasian admixture in modern Anatolian Turks and about 1/7th of their heritage coming from Central Asia seems like a reasonable estimate.

41 comments:

  1. Assuming that all "easterly" Greek blood comes from the encounter with Turks, the percentage of Turkish presence in the modern Greek gene pool rises from 4.5% to 11.4% when going from your K=10 to your K=15 analysis. That seems a bit high to me and suggests that Marnie was right in seeing the new run as kind of Asian-tilted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a matter of noise added of the components centered on populations with few individuals (mostly the Siberian ones), it's not a matter of being "Asian-tilted".

    Also, there is an implicit assumption in your post that the Turkish input into the Greek gene pool was similar to that of present-day Turks. That is not, however, the case, as this input may have occurred at any time since the 11th century until the 20th, a time period during which we can assume that the Mongoloid component in Turks has monotonically decreased.

    Thus, any Turks the Greeks may have admixed with were almost certainly not like the present-day Turks, and hence the percentages you list should be diminished substantially.

    PS: And of course it should be pointed out that (i) the actual Central Asian Turkic element in the Greek gene pool, even if the original Turks were only 50% Mongoloid is no more than 1-2%, and (ii) there is no reason to think that all of the small East Eurasian component in Greeks comes from Turks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. there is the problem of how many Iranian-speakers were absorbed by the westward migrating Turks from Central Asia, and when

    Adding Iranians to the ADMIXTURE analysis would shed some light to this question. Additionally, it would be informative to add Georgians, Adygei, Lezgins and Middle Eastern Arabs too.

    what was the impact of the Mongol expansion in Central Asia after Turks had already reached the west

    It seems that the genetic impact of the Mongol expansion in Central Asia was pretty much limited to the Y-chromosomes. Paternal genetic impacts usually cannot alone make a significant change in autosomes, so the genetic impact of the Mongol expansion in Central Asia should be small.

    what were the impacts of Chinese and Russian expansion in the Eurasian heartland

    Even smaller than the Mongol expansion, as Russians and Chinese have been pretty much averse to mixing with Central Asians.

    1 Dodecad Project 50% Turk-50% Laz showing no Central Asian admixture, 3 Dodecad Project Turks

    His Turkish (Pontic Turk in his case) side too has no Central Asian admixture, so it seems that Turkification is more complicated than it seems from afar. Turkification should be investigated with a region and sub-ethnic group-based focus. BTW, are there any Balkan Turks (full or partial) among the project participants? They may show up genetically quite different from Anatolian Turks, like probably Pontic Turks. Also are there other Pontic Turks (full or partial) among the project participants? Lastly, I wonder from which regions and sub-ethnic groups Behar et al's Turks are, do you have any info about them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. and Middle Eastern Arabs too

    also other Middle Eastern Semites

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also Cypriots. BTW, are there any Azeris and Turkmens among the project participants?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dont forget to keep in mind that at the beginning(before the generalisation of islamization of Anatolia)the newcomer muslim Turks,Iranians and Turko-Iranians had a demographic advantage(because of polygamy and harem)over local Anatolian Christians!

    ReplyDelete
  7. there is the problem of how many Iranian-speakers were absorbed by the westward migrating Turks from Central Asia, and when

    BTW, from genetics and history I think that the Turkic migration to Asia Minor and NW Iran from Central Asia was a rapid leapfrog event(s) that largely bypassed the rest of Iran, so migrating Central Asian Turkics arrived Asia Minor and NW Iran with no significant admixture with Iranians.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Demographic advantage? There were millions of Anatolians compared with some thousands of "Turks". I doubt the "Turks" had enough vim to impregnate the many millions of local Anatolian women no matter how large their harems or the pre Muslim polygamous practices taken over by the Muslims. Be realistic.

    As a European I am more interested in teasing out the pre Neolithic and post Neolithic substratums of the modern European populations than what happened in Anatolia fairly recently in history. It is important to Anatolians too as their pre "Turk" ancestry is tied with that of Europe. The effects of the Levantine or Arabian peninsula genetic contributions to both Europe and Anatolia far outweigh the effects of some thousands of "Turks" in Anatolia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also wonder how Turkish/Muslim Cypriots and Cretans would show up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1.To Ponto: You obviously have trouble understanding what you read. Dienekes suggests that when compared with Uzbeks Turks have 14.4% Central Asian ancestry. We know that Turks of Turkey came from Northeast Iran and Turkmenistan. As such when compared with those populations this admixture is expected to be even higher. Even if there were millions of Anatolians before Turks apparently millions of Turks came to Anatolia as well.

