May 18, 2011

The Central Asian element in Turks (part 3)

In a previous post I summarized extensive evidence by myself and Turkish researchers to the effect that modern Turks are about 1/7 descended from Central Asian Turkic speakers, and 6/7 from pre-Turkic West Asians.

Some people have argued that Uzbeks, the best representative of the Central Asian ancestors of the Turks are inappropriate as a parental population.

Can Turks be modeled as a 1/7-6/7 simple mix of West Eurasians and Central Asians? I refer to my most recent K=11 ADMIXTURE results as useful data that can be used to test this hypothesis once again.

I will use the 4-way average of Greek_D, Armenian_D, Georgians, and Syrians as representative of the "West Eurasian" component in Turks. These 4 populations border Turks from the West, East, North, and South, and their average is expected to be a good stand-in for what pre-Turkish Anatolians were like, and probably more robust than choosing arbitrarily just one of the 4 populations.

I will use Uzbeks as representative of Central Asian Turks, and I will calculate the weighted average of the two (1/7 Uzbek + 6/7 "West Eurasian"). I will then compare this with the average of the Turks (from Behar et al. 2010)+Turkish_D combined sample.

If Turks can be modeled as the simple mix I have claimed, then the empirical Turkish average will be similar to the simulated one (1/7 Uzbek + 6/7 "West Eurasian"). Here are the actual numbers:

As you can see, the simulated average is virtually identical to the empirical one. All components do not deviate from it by more than 0.4%, and only the most important West Asian one deviates by a mere 1.8% which, in relative terms (divided by the mean of 49.2%) represents a 3.7% error.

Given the finite sample sizes, the limitations of ADMIXTURE, and the use of a 4-way average as a proxy for pre-Turkish Anatolians, I can easily claim that this does not only confirm the validity of my model but to an extraordinary degree.

A different way of testing the model's validity is the correlation between the empirical and simulated admixture proportions which is 0.99956. I don't think I need to point out how remarkable this is.

Conclusion

The empirical data are consistent with the idea that Anatolian Turks are a simple mix of a West Eurasian population element equivalent to the average of their immediate neighbors, and a Central Asian population element similar to Uzbeks in a 6:1 analogy. These results confirm and extend the extensive evidence of the previous post.

UPDATE (May 21): In a new experiment, I demonstrate that all available Turkic samples fall almost perfectly on a cline between West and East Eurasians. That experiment also shows that Uzbeks are the most West Eurasian out of the available Central Asian Turkic populations.

It is still unclear what the ratio of West/East Eurasian elements in Turkic people who entered Anatolia was, but these results certainly point out that the Uzbeks are not unusually Mongoloid in their makeup among Turkic peoples, rather the opposite.

Onur Dincer said...

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):

1- 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 said...

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):

That is possible. The point of this exercise, however, is to show that neither the West Eurasian element in Turks, nor the Turkic element in Uzbeks has been "shaken" by anything that could not be modeled on the West Eurasian/Uzbek axis.

It is basically a test of collinearity. Two points on a 2D plane define a line, and we can see whether a 3rd point falls on that line or not. If it does not, then either the two endpoints have accrued some mysterious "other" admixture, or the 3rd point has.

The only difference here is that there are 11D points, and Turks fall along the line between the Uzbek 11D point and the West Eurasian one, 1/7 of the distance between West Eurasians and Uzbeks. There is no "mystery".

If the Central Asian Turks were further from Uzbeks along that line, then 1/7 ought to be reduced correspondingly. No one would seriously argue, I hope, that Turks originated west of Uzbekistan and spread both east and west from there! The genetic evidence for a common "Altaic" Mongoloid component in Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolic speakers makes it clear that the Proto-Turks could not have originated west of Uzbekistan.

Onur Dincer said...

We can test different admixture scenarios with the samples available. In addition to the Uzbek and Uyghur samples frequently used, there is a set of Kyrgyz samples in the Xing et al. database. Zack has one Kazakh participant, but as it is just one sample there is a problem of representativeness.

Katharós said...

Kind of interests me to see a breakdown on the different Turkish "sects" compared to each other.Especially the Sabians who stretch from Turkey to Mesopotamia and are likely pre-Monistic in origin and of course the Alevi who are sometimes referred as non-Muslims by Sunnis.

Onur Dincer said...

Especially the Sabians who stretch from Turkey to Mesopotamia and are likely pre-Monistic in origin

What Sabians are you referring to? As far as I know, the Sabian religion disappeared after the spread of Islam.

Katharós said...

You are right I was totally fantasizing in the back of my mind, I was thinking of the Sabbateans “Dönmeh - Crypto-Judaism” who according to some Turks still exist today.

farmiddle said...

