After DOD633, there are now 600 active and unrelated members in the Project. I have included all these members in a few experiments that were aimed to:
- Test the bootstrap-based standard error reporting in ADMIXTURE 1.12
- Create a simple global test that would allow me to get a quick feel of where a sample comes from
- Test a few of my observations about minute shifts towards distant populations that I have been writing about in my other blog of late.
- Compare supervised vs. unsupervised ADMIXTURE modes
I have included five ancestral groups in addition to the Project participants: Papuans, Karitiana Amerindians, Lithuanian/Tuscan Europeans, Mbuti/San Palaeoafricans, and She/Tujia East Asians. The analysis is based on 138,839 SNPs after quality-control and LD-based pruning.
There are four different experiments:
- Supervised ADMIXTURE analysis, with five ancestral groups (K=5)
- Unsupervised ADMIXTURE groups (K=6). Asian and European Caucasoids split at K=5 so I upped K to 6 in order for all the five ancestral groups to be recreated.
- Principal Components analysis (all samples)
- Principal Components analysis (Dodecad samples projected on 5 ancestral groups)
All samples (PC1: 4.05%, PC2: 2.70% of variance):
Projected (PC1: 12.73%, PC2: 7.85% of the variance):
The raw numbers for all participants can be found in the spreadsheet.
I'm surprised to find how much Amerindian admixture shows up in these samples.
ReplyDeleteI think that's part of the small Asian shifts that I alluded to. There seems to be a boreal factor X that is pulling northern Europeans towards Amerindians.
ReplyDeleteThe Turkish mean and median for East Asian is 7.3%. Significant remnant of Turkish journey from Central Asia in to Anatolia indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe Turkish mean and median for East Asian is 7.3%. Significant remnant of Turkish journey from Central Asia in to Anatolia indeed.
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. At K=6 (where Asian and European Caucasoids split), the Mongoloid component in Turks (N=16) is:
East_Asian = 5.05%
Amerindian = 0.78%
Total = 5.83%
This is consistent with my previous estimates:
http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-turkish-are-anatolians-revisiting.html
"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."
We keep a list of Turks among ourselves and the 7.3% mean is the mean for your K=5 supervised run for the following Dod's: DOD035, DOD049, DOD107, DOD259, DOD284, DOD287, DOD309, DOD328, DOD349, DOD433, DOD434, DOD435, DOD477, DOD623, DOD624
ReplyDeleteDOD434
The supervised run uses Lithuanians+Tuscans as representatives of "Europeans" and is thus not as accurate for Turks, who are not primarily "European Caucasoid", but "Asian Caucasoid".
ReplyDeleteNot the whole mongoloid is altaic Turkic(east asian is sinic not altaic)
ReplyDeleteThat 4-5% mongoloidness amongst anatolians is geographical rather than ethnic,indeed iranians+pakistanis+indians+pashtuns+tadjiks do have higher mongoloid input than anatolians despite them being indo-europeans=>the mongoloidness in asia is a purely geographical patern and as we move eastward toward siberian and east asia the mongoloid input increases.
The few invading nomadic turks did not leave racial,genetical,religious or cultural input into anatolia it was merely a grammar shift(however the cultural words are semitic&indo-european)
an indian with 10% mongoloid does not claim altaic turk identity of the invading turkomongols of middle age because culturally+racially+genomically he is native(and that 10%<<<<<90%+it's the result of unnatural+warfare driven invasion)
Similarly a portuguese speaking angolan with 5-10% caucasoid does not claim a portuguese identity.
culturally+racially+genomically anatolians are native local indo-europeans(greeks+armenians+kurds)who did merely adopt turkic as a lingua franca after they were forced to enter islam.
That 5% mongoloid is legacy of the invaders+enslavers+repressors of anatolians and cannot be equated with THEIR identity and ethnicity
I find the usage of physical anthropology-specific words like Caucasoid in a genetic context a little odd.
ReplyDeletelars, it does seem strange to me that someone who is 5-7% Mongoloid and about 1/7 Central Asian would identify so strongly with that part of their ancestry. It is equivalent to a partially admixed Colombian fashioning himself a Spaniard, or an African American an Englishman.
ReplyDeleteBut, who are we to judge how people feel?
Some of the Ottoman Muslims of Anatolia seem to have shed their former Ottoman and Muslim identity and adopted a new Turkish identity that is either based on national/political considerations (attachment to the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal etc.), or to a romanticized idealization of their small Central Asian Turkic component. It's up to every individual to weight what is most important for them (religion/language/genes/political identity etc.)
Dienekes,
ReplyDeleteI think you are doing work but I need to respond to your comments as well as Lars' as a Turk.
1. We were not cleansed off of Peloponesso because we were Muslim because we were "Turks"
2. We have been speaking Turkish for a minimum of 1,000 years in my family. Intermarriage with native Iranians/Turkmen and Anatolians as well as Greeks and Armenians didn't change this fact. Ours was the dominant culture
3. You compare Anatolians to Uzbeks' Asian ratios to reach a 1/7 gene flow from Central Asia into Anatolia. Turks of Turkey came from Iran. Not from Uzbekistan. It looks like in Northern Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia there is a continuum of 5.5% to 8% East Asian genes that separate Turks from non Turks
4. We went to Iran from Turkmenistan. To understand the "pure" Turkic impact on Anatolia one would first need to estimate the Turkmen impact on Iran and then estimate the immigration from Iran onto Anatolia. Race mixing over this path didn't alter our Turkic language and character.
These are some reasons why we call ourselves Turks. We are not Turkmen, Uzbek or Uyghur. We are Turks and we have been so for hundreds, if not thousands of years. As in the past today we are still open to marrying with others from outside of our group and integrate them into the Turkish society.
Dienekes,
ReplyDeleteI think you are doing great work but I need to respond to your comments as well as Lars' as a Turk.