    2. To Onur: Do you know no history Onur? You suggest that Turks of Turkey largely bypassed Iran. How did you pull that out of your ass? I guess you are now aware that there are about 20 million Azeris and Turkmen living in Iran. Who do you think they are? Where do you think the Seljuq Empire ruled from? From Iran. Look at this map:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seljuk_Empire_locator_map.svg

    How in the hell do you think Turks leapfrogged Iran? Turks of Turkey first captured Iran then Anatolia.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mehmet, when I said they largely bypassed the rest of Iran I excluded NW Iran, the part of Iran where Azeris live, so there is nothing unusual in what I suggest (after all, the overwhelming majority of Turkic-speakers of Iran live in NW Iran, so-called Azeris). As for Turkmens of Iran, they are a small community and limited to the area of Iran bordering Turkmenistan, so they are just a natural extension of Turkmens of Turkmenistan. Anatolia was colonized not long after NW Iran, so there wasn't enough time to admix even with the natives of NW Iran before the colonization of Anatolia. Thus most (the overwhelming majority I'd say) of the non-Central Asian and/or Turkic admixture in Anatolian Turks must have come from the natives of Anatolia.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correction: non-Central Asian and/or non-Turkic admixture in Anatolian Turks

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think to investigate the extent or the Turkic input in Anatolia we should look at the north mongoloid Altaic component(since Turk homeland is in northeastern Siberia around the Lena river as[by linguists]shown by mutual proto Turkic proto Eskimo linguistic contacts;and suggestingly the Altaic component is highest amongst Turkic Yakuts)wich is around 2,5% compared to nearly 93% other Caucasoids.

    Contrarily to Norman soldiers that adopted the French of the locals, Turkic advancing soldiers "were unable to learn" Persian and it was the local Iranians that learnt Turkic in order to communicate with the military admnistration(though it logically resulted in a language with much of the vocabulary, all conjunctions as well as literary styles being local Persian and Arabo-Persian since the newcomers' Turkic language was limited to 300-350 elementary mono and bisyllabic roots with very basal meanings in line with the hunter way of life of the proto Turks originating in northeastern Siberian steppes around the Lena river)

    But in the case of both Iran and Anatolia the cultural and genetic input of the migrating Turks is nearly inexisting(especially culturally speaking)the Turkic language diffused to western Anatolia by mere language transmission("hoping over Armenian,Aramean and Kurdish speaking eastern Anatolia")to the ottomans who are most likely local Anatolians(the ottoman patriline Y-DNA is J2)

    As for the Saljuks they were Iranian by culture and mother tongue(with titles from Iranian mythology:kaykubad,kaukhusrev,siyavush,kaykawus...)to an extent that Mevlana Rumi's father Sultan Walad thanked Saljuk King Masud for his defeating of the Turks whom he called "world-burners" indeed(except 2,6% Turk,Mongol Mongoloids and 6,6%other[Ket,Uralic...] Mongoloids)the 14,2% of Central Asians that came to Anatolia were Caucasoid Indo-European speaking Iranians(Tajiks,Soghdians,Persians...)
    Iranians are local Indo-European speaking Caucasoids with an Iranian culture and languages(except some Turkic elementary superstratum in the speech of a portion of the population of Iran)and the genetic,phenotypic,cultural and even linguistic input of the Altaic speaking Mongoloid Turks and Mongols is nearly inexisting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Even if there were millions of Anatolians before Turks apparently millions of Turks came to Anatolia as well"