Can something similar be done for Hungarians? Assuming an original Magyar population can be determined, what is the mix in modern Hungarians of surrounding populations - German, Slav and Balkan - with original Magyars?

?? said...

Dienekes, i'm wondering if this Central Asian component in Turks can tell us about the Ottoman/Turkish impact on Greeks and other Balkan people....since this biological component in Turks is past the Neolithic.

What do you think and what do you think the estimates would be? Is there any strong Central Asian component in Greeks? I've never seen anything that shows there is.

Anonymous said...

The Turks that came to Anatolia were from kazakhistan, by the 11 th century Turkic still did not diverge in oghuz/chaghtay/kypchak, there was roughly a single turkic language(characteristic of nomadic expanding language wich remain homogenous in extremly vast area they populate)
Purest Turks are the Turks that stayed in the proto Turkic homeland around lena river and thic corresponds well to yakuts who,interestingly show a genome up to 95-100% normongoloid of the altaic type.
Racially+Culturally+Sex chromosomally speaking the Turk input into central asia and western asia is near 0.
Autosomally speaking it's around 2,6%(i.e normongoloid altaic)not the whole of it could the result of Turk invasions(much of it is mongol+legacy of very ancient altaic hordes invasion since it is also present among persians+levantines&iraqis)
Of course Uzbeks and Turkmens cannot be a matrix to the 10 th century invading Turks as those 2 populations are mainly iranian(autosomally+racially+culturally+by hg'S)and are the result of 10 centuries of Turk invaders/native iranians intermarriages.
The turks invading anatolia were most likely 70-80% normongoloid(if not 95-100%)with Y-DNA C3c, many of them were killed during Turko-Mongolian, Turko-Turkish and Turko-Crusaders wars.
Turkic in anatolia is a mere grammar shift(cultural words are native)of native anatolians to the language of the military rulers.
It's similar to the case of Portuguese in Anatolia(the caucasoid input amongst Angolans too is near 5%)but that does not make Angolans portuguese because they shifted to the language of the few military rulers(yet turkic in anatolia is being spoken for around 7 centuries old but 90% of its lexicon is not turkic+there is no turk cultural input in anatolia while portuguese in angola is being spoken for around 6 centuries however much of the words were romance+there was an important european cultural input in angola such as alphabet+christianity etc etc...wich is not the case for turk invaders in anatolia)

Anonymous said...

mr Dienekes
Historical account speak of maximum 200 k turk hordes for a population of anatolia that is higher than 12 mlns.
I think since Turks came directly(btw in the 10 th centruy there was not oghuz turkic as Turkic did not yet split and develop to its actual branches wich are the result of native west iranians adopting turkic=>oghuz and east iranians adopting turkic=>chaghatay)and very fastly from kazakistan to west asia, you should take yakuts(today kazakhs are the result of 10 centuries of mixing with iranians)as matrix of seljuks from kazak desert.
And also include pashtuns+tadjiks+indians+pakistanis(as they do have-geographically driven-northeast asian input)the remaining amount of northeast asian input that outnumbers the expected anatolian's northeast asian admixture is a legacy of altaics(turks+mongols...)let's say persians have 3% northeast asian and anatolians have 4,5%=>the 1,5% is a legacy of turk&mongol invasions(let's say 0,5% is a legacy of mongols)remain 0,5%
Interestingly Turkic hg marker C3c is around 1% in Turkey=>of the 200 k invading Turks of the 11-12 th century there was a 1% input in the 12 mln populated anatolia=>188 thousand turks were killed during turko-turkish+turko-mongolian+turko-crusaders wars(very broadly speaking).
Turkic in anatolia is merely a grammar shift and it could have been a shift to persian instead of turkic and such case would be similar to south african bantus shifting to afrikaan instead of their(what indeed occured)shift to english and that's is due merely because the power was in the hand of english speaking and not the much more numerous dutch speaking!

pconroy said...

Great work Dienekes - this is exactly the kind of analysis that is now available, since the advent of DTC genetics, and the various DIY projects - fantastic!

EuroMed said...

Interesting. I noticed also that in the same way Portuguese_D could be modeled also as 1/4 North_African_D and 3/4 French_D.

dok101 said...

@ Creative

I am not sure if you are referring to the Mandaeans. If you are not, please disregard this. If you are, there is one S Iraqi Mandaean Dodecad participant. He is DOD460. This can be confirmed by referring to the Dodecad ancestry thread.

Mandaeans, in my opinion, are a predominantly north Mesopotamian people. Please compare DOD460's values with my component percentages(DOD134), and of other Assyrians. They are extremely similar. There is also a Mandaean at 23andMe. He and I occupy a nearly identical spot when comparing positions via the "Global Similarity: Advanced" tool.

Mandaeans have possible ties to Harran (SE Turkey), but, as their association with the ancient, and last (unofficial) capital of Assyria predates the arrival of Turks by perhaps at least a millennium, a suggested Turkish association, in my opinion, is untenable.