1. We were not cleansed off of Peloponesso because we were Muslim but because we were "Turks"
2. We have been speaking Turkish for a minimum of 1,000 years in my family. Intermarriage with native Iranians/Turkmen and Anatolians as well as Greeks and Armenians didn't change this fact. Ours was the dominant culture
3. You compare Anatolians to Uzbeks' Asian ratios to reach a 1/7 gene flow from Central Asia into Anatolia. Turks of Turkey came from Iran. Not from Uzbekistan. It looks like in Northern Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia there is a continuum of 5.5% to 8% East Asian genes that separate Turks from non Turks
4. We went to Iran from Turkmenistan. To understand the "pure" Turkic impact on Anatolia one would first need to estimate the Turkmen impact on Iran and then estimate the immigration from Iran onto Anatolia. Race mixing over this path didn't alter our Turkic language and character.
These are some reasons why we call ourselves Turks. We are not Turkmen, Uzbek or Uyghur. We are Turks and we have been so for hundreds, if not thousands of years. As in the past today we are still open to marrying with others from outside of our group and integrate them into the Turkish society.
Another comment is also needed for Lars:
ReplyDeleteLars if these Asiatic genes in Turks were just a manifestation of geography how come we see none of these genes in Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks? I think that is a critical question. If you look at Dienekes' K=11 run there is nobody in the region including Iranians, Armenians, Assyrians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jews, etc. who has this much Asiatic effect as Turks. This is not a geographic effect but a clear sign from the past that Turks brought with them.
As Turks we can never deny our relationship with other Anatolians and Balkan people but the reason we are Turks is not because a Sultan told us to be, it's just that we have been Turks for a long long time.
1. We were not cleansed off of Peloponesso because we were Muslim because we were "Turks"
ReplyDelete"Turk" meant a Muslim in the context you refer to. For example, the verb τουρκεύω meant the one who adopted Islam, not the one who learnt Turkish.
2. We have been speaking Turkish for a minimum of 1,000 years in my family. Intermarriage with native Iranians/Turkmen and Anatolians as well as Greeks and Armenians didn't change this fact. Ours was the dominant culture
I admire the depth of your genealogical knowledge. It does not alter the fact, however, that the great majority of the average Turk's ancestors were not Turkish speaking in the last 1,000 years, and certainly not in the last 1,100 years.
3. You compare Anatolians to Uzbeks' Asian ratios to reach a 1/7 gene flow from Central Asia into Anatolia. Turks of Turkey came from Iran. Not from Uzbekistan. It looks like in Northern Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia there is a continuum of 5.5% to 8% East Asian genes that separate Turks from non Turks
I don't share you unfounded faith that present-day Turkmens are unaltered descendants of Central Asian Turkic speakers of 1,000 years ago, but do send me Turkmen samples if you come across any. It is quite peculiar to argue for a substantial Turkic influence in modern Anatolian Turks based on non-existent samples!
hese are some reasons why we call ourselves Turks. We are not Turkmen, Uzbek or Uyghur. We are Turks and we have been so for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
From the genetic standpoint, no, modern Anatolian Turks have not been Turks for thousands of years. Of course, no one is stopping you from identifying with a minor part of your ancestry, or with the language you speak.
Well let's find Turkmen and North Iran samples, how come there are none! Let's see how minor / major the Turkmen input is. I bet you 100 bucks that the Turkmen samples will look so much more similar to Anatolian Turks than Uzbeks.
ReplyDeleteI know my tribe's name and they've been Turkmen self identified for at least 600 years, our village name appears in Turkmenistan, coincidence? I don't think so.
If the Ottoman assimilation machine were so wonderful today there'd be no Greece, Albania, Serbia, Crimea, Arabia. Obviously there is a reason why Anatolia is Turkish and Greece is not or Lebanon is not.
My village was poor in Anatolia with no Ottoman interest whatsoever. We were Turkish because we've been so for generations.
My guess is every Turkoman converted and Turkified 2 to 4 Anatolians. Not more than that.
Well let's find Turkmen and North Iran samples, how come there are none! Let's see how minor / major the Turkmen input is. I bet you 100 bucks that the Turkmen samples will look so much more similar to Anatolian Turks than Uzbeks.
ReplyDeleteI know my tribe's name and they've been Turkmen self identified for at least 600 years, our village name appears in Turkmenistan, coincidence? I don't think so.
If the Ottoman assimilation machine were so wonderful today there'd be no Greece, Albania, Serbia, Crimea, Arabia. Obviously there is a reason why Anatolia is Turkish and Greece is not or Lebanon is not.
My village was poor in Anatolia with no Ottoman interest whatsoever (except for supplying soldiers to the Sultan). We were Turkish because we've been so for generations.
My guess is every Turkoman converted and Turkified 2 to 4 Anatolians. Not more than that.
@ Lars I see the relationship between the Turks and the Anatolians the same way I see the relationship between the Arabs and the Berbers or between the Spanish and the Bolivians. Perhaps they left their language, religion and a percentage of their genes, but the locals of those regions retain the bulk of the cultural and genetic heritage.
ReplyDeleteCould you post the averages by ethnic groups ? Like you do with the other runs. Thanks,
ReplyDeleteWe need a good number of ancient DNA samples from early Seljuq-era Turkmens from present-day Kazakhstan who were about to depart from their lands in present-day Kazakhstan in the direction of present-day Turkmenistan, present-day Azeri lands and Anatolia to give conclusive answers on this issue, as these three destination places were conqured by the original Turkmens successively in the duration of just one life-span. Modern-day Azeris certainly cannot represent the Turkmen invaders of Anatolia as Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands were invaded by the original Turkmen successively in just one generation's time and in both places invading Turkmens very substantially admixed with the much more populous natives in the following centuries. Modern-day Turkmenistan was invaded by the original Turkmens just before the invasion of Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands, but as a desert land it was reletavely sparsely populated and thus was more affected genetically by the original Turkmens (who arrived from present-day Kazakhstan) than Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands, but still, present-day Turkmens cannot represent the Turkmens invading Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands as present-day Turkmens are significantly admixed with the pre-Turkmen natives of present-day Turkmenistan (who were Iranic-speaking, but completely Turkmenized in the centuries that followed the conquest of present-day Turkmenistan by the Seljuqs and their Turkmens) unlike the original Turkmens, who lived in present-day Kazakhstan.
ReplyDelete"Well let's find Turkmen and North Iran samples, how come there are none!"
ReplyDeleteFrom the Dodecad Ancestry Thread, you can see that DOD010 is a North Iran sample and DOD320 is a Azeri Turk sample:
DOD010:
Northeast Asian 3.7%
East Asian 0%
DOD320:
Northeast Asian 4.7%
East Asian 2.2%
The Azeri_D sample was already analyzed by Dienekes. It shows that the Azeri_D sample is clustering well with Turks in the MDS13 plot.
ReplyDeletehttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jo6Ovoa-O08/TZ9pzHn1huI/AAAAAAAADcI/-vbWz3p_Qog/s1600/MDS13.png
In the MDS12 plot though, the Azeri_D sample clusters not with Turks but with Iranians.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--SjAT5hzu2g/TZ9nB-sRuuI/AAAAAAAADcA/U693KvbqrMQ/s1600/MDS12.png
These are some reasons why we call ourselves Turks. We are not Turkmen, Uzbek or Uyghur. We are Turks and we have been so for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
ReplyDeleteThat is not true. The "Turkish" identity (ethnic, national or whatever) spread among who are now "Turks" only with Kemal Ataturk. It is a mid to late 19th century borrowing from the West (Westerners applied the word "Turk" to all Muslims irrespective of language, and sometimes even also to the non-Muslims of the Islamic realms, beginning from the Seljuq times well into the 19th century, when they began to increasingly feel a need to make a distinction among Muslims based on language with the spread of modern concepts in the West) by the "Young Turks" movement of the highly Western influenced Muslim (there were also atheists among them) Ottoman intelligentsia (don't forget that nationalism too is a mid to late 19th century borrowing by the "Young Turks") and only spread, together with "Turkish" nationalism, among the populace only via the imposition of the state of the later Turkish Republic founded by Ataturk. Before the spread of the "Turkish" identity, the only common identity of the Turkish speaking Ottoman Muslims was the "Muslim" identity (but they shared it with all other Muslims irrespective of language). The Turkish equivalent of the word "Turkey" ("Türkiye") is a mid to late translation (by the "Young Turks") of its Italian equivalent ("Turchia") to Ottoman Turkish, Ottoman Muslims called their country "Ottoman country", never "Türkiye" (as the word did not exist until the second half of the 19th century).
But the "Turkmen" identity really did exist among a small minority segment of the Turkish speaking Muslims of the Ottoman lands and of the Azeri speaking Muslims of the Azeri lands before any Western influence (in fact, the Turkic invaders of Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands called themselves "Turkmen", and not "Turk").
Two typo corrections:
ReplyDeletebut as a desert land it was reletavely sparsely populated
but as a desert land it was relatively sparsely populated
The Turkish equivalent of the word "Turkey" ("Türkiye") is a mid to late translation (by the "Young Turks") of its Italian equivalent ("Turchia") to Ottoman Turkish,
The Turkish equivalent of the word "Turkey" ("Türkiye") is a mid to late 19th century translation (by the "Young Turks") of its Italian equivalent ("Turchia") to Ottoman Turkish,
our village name appears in Turkmenistan, coincidence? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteBut is the settlement in Turkmenistan that bears the name of your village old enough to be able to have a link to your village? A great majority of the present settlements in Turkmenistan were founded during the Russian (including the Soviet) era, as Turkmens left pastoral nomadism in favor of a settled life (whether in village, town or city) only during the Russian era (i.e., during the last 100-150 years), due to the Russian pressure to settle. So there is a very high probability that the sameness of the names is just a coincidence. So I'd like you to elaborate on the name issue.
The Azeri_D sample was already analyzed by Dienekes. It shows that the Azeri_D sample is clustering well with Turks in the MDS13 plot.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jo6Ovoa-O08/TZ9pzHn1huI/AAAAAAAADcI/-vbWz3p_Qog/s1600/MDS13.png
In the MDS12 plot though, the Azeri_D sample clusters not with Turks but with Iranians.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--SjAT5hzu2g/TZ9nB-sRuuI/AAAAAAAADcA/U693KvbqrMQ/s1600/MDS12.png
For the purposes of clarity, it should be emphasized that there is only one Azeri individual (there is also a half Azeri-half Persian individual) and one Kurdish individual in this project, so unfortunately there is a problem of representativeness for Azeris and Kurds.
But at least for Kurds there is a publically available set of samples (from Xing et al.), however using a different chip from that of 23andMe. For Azeris, there is unfortunately still none.
Muslims of western asia such as iraqis and syrians do have a mongoloid input nearly as high as anatolian Turks, and central&south asian indo-iranians have-by far-more mongoloid input than western asian muslims.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand mongoloid input amongst armenians and assyrians is tiny; this is perhaps due to endogamy and/or geographical isolation.
I think to extract the real Turk input amongst anatolian Turks, one had to compare normongoloid input amongst anatolian Turks with normongoloid input amongst kurds and arabs of Turkey.
1/"My guess is every Turkoman converted and Turkified 2 to 4 Anatolians. Not more than that"
2/"I know my tribe's name and they've been Turkmen self identified for at least 600 years, our village name appears in Turkmenistan, coincidence? I don't think so"
answer next post
I know my tribe's name and they've been Turkmen self identified for at least 600 years
ReplyDeleteOnly the small Turkmen minority (including Yoruks) among Turks have tribes, the non-Turkmen majority don't have tribes. So Turks, as a people, are non-tribal. Contrast that with the Turkmens of Turkmenistan and Kurds, both of whom are tribal peoples.
I think to extract the real Turk input amongst anatolian Turks, one had to compare normongoloid input amongst anatolian Turks with normongoloid input amongst kurds and arabs of Turkey.
Why Arabs and Kurds and not Greeks and Armenians of Turkey?
I will divide my article into three parts:
ReplyDeletePart 1. Page 1.
When one analyzes the impact of Turks on the Anatolian genetic map the critical question is to figure out what to compare Anatolian Turks with respect to. One way to do that is to dig up the graves of early Seljuq dignitaries in Ahlat, Turkey. Since this has not been done we have to think of other methodologies.
One has to recognize that the Turkification process didn't happen over night and the Turks that conquered Anatolia didn't descend from the Altay Mountains.