    Those numbers are impossible since there was not such high population by those times in nomadic Central Asia and nomadic human groups can not reach and sustain such high numbers, according to various historians at maximum 500 thousands to 1 mln Central Asians(see Arnold Toynbee...)did migrate to Anatolia and Iran during a period of 5 centuries and much of them were local Central Asian Iranians sufi masters, farmers and artisans(Tajiks,Persians,Soghdians,Pashtuns...such as Mevlana Jalal al Din Rumi,Hajji Bektashi...)with a minor number of them formed by diverse Turk as well as Turkified Turko-Iranians warriors and nomads(an important part of them during wars against other Turk beyliks and emirate such as qaraqoyunlu,aqqoyunlu,qaraman... as well as against crusaders, mongols etc...).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert had arrived what is now Turkmenistan (from what is now Kazakhstan) very little before Asia Minor, so they didn't have enough time to admix even with the natives of Turkmenistan (who were Iranian-speaking), thus Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert were very probably more Mongoloid than present-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan, who have had enough time (1000 years) to admix with the natives of Turkmenistan (also note that according to genetic studies Mongol invasions had no detectable effect in Turkmens of Turkmenistan, thus no part of the Mongoloid components of Turkmens of Turkmenistan can be ascribed to Mongols). In conclusion, present-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan are no proxy for Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert, what we see in the case of Asia Minor is a rapid migration event(s) from what is now Kazakhstan through what is now Turkmenistan and Iran to Asia Minor with probably very negligible genetic admixture from what is now Turkmenistan and Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  16. did migrate to Anatolia and Iran during a period of 5 centuries

    Migrations mostly happened during the first 200 years (not constantly, but with interruptions) following Manzikert. Migrations after that was very probably in negligible quantities.

    at maximum 500 thousands to 1 mln Central Asians

    What I've read is that all those migrants through all these centuries numbered at most 400-500 thousand and Anatolia had a population of about 13 million, maybe even more.

    much of them were local Central Asian Iranians sufi masters, farmers and artisans

    Based on the contemporary historical sources, most of the migrants to Asia Minor were very probably nomadic Turkmens coming from what is now Kazakhstan. Farming, artisanship and workmanship were almost totally provided by Anatolian natives, who were totally non-Muslim (the overwhelming majority Christian, the rest Jew) at the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  17. onur, no triple posting allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry, Dieneke, I didn't know the rules of this blog. Next time I will keep that in mind. May I repost now?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've told you the rules several times. Combine all your thoughts into ONE post. Sure, sometimes you may forget something, so you can do TWO posts. Doing three posts back to back (as you've already done in this thread, and you attempted to do again) is forbidden. You may submit your post, but this is the last time I allow this; from now on if I see a third comment it will go to the trash. If I see 3 comments back to back in my moderating queue they will all go to the trash.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What we see in the case of Turkics coming to Asia Minor (almost all of whom were Oghuz/Turkmen nomads who had very recently left what is now Kazakhstan) is a ubiquitous process of intensive admixture with Anatolian natives (who were very populous and were found in every corner of Anatolia in high numbers unlike Turkics, who were a very small minority in Anatolia) to such a large extent enough to remove all of their Mongoloid traits and to make them physically indistinguishable from Anatolian natives. During this process of intensive admixture with Anatolian natives, which lasted for many centuries, those with Mongoloid traits would naturally increasingly be at a disadvantage in finding a spouse and would be removed from the phenotypic pool. Mongoloid components in present-day Anatolian Turks detected in genetic studies are only a very small trace of the once very big Mongoloid components of Turkmens coming to Asia Minor that existed in them until their intensive admixture with Anatolian natives, which were bigger by several orders of magnitude than the Mongoloid components of present-day Anatolian Turks.

    PS: I didn't know that the "no triple posting rule" applied to this blog, so it didn't occur to me that I was trangressing a rule. Sorry again for my mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Erratum,should be
    "an important part of them died during different and continous wars against other Turk beyliks and emirate such as qaraqoyunlu,aqqoyunlu,qaraman... as well as against crusaders, mongols etc...)."

    Back to topic
    North Azerbidjan (Arran,Shirvan) and south Azerbidjan were still Iranic(Persian,Fahlawi,Tati,Talishi,Kurdish...)speaking before the beginning of the Safavid(who descends from a Kurd family that adopted Turkic superstratum to speak with Turk soldiers)rule and Tebriz remined majoritly Iranic speaking as late as the end of the 17 th century.

    As for Anatolia, it's only with the beginning of the 13 rd century that texts written in Turkic begun to appear nevertheless the texts written in the vernacular folk Turkic were highly influenced(both lexically, morphologically and literary) by Persian and the Arabo-Persian to an extent that all conjunctions of the Turkic language are either Persian either Arabic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. By the way of people living in what is todays Turkey, but 6000 years ago...whoever they were then?
    I saw a headline in sunday swedish newspaper "Dagens Nyheter"; "Nordens bönder kom från Turkiet" (Farmers in north came from Turkey). Anders Götherströms group of researchers, from the university of Uppsala, has started a comprehensive study of genetics from archaeological sites. They are going to use other DNA-informations than mt-DNA.

