tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post728037700703165934..comments2023-10-16T21:11:28.700+03:00Comments on Dodecad Ancestry Project: How Turkish are Anatolians? revisiting the questionDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-73877823417277699212016-07-13T11:13:01.595+03:002016-07-13T11:13:01.595+03:00You think Anatolian Turkish people are all turkic?...You think Anatolian Turkish people are all turkic? There were people already living in Asia minor before slant eyed Turkics came from central asia. Sorry Arslan but my ancestors are not Turkic or Mongolian but they're hattians and hittites. I'm 75 percent Caucasian caucuses west asia 25 percent European 0 percent central asian with J2 haplo group are you still going to insist that 70+ million population are Turkic in origin. Take that rose colored glasses off with your Turanic pride that is based on myths not factsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-49485901853029217372015-10-08T07:46:12.384+03:002015-10-08T07:46:12.384+03:00Haplogroups N, C, and O in Anatolian and Balkan Tu...Haplogroups N, C, and O in Anatolian and Balkan Turks should be almost totally from Oghuz/Turkmen colonizers from what is now Kazakhstan. This now seems certain to me. Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-76283475460882386792013-10-06T14:22:55.363+03:002013-10-06T14:22:55.363+03:00Search Sultan Baibars /Baybars
The phenotype of B...<i>Search Sultan Baibars /Baybars</i><br /><br />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). Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-24828017225322231912013-09-20T23:05:03.848+03:002013-09-20T23:05:03.848+03:00Search Sultan Baibars /BaybarsSearch Sultan Baibars /BaybarsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-81781593238396910542012-01-10T01:11:35.619+02:002012-01-10T01:11:35.619+02:00Arslan Giray,
I never said all of R1a and all of ...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-35211851752912232842012-01-08T22:34:16.960+02:002012-01-08T22:34:16.960+02:00"N in Turks does not make sense, as N is not ..."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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-24803647840134273192012-01-08T22:29:41.005+02:002012-01-08T22:29:41.005+02:00onur, you are such an anti-Turkic person and all o...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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-74084222975249656672011-10-07T18:52:21.398+03:002011-10-07T18:52:21.398+03:00In 2007, some Turkish researchers estimated, using...<i>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.<br /><br />In ISBA4, another group of Turkish researchers arrived at a 13% estimate for the nomadic Turkic element in modern Anatolian Turks.</i><br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-82868194982991106422011-10-07T04:06:46.731+03:002011-10-07T04:06:46.731+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-89877453304485477902011-10-07T01:22:28.152+03:002011-10-07T01:22:28.152+03:00i wonder how that Oghuz Turkmens turkified settled...<i>i wonder how that Oghuz Turkmens turkified settled people??</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>r1a, l, r1b , n , c , q , o etc. all of them carried by Seljuks to anatolia!</i><br /><br />What is important is not the presence of haplogroups but their ratios.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-17945836345946230102011-10-04T21:58:05.219+03:002011-10-04T21:58:05.219+03:00hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as &quo...<i>hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as " %100 turkified anatolians"</i><br /><br />Incorrect. My estimate is that they are 6/7 pre-Turkic.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-65070330581816267862011-10-04T19:57:03.419+03:002011-10-04T19:57:03.419+03:00hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as &quo...hey dienekes, you are trying to show Turks as " %100 turkified anatolians" ... i wonder how that Oghuz Turkmens turkified settled people?? <br />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! <br />r1a, l, r1b , n , c , q , o etc. all of them carried by Seljuks to anatolia!Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-1172147142239711312011-01-04T16:10:03.540+02:002011-01-04T16:10:03.540+02:00Turks are ~5-7% Mongoloid based on the available s...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-16130449720740834322011-01-04T13:29:10.993+02:002011-01-04T13:29:10.993+02:0014% mongoloid is way too high for Turks or Iranian...<i>14% mongoloid is way too high for Turks or Iranians. </i><br /><br />Read the post again. It's 14% Central Asian, which is part Mongoloid.<br /><br /><i>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).</i><br /><br />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.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-25815796873833308012011-01-04T05:04:15.686+02:002011-01-04T05:04:15.686+02:00I have seen varying Y-DNA and mtDNA estimates that...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.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11566494589399073241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-10563125757950504742010-12-30T23:29:56.846+02:002010-12-30T23:29:56.846+02:00Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert had...<i>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), <b>thus Turkics who arrived Asia Minor after Manzikert were very probably more Mongoloid than present-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan</b>, 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).</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-28795777154907045182010-12-05T01:28:44.680+02:002010-12-05T01:28:44.680+02:00Seljuqs actually came from Khazaria from around Uk...<i>Seljuqs actually came from Khazaria from around Ukraine to Azerbaijan. You should read some history before making false claims.</i><br /><br />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 <b>100%</b> 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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-8283220545255601362010-12-04T13:00:16.475+02:002010-12-04T13:00:16.475+02:00You even totally ignore Dienekes' analysis.
M...<i>You even totally ignore Dienekes' analysis.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Good luck finding "Khazars" or Turkmen that are representative of 1,000AD Turkic groups to bolster your theory though.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-79578978503121028122010-12-04T12:53:05.124+02:002010-12-04T12:53:05.124+02:00Onur how did you come up with the claim that Selju...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.<br /><br />Seljuqs actually came from Khazaria from around Ukraine to Azerbaijan. You should read some history before making false claims.<br /><br />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.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18105146145599471226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-48792652270538422512010-11-23T23:30:15.721+02:002010-11-23T23:30:15.721+02:00As Turkmens who arrived Asia Minor had very recent...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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-18606112328371124512010-11-23T17:38:34.027+02:002010-11-23T17:38:34.027+02:00BTW, Iranics (including the ones in Central Asia l...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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-67367755928191105932010-11-23T16:04:33.092+02:002010-11-23T16:04:33.092+02:00By the way of people living in what is todays Turk...By the way of people living in what is todays Turkey, but 6000 years ago...whoever they were then?<br />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.Samequeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15344182280277856345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-4885334648424605982010-11-22T22:17:19.653+02:002010-11-22T22:17:19.653+02:00Erratum,should be
"an important part of them ...Erratum,should be<br />"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...)." <br /><br />Back to topic<br />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.<br /><br />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.ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02590059778590185827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-4337654673123046732010-11-22T20:52:12.571+02:002010-11-22T20:52:12.571+02:00What we see in the case of Turkics coming to Asia ...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.<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6533996127304587865.post-28916235375127669202010-11-22T20:33:24.090+02:002010-11-22T20:33:24.090+02:00I've told you the rules several times. Combine...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.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com