If Turkishness is thought to have appeared in Siberia and that Yakut people are the earliest Turks then one has to recognize that today there are only half a million Yakuts living in that very land of Siberia. The total number of Turkic speakers however is 250 million with about half that number belonging to the Oghuz speakers who are located mainly in Turkey, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkmenistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages
The Oghuz mark among all Turkic speakers is so clear that one has to keep this fact in mind when analyzing the what percentage of the population in Iran and Anatolia were Turkic speakers say in year 1300. One also has to recognize that the spread of a language from an initial speakers of (in today's numbers) 500 thousand to (in today's numbers) 250 million will occur over many generations and via genetic inbreeding.
Let's take a step back and look at firmly established historical facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_migration
The founding family of the Oghuz Seljuq Empire originates in an area that largely corresponds to today's Turkmenistan. They were from the Oghuz Yabgu State and for your information I am attaching this State's map. As you can see they were in Turkmenistan just above Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AD_750OguzYabgu.png
This was an area between the Aral and Caspian Seas. More Asiatic Turks had already left the Baykal area long ago:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=baykal+lake&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
If you look at the distance between Baikal and Aral Seas this should give you an idea about how many generations it would take to settle around Aral. That would take a long time.
This was the first stage of Turkic movement as it relates to Anatolia since we are focused on the Oghuz now. We don't know much about the Hunnic effects. We also do not know how Asiatic or Caucasoid Attila's clan was. After all one has to consider the possibility that much of Kazakhstan and Kirgizistan may have become a lot more Asiatic after the Chingizid Empire's expansion. There is significant evidence that Kazakhs have a lot of Mongolian blood. Furthermore the relationship between the Mongolian and Turkic languages is based only on regional proximity. The term Altaic doesn't refer to a linguistically genetic kinship as it does in Indo-European.
Part 2. Page 2.
ReplyDeleteThe most important point to keep in mind is that we don't exactly know the extent of the Siberian-West Asian-Caucasoid mixing at the Oghuz Yabgu State stage. However one can infer from the current West Asian percentages in Uzbeks that there had to be a substantial amount of Caucasoid genes in Central Asia circa year 750.
If we look at the West Asian percentages of for example Uzbeks (closer to Aral than the Caspian) we see that Uzbeks are 24% West Asian (per Dienekes' analysis). This is almost as high as Greeks' 31% West Asian content suggesting that the famous Neolithic Expansion from Mesopotamia wasn't only to the West but also to the East:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neolithic_expansion.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
I don't see much being talked about this Anatolian expansion towards Asia but if Greeks are 31% West Asian and Uzbeks are 24% West Asian then we must assume that the Turkic speakers had a substantial amount of West Asian genes before reaching the Caspian Sea, let alone Anatolia, as Uzbeks are a lot more of an Aral population than a Caspian one. This should be the first red flag for those people who suggest that the Turks incoming to Anatolia had to be close to be purely Asiatic. It doesn't seem to be the case.
The next stage of Turkic expansion is quite well documented. This is the move from Central Asia proper, i.e. Turkmenistan and not Uzbekistan, into Iran.
Oghuz Yabgu State General Seljuk moved from Turkmenistan south to Iran with his Oghuz Turkmen tribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Yabgu_State
This led to the foundation of the Seljuq State which encompassed an area from Merv in Turkmenistan to Izmir in Anatolia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Empire
This is a huge area that also includes Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, all of Anatolia except for Istanbul. This map pretty much corresponds to the bulk of today's Sothern Turkic countries (Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) put together along with Middle Eastern Arab countries.
An analysis of this area using Dienekes' results should give us some clues regarding the extent of Indo European / Asiatic inbreeding as well as the genetic impact of Turkic immigration on these regions.
I copied Dienekes' K=11 sheet. Please take a look at the following populations. I kept mainly those were part of the Ottoman and/or Seljuq Empires and are related to Anatolian people.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhrzZsPxBWFxdGk3cHduZG5Nc1F2ZjJTSVpWQ1JGekE&hl=en&authkey=CP-G-eEC#gid=0
Part 3. Page 3.
ReplyDeleteOne can see that ,when all samples are taken into account i.e. both Dienekes as well as Behar, Turks have the largest East Asian content after the Uzbeks and Pakistanis. As we know Chagatai descendants ruled Pakistan for a long amount of time and it looks like they left a significant genetic mark despite not leaving their language there (not at least in its original form.)
A very interesting observation emerges when one looks at the Uzbek samples. Uzbeks are:
1. 15.7% North East European, %5.4 North West European, 24% West Asian, 12.8% South Asian
First of all using Uzbek samples to compare Anatolians to is misleading. We need North Iran/Turkmenistan samples. Yet even these samples tell couple of things:
Turks were at least 20% European and at least 24% West Asian when they came to Anatolia. The South Asian percentages in Uzbeks can be attributed to the native South Asian populations that existed in Uzbekistan before the Turks' arrival. So I think we should leave that aside for this moment.
These numbers give us minimums in terms of Turks' genetic content that was already similar to Anatolians.
For more we need to turn to Iran. Iran is of course a multi ethnic society. The Turkis Azeri and Turkmen live more in the North while there are less Altaic Persianized people in the center and some Arabs in the south especially southwest of Iran.
Iranians have only 1.2% of East Asian compared to Turks' 5.8%. They are 47.75 West Asian and 6.4% Sardinian. Uzbeks are 1.2% Sardinian so the Mediterranean and West Asian effects seem to increase substantially as we move from the Aral Sea area to the Caspian Sea Area.
Considering the fact that Iran was where the capital city of Seljuqs was and that the Turkic and Zaza tribes of Turkey all quote Horasan (Xorasan) as their source place, Iran is extremely critical in understanding the Turkification process. Despite the low East Asian percentage in Iran this number is likely to be a lot higher in the Northern areas of Iran most likely closer to the 6% Anatolian mean possibly slightly higher. As such full Iranian territory may be a little bit misleading but the 47.7% West Asian and 18.3% Southwwest Asian percentages in Iran suggest to us that this is where Turks gained their additional West Asian / Southwest Asian percentages.
We can talk clearly however about the Sardinian segments. These segments are only 6.4% in Iran and 1.2% in Uzbeks. In Anatolia it is 16.2% in Turks. We can assume that Turks that lived in Iran had elevated amounts of Sardinian with respect to Turks that lived in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. If the Turkmen Sardinian is similar to the Uzbek Sardinian then we can deduct some conslusions following this piece of genetic piece we have.
And one more part it turns out
ReplyDeletePART 4. Page 4.