    ReplyDelete
  23. BTW, Iranics (including the ones in Central Asia like Tajiks and Pashtuns) coming to Asia Minor were in much much smaller numbers than Turkmens coming to Asia Minor, but they were highly influential on Turkmens and constituted the backbone of the state organization, Muslim religious organization and high culture in Muslim-ruled parts of Asia Minor; without them, Turkmens could never organize the conquest, administration and Islamization of Asia Minor, as Turkmens were just primitive tribal nomads. Even the Islamization of Turkmens themselves (when they were living in what is now Kazakhstan) had been the work of Iranics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As Turkmens who arrived Asia Minor had very recently (beginning from the 11th century with Seljuk migrations) left what is now Kazakhstan, they were probably genetically closest to Kazakhs among all modern day Turkic peoples before their intensive admixture with Anatolian natives. Also like Kazakhs, they were a typical nomadic Central Asian steppe people with very similar traditions to them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Onur how did you come up with the claim that Seljuqs came from Kazakhstan? Your persistent attitude to prove that we Turks are not Turkic is really ideological.

    Seljuqs actually came from Khazaria from around Ukraine to Azerbaijan. You should read some history before making false claims.

    Dienekes' finding that Turks are 1/7 Central Asian is with respect to an Uzbek population. Once the reference population becomes a Khazar/Turkmen population this 1/7 ratio is bound to increase. Please stop lying, it becomes too ideological and very little scientific. You even totally ignore Dienekes' analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You even totally ignore Dienekes' analysis.

    My analysis, and that of two different groups of Turkish researchers on several types of genetic data converges on Turks being about 1/7 Central Asian in origin.

    Good luck finding "Khazars" or Turkmen that are representative of 1,000AD Turkic groups to bolster your theory though.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Seljuqs actually came from Khazaria from around Ukraine to Azerbaijan. You should read some history before making false claims.

    Mehmet, everyone with a little knowledge of the Turkic migrations to Asia Minor knows that Seljuqs and Turkmens came to Asia Minor from what is now Kazakhstan. Is stating what is obvious from history ideological? I have read enough about the Turkic migrations to Asia Minor (from the books of prominent historians worldwide), so I am 100% sure that I am right about the source of the Turkic migrations to Asia Minor. So it is you who is wrong. BTW, Khazar lands extended to the Aral Sea and their sphere of influence probably extended east of the Aral Sea. Anyway, Oghuz/Turkmens were different people from Khazars (even their Turkic languages were very different, one of them being Shaz Turkic, the other being Lir Turkic, so their languages were unintelligible to each other) and, unlike Khazars, Oghuz/Turkmens almost totally lived in what is now Kazakhstan prior to the Seljuq migrations in the 11th century CE.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert had arrived what is now Turkmenistan (from what is now Kazakhstan) very little before Asia Minor, so they didn't have enough time to admix even with the natives of Turkmenistan (who were Iranian-speaking), thus Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert were very probably more Mongoloid than present-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan, who have had enough time (1000 years) to admix with the natives of Turkmenistan (also note that according to genetic studies Mongol invasions had no detectable effect in Turkmens of Turkmenistan, thus no part of the Mongoloid components of Turkmens of Turkmenistan can be ascribed to Mongols).

    Also note that absorption of the natives of what is now Turkmenistan was completed few centuries ago, as when Russians first came to what is now Turkmenistan, almost all of the population there was Turkic-speaking (predominantly Turkmen), with almost no Iranian-speakers. So Turkmens of Turkmenistan must be highly admixed with the natives of what is now Turkmenistan, who, we know, were completely Iranian (mainly Persian/Tajik) -speaking prior to the Seljuq migrations. But when Turkmens first came to what is now Turkmenistan from what is now Kazakhstan in the first half of the 11th century with the Seljuq migrations, and from there fastly moved to Asia Minor and environs in the middle of the same century, they weren't admixed with the natives of what is now Turkmenistan and were most probably clearly more Mongoloid than Turkmens of present-day Turkmenistan. Turkmen migration to what is now Turkmenistan from what is now Kazakhstan must have lasted for some time (maybe a few centuries, but not necessarily constant). In conclusion, modern Kazakhs are probably the best living genetic proxy for the Turkmens coming to Asia Minor beginning from the 11th century Seljuq migarations. Of course, a good number of ancient DNAs from the very first Turkmens in Asia Minor would be much more conclusive scientifically.