The Mandaean text and supposed account of Mandaean history, the "Harran Gawaitha" (Aramaic: Inside of Harran), appears to speak of events from antiquity, possibly the first millennium BCE.

arvydas said...

"The point of this exercise, however, is to show that neither the West Eurasian element in Turks, nor the Turkic element in Uzbeks has been "shaken" by anything that could not be modeled on the West Eurasian/Uzbek axis"

Having not once traveled in those countries, I can testify that, judging from their appearances, the Uzbeks themselves are on the West Eurasian/Kirghiz axis, somewhere around the middle...
I also remember reading that before some battle with Turks the Byzantines were showing melons on sticks, with narrow slits in them and thin goatees added, mocking the typical looks of nomads.
So nomadic input could be somewhere like 1:14 in modern Turks.

arvydas

Dienekes said...

What do you think and what do you think the estimates would be? Is there any strong Central Asian component in Greeks? I've never seen anything that shows there is.

Doesn't seem to be, it's 0.1% vs 39% for Uzbeks and 5.8% for Turks in this experiment, so that would be equivalent to 1/58 "Turkish" or 1/390 "Central Asian" input if it's not mostly noise. A few scattered cases of east Eurasian Y-haplogroups have been reported in Greeks, but there is no reason to ascribe them to Turks specifically, they could also be of Avar or Bulgar origin. Greeks also appear to be fairly unremarkable in terms of Asian, so I would say that any Central Asian signal in them is barely distinguishable from noise.

@dienekes Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:39:00 AM

One question I have is why you didn't use the "Altaic" cluster/pole in your global analysis? Is it because the Uzbeks, one of the weighted population in the simulated Turkish, would be too close to the Altaic cluster?

I suppose if you were to do that you would just end up with the ADMIXTURE result for the Turks saying they are made up of the weighted average of each cluster...

Also, could you do another run using the Mongolians or Yakuts to see if the Turks could be composed of them and the "west Asian". Id like to see if there would be something missing.

Dienekes said...

One question I have is why you didn't use the "Altaic" cluster/pole in your global analysis?

There is no "Altaic" pole, even the Yakuts who are the most "Altaic" in previous analyses have some West Eurasian admixture.

I used the She/Tujia for the same reason I used Palaeoafricans and Amerindians from Brazil, i.e., they seemed like good candidates for maximally differentiated populations based on geography/previous research.

Njord said...

im sorry, but i just dont see this as good enough, to use east Asian as a Turkic signature is simply too "open" for interpretation, you need something more detailed and more limited to central Asia...

maybe its the best one can do with a limited reference sample to choose from though? i could certainly understand that..

Anonymous said...

erratum
It's similar to the case of Portuguese in ANGOLA

(let's say 0,5% is a legacy of mongols)remain 1% ONE PERCENT;Interestingly Turkic hg marker C3c is around 1% in Turkey=>of the 200 k invading Turks of the 11-12 th century there was a 1% input in the 12 mln populated anatolia=>120 thousand turks(OTHER 80 K WERE KILLED DURING THOSE WARS)
BTW IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT AS HIGH AS 200 THOUSAND TURKS COULD HAVE TRAVELLED FROM KAZAKISTAN TO ANATOLIA BY THE 12 TH CENTURY

As for magyars, much of the invading magyars died during various magyaro-ottoman and other wars wich results in a dramatical decrease of the magyar/native panonians ratio(perhaps as low as 0,1%)then panonia was colonized with germans who merely did shift to the magyar language of the ruling class.

Dienekes said...

im sorry, but i just dont see this as good enough, to use east Asian as a Turkic signature is simply too "open" for interpretation, you need something more detailed and more limited to central Asia...

I am not overly concerned on whether the Central Asian (mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid) component in Turks is Turkic or not; the point is to estimate its extent (1/7). And, of course, there really is no other candidate for a Central Asian element in Turkey than, er, the Turks.

Anonymous said...

Central Asian is an iranian land with iranian culture and iranian related archeological sites, the altaic homeland is around manchuria, the proto turkic homeland is around the lena river in northeastern siberia please see the historical maps below that show that central asia is iranian(and still is)until the altaic hordes(turks and mongols)invasions starting in the 7-8 th century(but with no cultural input and merely slight normongoloid altaic autosomal input)
notice also that east asian is a legacy of neighboring sinic and tibetan folks and not of altaic peoples that came directly and fastly from kazakistan steppes and were few mongoloid hordes (koreans+tunguz+turks+mongols) who are connected with the north mongoloid component here below the maps
angolans are portuguese speakers but are not portuguese(portgueses and turks did not commit a genocide on anatolians and angolans otherwise angola would be dominantly caucasoid and anatolia mongoloid and also they were few to leave much autosomal input;yet portuguese ones left cultural input in angola contrary to turk hordes in anatolia)
Same as mongol hordes did not left but tiny cultural&autosomal input in russia(golden horde)and india(mughals)

Anonymous said...