If the Turkic tribes that came to Iran were 25% of the host population then this would give the resulting Turkic-Iranian mixture 5% Sardinian.
We know however Anatolian Turks are about 16% Sardinian while Greeks are about 31% Sardinian. If we use the Turkic-Iranic's as one input and the Greeks another one then this would suggest to us that up to 57% of Anatolian population was replaced by the Turkic-Iranic incomers. This would likely be an upper limit.
If we however instead decide to follow the East Asian genes then we need samples from Horasan region of Iran.
Dienekes suggests using Uzbeks' East Asian mean of 39% to approximate for the Asiatic genetic content of Turkic speakers that came to Anatolia. This however is a very biased view. He assumes the following:
1. That the East Asian genetic content of Uzbekistan is equal to that of Turkmenistan
2. That the East Asian genetic content of Turkmenistan is equal to that of Northern Iran-Horasan.
These both assumptions are faulty. Uzbek people mostly live to the east of Amu Derya and Turkmen to the West.
http://uzbekistan.embassyhomepage.com/uzbekistan_map_tashkent_map_hotel_bukhara_tourist_map_uzbekistan_road_map_termiz_tourist_map_nukus_holiday_map.htm
If Dienekes suggests based only on East Asian genes that Anatolian Turks are 1/7 (5.8% /39%) Central Asian, then I could suggest they are 57% Seljuq based on the Sardinian genes. If the Turkmenistan Horasan samples turn out 15% East Asian then this will suggest, according to Dienekes' heuristic, 5.8% / 15% =39% Central Asian input in Turkey. Any study trying to assess the Turkic genetic impact on Anatolia has to follow the Turkic migration path through Iran as Iran is critical for understanding Turkish history.
In an era when there was no mass education, when Ottomans didn't even have high schools in the larges of Anatolian towns as late as 1920 Turkification couldn't have happened without a massive Turkic migration into Anatolia. As one can see Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks for all practical purposes have 0% East Asian genes. This is very telling in the sense that the East Asian genes observed in Anatolia can almost be fully attributed to the Turkic migrations. However not all of the European and/or West Asian genes of Anatolian Turks can be attributed to the host populations and this is what many commentators seem to be missing.
I will conclude by saying that 1/7 is a minimum and the real % is surely higher. We need Horasani and Turkmen samples to compare Anatolian samples to.
Ok, we get it that you think that Turks originated in Turkmenistan. Unfortunately for you, they did not, they originated much further east. They passed through Turkmenistan and Iran to reach Anatolia, picking up lots of Iranian elements en route.
ReplyDeleteThe original Turks were Mongoloid, the cousins of the Tungus and the Mongols. If one renormalizes the notion of a "Turk" every time there is an admixture event to include the admixed portion, then one can always come up with an idea that Turks are not only 30% Turks, but even 100%.
Your theory clashes with empirical facts. The Turks cluster closely with Armenians, Assyrians, and Iranians in all PCA plots/ADMIXTURE analyses. Their Caucasoid components are indistinguishable from those of other West Asian populations. Even if we allow for the existence of a Caucasoid component in the original Turks, that was certainly Northern European, similar to that found in Siberia, and even if all the Northern European component in Turks (~10%) came from the east, added to the 5-7% Mongoloid, amounts precisely to the 1/7 figure.
PS: Any further triple posts will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteThe end:
ReplyDeletehttp://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/central-asian-element-in-turks-part-3.html
If anyone continues to have doubts about the validity of the 1/7-6/7 model after this, I seriously have to question their motivations.
I think the Turkic invaders of Anatolia (the original Turkmens) were more Mongoloid and less Caucasoid than Uzbeks. I have four major reasons for thinking so (aligned randomly):
ReplyDelete1- As I wrote in my first comment, the Turkic tribes coming to Anatolia (the original Turkmens) with the Seljuqs came from what is now Kazakhstan very quickly passing through what is now Turkmenistan and Iran, so genetic input from the natives of what is now Turkmenistan and Iran to the Turkic invaders of Anatolia should be so minimal as to be negligible.
2- Uzbeks live in the agriculturalist and relatively populous southern regions of Central Asia; the population density of what is now Uzbekistan has always been higher than what is now Kazakhstan, so Uzbeks should have substantial genetic contribution from the pre-Turkic natives of what is now Uzbekistan.
3- In Central Asia the Mongoloid components increase as you move northwards (towards Kazakhstan) much more than they increase as you move eastwards (towards Xinjiang). And as the Turkic invaders of Anatolia came directly from what is now Kazakhstan, they should have had very large Mongoloid components (as in modern-day Kazakhs).
4- As Dienekes succintly and successfully summarized: Turks cluster closely with Armenians, Assyrians, and Iranians in all PCA plots/ADMIXTURE analyses. Their Caucasoid components are indistinguishable from those of other West Asian populations.
Dienekes,
ReplyDeleteYour answer sounds dictatorial. Anyone can have doubts about anything.
You say Turks didn't come from Turkmenistan but we did. The Turkic languages are quite distinct from each other. They have different characteristics that differentiate them.
The Azeri-Turkmen-Turkish languages are of the Oghuz branch and are quite distinct from Uzbek which is a Chagatai language.
Your prejudices about Turks shouldn't blind you. Your genetic analysis has to look at Turkmen/Horasan samples to make sure the Turkic genetic input in Turkey.
Furthermore The Northeast European in Uzbeks is 15.4%. In Turks this is 5.8%. I don't see how that fits your 1/7 theory. Please explain.
Your prejudices about Turks shouldn't blind you.
ReplyDeletePlease, everything i've said is based on hard empirical data. It is rather you who seems to have an irrational desire to be more Central Asian than you are.
Furthermore The Northeast European in Uzbeks is 15.4%. In Turks this is 5.8%. I don't see how that fits your 1/7 theory. Please explain.
Read the post. Respond to the evidence, no hand-waiving arguments.
The NE European element in the Turks' 4 neighbors averages out to 4.3%. In Uzbeks it is 15.7%. It is 15.7/7 + 4.3*6/7 = 5.9%. The empirical value for Turks+Turkish_D is 5.8%. No mystery.
Which neighbors are you using? Are you using Iran? I am telling you Iran is 30% Azeri. It is where Turkification happened. Turks that came to Anatolia from Iran were already speaking Turkish!