    An important factor in the Turkification + Islamization of Anatolia is the mass enslavements, which were very frequent in the centuries following the Seljuq migrations and greatly facilitated the Turkification + Islamization of Anatolian natives (not necessarily voluntarily, but many people voluntarily converted to Islam for freedom and equal rights with Muslims).

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have seen varying Y-DNA and mtDNA estimates that are misleading, as they calculate 'admixture' using y/mtdna markers that have paleolithic depths. 14% mongoloid is way too high for Turks or Iranians. Within Turkey and Iran, you will find mtdna and y-chromsome markers that are generally common in asians, but these markers have their origins closer to the beginning, or well before the Last Galacial Maxim. Iran is fairly diverse. Among the main Fars or Azeri population (and ignoring types with 'immediate' ancestory from the several ethnic minorities; ie Balucois, Iranian Arabs, Turkomen, Hormozians), the total amount of recent admixture attributable to East Asians, is close to 1.5%. Now the Arab component is approximately 15%, for both Iranians and Turks (This is based off the distribution of haplogroup J1). If Turks were 1/8 Asian, one would almost always be able to see clear mongoloid features by looking at them (search for 1/8 Asian on google). However, such mongoloid features rare amongst turks and iranians, and are limited to ethnic (central Asian) minorites within these nations.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 14% mongoloid is way too high for Turks or Iranians.

    Read the post again. It's 14% Central Asian, which is part Mongoloid.

    If Turks were 1/8 Asian, one would almost always be able to see clear mongoloid features by looking at them (search for 1/8 Asian on google).

    Turks are ~5-7% Mongoloid based on the available sample, and, yes, this influence is phenotypically visible in a large number of them, although obviously in much diluted form. I'd say you can find many Turks who look Southern European/West Asian, many who have a slight Mongoloid influence, and a small number whose Mongoloid features are more pronounced.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Turks are ~5-7% Mongoloid based on the available sample, and, yes, this influence is phenotypically visible in a large number of them, although obviously in much diluted form. I'd say you can find many Turks who look Southern European/West Asian, many who have a slight Mongoloid influence, and a small number whose Mongoloid features are more pronounced.

    The perceptual separation line between full Caucasoid look and Caucasoid look with a slight Mongoloid influence isn't so clear. So a full Caucasoid-looking Turk who would be classified phenotypically as full Caucasoid when his/her ethnicity is unknown may be classified phenotypically as Caucasoid with a slight Mongoloid influence when it is known that he/she is a Turk because of a bias about Turks. This is just one of the numerous reasons why I trust craniofacial studies much more than personal observations. As to people in Turkey who have craniofacial features that permit us to undoubtedly detect any Mongoloid influence with only eyes, they are, as John states, clearly a small minority in Turkey and almost totally limited to people from very small ethnic minorities (some of Crimean Tatars, Central Asian temporary resident students/workers, etc.) in Turkey almost all of which are recent (from about 150 years ago at the earliest) migrants (not necessarily permanent, as in temporary residents) to Turkey.

    ReplyDelete
  32. hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as " %100 turkified anatolians" ... i wonder how that Oghuz Turkmens turkified settled people??
    and what about greeks? yea greeks are %100 pure nation, they have tens of haplogroups but all of them "pure greek" haplogroups right?? bow down!
    r1a, l, r1b , n , c , q , o etc. all of them carried by Seljuks to anatolia!

    ReplyDelete
  33. hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as " %100 turkified anatolians"

    Incorrect. My estimate is that they are 6/7 pre-Turkic.

    ReplyDelete
  34. i wonder how that Oghuz Turkmens turkified settled people??

    Original Turkmens probably almost only Turkified (in language) and/or Islamized Anatolian native communities and nomadized them little if any, so there is nothing unusual. Of course original Turkmens, whether while still nomad or settled, took wives and concubines from Anatolian natives and had children from them diluting their original Turkmen genes in the process in every generation with such unions. Original Turkmens had exogamous marriage practices, so marrying or concubinizing non-Turkmens was not a problem for them. It may be problematic for you, but it was not problematic for them.

    r1a, l, r1b , n , c , q , o etc. all of them carried by Seljuks to anatolia!

    What is important is not the presence of haplogroups but their ratios.