ReplyDeletePlease be consistent. Iran is not Anatolia or is it?
If you say that Turkic people were 1/7 of all of Iran, Anatolia, Balkans then I will believe you.
But if you talk about Turkic speakers coming into Anatolia then it was certainly more than 1/7.
Which neighbors are you using? Are you using Iran? I am telling you Iran is 30% Azeri. It is where Turkification happened. Turks that came to Anatolia from Iran were already speaking Turkish!
ReplyDeleteThere's no point in discussing, as you don't even bother to read the post, and are fighting against strawmen
But if you talk about Turkic speakers coming into Anatolia then it was certainly more than 1/7.
Opinions without data are worthless.
Your genetic analysis has to look at Turkmen/Horasan samples to make sure the Turkic genetic input in Turkey.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. Just like Anatolia and present-day Azeri lands, Khorasan and what is now Turkmenistan were destination regions for Seljuqs and their Turkmens, not source regions. The source was what is now Kazakhstan.
Dienekes
ReplyDeleteI read your post. You do not disclose your calculation.
You say" The NE European element in the Turks' 4 neighbors averages out to 4.3%. In Uzbeks it is 15.7%. It is 15.7/7 + 4.3*6/7 = 5.9%. The empirical value for Turks+Turkish_D is 5.8%. No mystery. "
I ask you a very simple question: Who are those neighbors?
You are vague at best.
Look at Assyrians who are pure Anatolians. Their North East European percentage is 0.0%. Your calculation just fits your motive. The distribution of these components is not as straightforward.
Which neighbors are you using? Are you using Iran?
ReplyDeleteNo, he used Greeks, Armenians, Georgians and Syrians. Read the linked post:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/central-asian-element-in-turks-part-3.html
Look at Assyrians who are pure Anatolians. Their North East European percentage is 0.0%. Your calculation just fits your motive. The distribution of these components is not as straightforward.
ReplyDeleteAssyrians are not pure Anatolians, Aramaic is peripheral in Anatolia, plus a few of them in the sample are not even from Anatolia.
I would say it is YOUR calculation that fits your ridiculous agenda. You pick ONE group out of all of Turkey's neighbors that has the minimum Northern European component, so that you can maximize the perceived impact of Turkic speakers.
Are you sure Assyrians peripheral? Turkish language today has more Assyrian words than Greek ones.
ReplyDeleteTo Onur: Khorasan and Iran as well as Turkmenistan are source populations of Turks in Anatolia.
Otherwise the only Turks are the Yakuts. This is what these claims come down to.
Are you seriously going to argue that Turks are more likely to have Assyrian than Greek ancestry? This discussion is over.
ReplyDeleteI would say it is YOUR calculation that fits your ridiculous agenda. You pick ONE group out of all of Turkey's neighbors that has the minimum Northern European component, so that you can maximize the perceived impact of Turkic speakers.
ReplyDeleteYes. Greeks, who are Turkey's neighbor too, have a Northeast European component percentage of 11.7% (more than both Turks and Assyrians), but Anatolian Turkmen somehow neglects them.
To Onur: Khorasan and Iran as well as Turkmenistan are source populations of Turks in Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteThere is no point in discussing with you, as you not only ignore genetics but also history.
Otherwise the only Turks are the Yakuts. This is what these claims come down to.
How you come to that ridiculous conclusion from anything I say is beyond me.
Turkish language today has more Assyrian words than Greek ones.
ReplyDeleteHow many of those Assyrian words entered Turkish directly from Assyrian rather than through Persian/Arabic?
Dieneke, sorry for the triple posting.
Because you claim that Khorasan and Turkmenistan are also "destinations" for Turks.
ReplyDeleteFor which Turks? If we eclude Turkmenistan as a source of Turkic people then the only places left are the Altay mountains and Siberia to find Turks.
Dienekes: Turks, Armenians, Assyrians all have huge genetic impact from the original Anatolian expansion. It looks like we Turks have gained a lot of Sardinian from Greeks but it is on par with Armenians. Other than the Sardinian I don't see any other Greek impact on Anatolia in terms of genes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecause you claim that Khorasan and Turkmenistan are also "destinations" for Turks.
ReplyDeleteThe 11th century Seljuq migration that brought Turkic people to Anatolia, Iran and Transcaucasia, also brought Turkic people to Khorasan and what is now Turkmenistan. Before that, there was almost no Turkic people in Khorasan and Turkmenistan. I say almost, because then in many Islamic regions as far as Northern Africa there were a small number of Turkic slave soldiers, but of course they were negligible in number.
For which Turks? If we eclude Turkmenistan as a source of Turkic people then the only places left are the Altay mountains and Siberia to find Turks.
Haven't you read what I have been writing all the time? Before the 11th century Seljuq migration, almost all of Turkmens (the specific Turkic group which would invade Anatolia together with what is now Turkmenistan, Khorasan, Iran, Trancaucasia, Iraq and Levant during the 11th century with the Seljuqs) were living in what is now Kazakhstan. So your Altai-Siberia reference is nonsensical.
BTW, Anatolian Greeks are genetically almost surely somewhere between Armenians and Balkan Greeks, just as the Caucasoid part of Anatolian Turks is.
ReplyDelete@ Anatolian Turkmen
ReplyDelete"Look at Assyrians who are pure Anatolians."
Northern Mesopotamia (~ N Iraq and NE Syria) is close, but it is not, in my opinion, Anatolia. The reason many of us sought refuge in the mountains of Hakkari:
"When during the 14th century the Church of the East was virtually exterminated by the raids of the Turkic leader Timur, Nestorian communities lingered on in a few towns in Iraq but were concentrated mainly in Kurdistan..."
Onur, don't start triple posting again.
ReplyDeleteOnur, don't start triple posting again.
ReplyDeleteSorry.
ANGOLANS SHIFTED TO PORTUGUESE WITH ONLY ABOUT 400 HUNDRED PORTUGUESE FAMILIES THAT ARRIVED IN THE 15 TH CENTURY it was the same case for anatolia with angolans standing for angolans however while angolans received much cultural input from portugal, the turkic one in anatolia is near 0
ReplyDelete"2. We have been speaking Turkish for a minimum of 1,000 years in my family. Intermarriage with native Iranians/Turkmen and Anatolians as well as Greeks and Armenians didn't change this fact.
Turkish was first attested in the 13 th century in anatolia, and even(much of)christian armenians and greeks of anatolia were native turkish speakers(of course cultural words were not turkic but native ones)also angolans were portuguese speakers for more than centuries but this does not make them turk/portuguese.
"Ours was the dominant culture"
There was not turk cultural input into anatolia, and there is no need for a military domnination for a folk shift to another language.
To be able to write"our turk identity" one should be-predominantly northeastasian autosomally speaking+have a pure siberian altaic culture otherwise he/she is merely a native anatolian(same as angolans are not portuguese despite speaking portuguese for nearly 5 centuries+in their case yet there was a real portuguese cultural input into angola contrary to anatolia)
3.Turks of turkey came from kazakistan and uzbeks too are racially+culturally+much of the language iranians as the turk invasions to central asia was very recent but did not bring turk culture and but few genes(you cannot compare irano-turks mixing for some 8 centuries with original 12 th century turks)
4again false,the migration of turks were very rapid and they did not bring culture,race or language change(other than islam wich is not turk-originated)much of those warrior turks died during turko-turkish, turko-mongolian and turko-crusaders wars.
the modern day turks are merely armenians+greeks+kurds who shift to islam(by fear/by free will/to take advantage of tax facilities)and then adopted turkic of the rulers as a lingua franca and with time it became the native tongue(however cultural words+conjunctions+structure+literary paradigmas+even many basic words such as numerlas and body organs are non turkic,and "real official anatolian turkic"'s vocabulary was up to 90%non turkic"[there are nearly 1000 armenian and nearly 2000 greek words-most of them cultural words-in anatolian turkic and add to it many thousands of iranic words)
Anatolian Turkmen, nearly all your claims are inaccurate but there is no space to answer them here, here below some ones
ReplyDeleteThe caucasoid in central asian turkic speaking predates turk and oghuz and is a legacy of iranians.
Turkish has around 1000 armenian words and around 2500 greek words but few armaic ones.
Very few turks came to anatolia and central asia and most of them died during battles.
oghuz turkic is strictly close to chaghtai, the difference is strictly areal=>oghuz turkic is turkic spoken by west asian persians while chaghtay turkic is turkic spoken by soghdian iranians.
mr dienekes 2 of my comments dont appear(I think technical problem)I will post them later(not to break the 2 post limitation rule)
In an era when there was no mass education, when Ottomans didn't even have high schools in the larges of Anatolian towns as late as 1920 Turkification couldn't have happened without a massive Turkic migration into Anatolia.
ReplyDeleteThe largest of Anatolian towns certainly had high schools before that date. But for a simple thing like teaching Turkish to non-Turkish speakers, there is no need for any schools; if Turkish becomes the language of administration and trade and a prestige language (Turkish had all these qualities during the beylik and Ottoman eras), it can quickly spread among the populace. Also, do note that madrasas (Islamic schools) were very widespread down to the small village level in the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman education system was centralist, just like the Ottoman bureaucracy, jurisprudence, religious system and military system.
mr anatolian turkmen, your posts are an example of "devshirme+stokholm syndrome" psychology=>stucking to an identity wich is not your because of a tiny 2-3% unnatural,recent,warfare resluted input of invader of your ancestors(and with no cultural or religious legacy of the invaders)[typical of brainwashing in the devshirme(or caucasoid native christians)process]
ReplyDelete"In an era when there was no mass education, when Ottomans didn't even have high schools in the larges of Anatolian towns as late as 1920 Turkification couldn't have happened without a massive Turkic migration into Anatolia"
What do you say for angolans shifting to portuguese, or gaule celts shifting to latin with nearly 0 migration of portuguese and latins, turks as nomadic folk cannot reach such higher populations and there cannot be a migration of more than 200 k turks into anatolia.
There is no 250 mln turk speakers but around 130 mln and only the yakuts are the continuation of the original turks living in the turkic homeland the others are majoritly descending(up to 80%) from the native caucasoid indo-european(indo-iranian,armenogreek and slavic)speakers farmers of central asia, western asia and volga region.
It's the same as nowadays 450 mln spanish speakers(however in this case many of them are really spanish descendants since much of argentinians and other south-americans are up to 90% caucasoid-legacy of spanish-but in the case of the turk invading hordes the input is unnatural,coming through warfare and very tiny[around 2%]and different than spanish speakers in the fact that there was no Turk cultural input in western,central asia and volga region contrary to spanish culture in south america)
The asian huns are yenisseians not Turks(the european ones are slavic-germanic)
By 1000 there was not oghuz or chaghatay turkic, at that time turkic did not yet split-developp to oghuz and chaghtay
broadly speaking oghuz turkic is turkic spoken by choresmian iranians(see th and dh in turkemnistani)while chaghtay turkic is turkic spoken by soghdian iranians
Central asia was and is iranian(by population+culture+race+much of the language's structure+punctuation and lexicon)and the turk nomadic hordes that came by the 8 th century were very few to live a great racial+genomal input(and very primitive to leave a cultural input)
The few turk invader hordes that came to central asia,volga and west asia merely disappeared by dilution into the caucasoid indo-european speaker native(peacefully+naturally colonising those areas)original population's cultural+racial+autosomal pool
The seljuk were persian speaking and iranian by culture and fought the turkmen beylik rulers that were illetrate in persian and that's how turkic became the lingua franca between anatolian greeks and armenians(be them muslim or christian)
East asian is sinic not altaic turkic, northeast asia is altaic turkic and it's presence in pakistan and india is geographical(not a legacy of turko-mongols)since those areas are close to east asia and siberia(and that east asian could be found even amongst isolated endogamous kalash and burusho)
Khorassan is culturally+racially+autosomally iranian(the ones that came to anatolia from there were persians like mevalana and haji bektashi)Turk input is at best 1%(autosomally speaking)but racially and culturally is 0,you dont see angolans identify with their portuguese invaders(with much more caucasoid portuguese input than that)yet,contrary to turk one,there does exist a strong portuguese cultural input into angola.
if Turkish becomes the language of administration and trade and a prestige language (Turkish had all these qualities during the beylik and Ottoman eras), it can quickly spread among the populace.