    ReplyDelete
  35. R1a and R1b in Turks are probably almost totally from Anatolian and Balkan natives. L in Turks also seems mostly native. Q in Turks may also be mostly native. C and O in Turks are probably completely from original Turkmens, but they make up only 1.5% of the Turkish Y-chromosomes. N in Turks does not make sense, as N is not a major haplogroup in both Anatolian and Balkan natives and Central Asian peoples, so it may mostly be legacy of the flow of Russian slaves to Anatolia that began during the Seljuq times and continued throughout the Ottoman times; some of it may be from an undocumented Crimean Tatar migration to the Balkans and from there to Anatolia during the Ottoman times when Crimea was an Ottoman territory.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In 2007, some Turkish researchers estimated, using Alu polymorphisms, the Central Asian admixture in Turks at 13%, quite close to my own estimate, and, given the observation that there is more Mongoloid mtDNA than Mongoloid Y-chromosomes in modern Anatolians, the slight difference of 2% is probably taken care of.

    In ISBA4, another group of Turkish researchers arrived at a 13% estimate for the nomadic Turkic element in modern Anatolian Turks.


    Those two groups of Turkish researchers that arrived at a 13% ratio are connected to each other, their lead researchers are the same and they use the same or very similar materials and methods, so they are surely not independent from each other. Those two papers are surely extensions of the same study and aren't independent from each other.

    ReplyDelete
  37. onur, you are such an anti-Turkic person and all of your words are ideological. such as "r1a and r1b from balkan".. no, the r1a in Turkey, is different than in balkans. the r1a1a in Turkey is same with Kyrgyzstan r1a1a. you want to show "there were only few iranian(!) nomads and they turkified anatolia". its hilarious and totally anti-Turkic claim. and even these researches include kurds, arabs, bosniaks, laz etc minorities in Turkey. if you make a research about only ethnic Turks, the central asian genes will found much higher. The L, N, K, C, Q, O, R1a, - genes in anatolia comprises %36-40 and all of them carried by Seljuk Turks / Turkmens. the predominant element in anatolia was j2 before the Turkic migration. L, N, K, C, Q, O, R1a are carried with Seljuks. i did not see such a ideological lier like you, what is your nationality? dont say to me "Turkish" , you can say that you r from Turkey, but you cant be a Turk. sorry for my basic english.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "N in Turks does not make sense, as N is not a major haplogroup in both Anatolian and Balkan natives and Central Asian peoples, so it may mostly be legacy of the flow of Russian slaves to Anatolia that began during the Seljuq times and continued throughout the Ottoman times;" onur; you are not only anti-Turkic , but also ignorant. the N,C,Q genes in crimean Tatars are only %12-14. and the genes of these researches did not taken from crimean Tatars.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Arslan Giray,

    I never said all of R1a and all of R1b in Turks come from the Balkans. In fact, I think that they are mostly West Asian - Anatolian to be more specific - in origin. Also, I never said "Iranian nomads Turkified Anatolia". As I stated countless times, it was the Turkic nomads from what is now Kazakhstan who Turkified Anatolia. Claiming that all of L, N, K, C, Q, O, R1a in Turks were carried by Seljuqs/Turkmens has no scientific basis; it is just your ideological wishful thinking. BTW, almost all of R1a in Turks are R1a1 clades, and the most common R1a1 haplotype in Turks matches the most common R1a1 haplotype in Armenians, as noted by Cinnioglu et al. 2004. As for J2 in Turks, Turks, Greeks and Armenians have an equal ratio of J2 (all of them in the 22-24% range according to Eupedia). As for N in Turks, I do not have a clear opinion about it for now; it probably has multiple ethnic sources (like almost all haplogroups of Turks). BTW, researchers are careful enough to sample only ethnic Turks and exclude ethnic minorities when sampling a Turkish population for most of the time. Lastly, haplogroups, and especially Y haplogroups, are a very poor indicator of overall genetics; autosomes are much more informative.

    As for my ethnic background, all of my known ancestors are ethnic Turks. Your wishful thinking about my ethnic background is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have heard over the last months. As if being ethnic Turk automatically makes you immune to certain inferences! Especially ridiculous since my inferences are scientific rather than ideological. Your name-callings and false accusations toward me only show your ideological bias.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Search Sultan Baibars /Baybars

    The phenotype of Baybars or European Qipchaqs (=Cumans), of whom Baybars was a member, is irrelevant as Cumans were a European Turkic people, not Central Asian. Cumans formed as a result of the blend of the Qipchaq invaders from Central Asia with East European natives (be them Slavic or Uralic).

    ReplyDelete