ReplyDeleteAnd it really did.
the others are majoritly descending(up to 80%) from the native caucasoid indo-european(indo-iranian,armenogreek and slavic)speakers farmers of central asia, western asia and volga region
ReplyDeleteI the case of Turks in Turkey, the native Caucasoid input (excluding the Central Asian Caucasoid input) should be more than 80%.
@ Lars I totally am in agreement with you. This is the problems that empires create. Just because the brits conquered a quarter of the world's population and English is the most important lingua franca of the world, this does NOT mean that the brits REPLACED the genetic material of the conquered people. They remained a small elite that left a disproportionate cultural impact on a native population. The same can be spoken of Rome and the same can be spoken of a lot of empires. The Turkish empire is no different. Turk is largely a social construct. Break your illusions and set you mind free.
ReplyDeleteKhorasan may be culturally Iranian today but in the past it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteSince I am confident in my Turkish identity there is no Stockholm syndrome.
After leaving Siberia if we Anatolian Turks have retained 6% Yakut that in and of itself is amazing.
However the fact that there are today 250 million Turkic speakers, born out of half a million Yakuts, is a testament to how friendly, encompassing and universal our Turkish culture has been.
The Central Asian impact genetically speaking is at the minimum 1/7 according to Dienekes' calculation but I maintain that this is a minimum estimate.
We will continue to be Turks no matter what anyone says. Our genes are testament to our long journey.
Khorasan may be culturally Iranian today but in the past it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteKhorasan has been culturally Iranian long before there were any Turkic speakers there. Do you really think that Turkic speakers predated Iranian speakers in Khorasan?
After leaving Siberia if we Anatolian Turks have retained 6% Yakut that in and of itself is amazing.
ReplyDeleteWhere is that 6% Yakut in Anatolian Turks?
The Central Asian impact genetically speaking is at the minimum 1/7 according to Dienekes' calculation but I maintain that this is a minimum estimate.
It is not minimum. Dienekes calculated it based on Uzbeks, a substantially Iranic admixed population (in fact, Uzbekistan was predominantly Iranic speaking until at least the Mongol conquests of the 13th century, its linguistic Turkification began even later than Anatolia!).
Khorasan has been culturally Iranian long before there were any Turkic speakers there.
Yes, Korasan has been culturally and linguistically Iranic long before there were any Turkic speakers there.
anatolian turkmen, the ones that invaded india were altaic but not turks=>they were mongols from the Mongol chingizid(genkis khan)lineafe and that's why they were killed mughals
ReplyDeletethe word khan is yenisseian not turkic
the word yabghu is iranic not turkic
up to 90% of anatolian turkish's vocabulary and up to 70% of central asian turkish languages' vocabulary are not turkic[mainly iranic](the 20% difference is because ottoman turkic integrated many -very literary-words from arabic as well as the greek+armenian words etc...but if we exclude the imported literary arabic words;the ratio of non turkic vocabulay will be around 70% as well)
On the other hand very very few(a couple of dozens)of turkish words made their way to urdu&persian(most of them are slang words and not cultural words)while in arabic you will find 0 turkish words in the dictionnaries like lisan al arab(wich contains more than 5 mln words)however in arabic dialects there are a handful of turkish slang words that made their way there like "gezdir"(notice that they are not cultural words but slang ones that have their native counterparts in hindustani,persian and arabic)
Very few aramean and assyrian words appear in anatolian turkish(words such as "çelebi","balta","kömür","natır"...)howver there are around 1000 armenian words(mostly cultural words used by the folk)please see the book below
http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=aFWQTBm35m0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=armenian+loanwords&source=bl&ots=C0wd72Hqh4&sig=ZIOAeFYJnQ8RSKAkYlgdRNfTtSQ&hl=tr&ei=14ItTfSROMjusgaW_4GLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
as well as around 2500 greek words please see below
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7301
btw the 450 mln spanish speakers can be up to 60-90% autosomally from caucasoid spanish+have spanish culture+their language is the same
however the 130 mln turk speakers dont share turk legacy(autosomally+hg speaking)+lack a turk culture+their languages are different and often intelligible(kypchak branch is not intelligible with the oghuz one)
In other words we can speak of spanish folks but cannot speak for turkic folks(whose single common point is an unnatural, unwanted, warfare+devshirme+enslavement droven tiny[around 1% mongoloid altaic turk]input)+much of the vocabulary+the alphabet are not turkic
it's even worse than portuguese speaking brazilians and angolans since those ones do have an important european portuguese cultural+linguistic contribution
There are 130 mln turkic speakers not 250, khorassan was from day one and is till iranian by culture,race etc...despite the arab and turk invasions and its name is iranic(land of the sunrise in iranic)
"After leaving Siberia if we Anatolian Turks have retained 6% Yakut that in and of itself is amazing."
hahaha in wich planet do you live, the anatolians did not came from siberia and that 4(and not6)% is an unwanted, unnatural, through warfare input you cannot call yourself turk for 4%mongoloid and 0 turk culture when an angolan with 10%caucasoid and nearly 50%portuguese culture dont call himself portuguese also why you use "we" you can only talk about yourself and your short 70-80 years life!!!
We have been speaking Turkish for a minimum of 1,000 years in my family.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a family tree that goes back 1,000 years? Such a long family tree is extremely rare among Turks (most Turks cannot trace their ancestry back more than 5 generations), and such a long and at the same time reliable family tree is almost nonexistent among Turks.
Intermarriage with native Iranians/Turkmen and Anatolians as well as Greeks and Armenians didn't change this fact. Ours was the dominant culture
ReplyDeleteCulture, religion and language are three separate things. Turkic invaders brought their language to Anatolia, but their culture had a very insignificant effect on Anatolia and was quickly marginalized to some fringe regions. In Islamic rules only two cultures dominated Anatolia: the dominant (especially at folk level) native Anatolico-Byzantine culture(s) and the Persian culture of the Seljuqs (only at high culture level). The Anatolico-Byzantine culture(s) was/were the strongest culture(s) as it was/were the folk (whether Muslim or Christian or Jew) culture(s). Islam spread through the Persian cultural sphere of the Seljuqs but was modified to and strongly influenced by the lax native Christian Anatolian culture(s) and traditions.