Eastern hemisphere by 1000BC(Central Asia is iranian; altaics live in eastern siberia)

EH by 600 BC(same picture)

EH by 700 AD (start of the altaic turks and mongols and uralic magyars' invasion but they consisted of tiny warlords and tribesmen and it was not a demic peaceful effective colonization through emptylands occupation by farmers and herders as iranians did in central asia)

EH by 900 AD(Turks are now in the Central Asian steppes and will begin invading Iran and Anatolia at the end of this 10 th century)

EH by 1025(Turk warlords[and not Turk colonization but merely few thousands nomadic warlords]are now in Iran&Anatolia fighting against crusaders+mongols as well as interturk wars during wich many of the turks died=>mongoloid mtDNA could be explained by turk slaves sold to seljuk and ottomans from golden horde and crimean khanates)

"There is no "Altaic" pole, even the Yakuts who are the most "Altaic" in previous analyses have some West Eurasian admixture."

I meant to ask why you didn't use a higher k so that an "altaic" cluster could be used.

I suppose "for maximally differentiated populations" could answer that question but id still be curious about the consequences.

Anonymous said...

I know it's not a strong evidence, but here below a statue of a seljuk prince from the 12 th century and as you may notice he was beardless(or shaved his beard)and with slanted eyes

http://art-history.concordia.ca/cujah/issue01/Lee.htm
Figure 8. Head of a Seljuk Prince. Part of a statue of stucco. Iran. 12th century C.E. Ht. 25.4 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Ernst J. Grube. The World of Islam. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967

http://art-history.concordia.ca/cujah/issue01/Images/Lee/Lee%20-%20Fig8.jpg

Since Turks belong to the altaic group wich groups tunguz,mongols,koreans and(very probably)japanese and since the yakuts living in the proto Turkic homeland around lena river are up to 95-100% normongoloid(and suggestingfully of the altaic sub-component)and since Turks were described as slanted eyed,beardless in historical accounts(chinese+iranian+arab+byzantines+armenians) please see the historical quoptes below

Anonymous said...

Memoirs of Timur, Timur: "I told him "that the minds of the Turks were narrow like their eyes, that it was requisite to satiate them in order to gain their attachment, and to tie up their tongues."

TABAKAT I' NASIRI describing mongoloid people of north-eastern India - the Koch: “They all have Turki features and speak different languages, something between the language of Hind and that of Tibet.”

Abul Ghazi, the historian Khan of Khiva, himself a Turk: "Of all the Turk tribes who inhabited those countries at that period, the Tatars were the most numerous"

Maulana Muhammad Kazi: " I had heard that Yunus Khan was a Moghul," says the Maulana, " and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other Turk of the desert; but when I saw him, I found that he was a person of elegant deportment, with a full beard and a Tajik face." [the Moghul Turks changed once they became persianized and by Shah Jahan period they had almost no Turki feature left]

El-Beruni has many particulars: "T[h]aru people .... flat-nosed like the Turks ... Kashmir ... the north and part of the east of the country belong to the Turks of Khoten and Tibet ... The river Sindh rises in the mountains Unang in the territory of the Turks ... Gilgit, Aswira, and Shiltˆas, and their language is the Turkish. Kashmır suffers much from their inroads ... They are of short stature and of a build like that of the Turks. They practise the religion of the Hindus, and have the custom of piercing their ears ... beardless and silver-coloured, one might be inclined to take them for Turks ... men with women’s faces, i.e. the Turks ... The Hindus had kings residing in Kabul, Turks who were said to be of Tibetan origin"

Onur Dincer said...

Lars, I have a question for you. You are a historian and specialized in Ottoman history in real life, aren't you (you wrote that in another Dienekes thread)? Which sources do you use or advise on the subject of this thread?

Anonymous said...

mr onur
I advise you the sources below
1/Peter Golden: the turks, a historical overview
2/lars johanson: the history of turkic
3/hakan erdem's books (in general)
4/claude cahen's books (in general)
5/Heath Lowry(especially The islamization and turkification of Trabzon)
6/Arnold Toynbee's works( Turkey: A Past and a Future as well as chapters dealing with anatolia, byzantine and central asia in some of his other books like "study of history")
7/Speros Vyronis: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century
In a second place arabic and persian works like "tarikh tabari, jamiul al tawarikh,al athar al baqiye,tarikh al masudi etc...)
For pre Turkic Central Asia, works of historians+linguists janos harmatta and richard Frye
oliver roy as well as oswald szemernyi

I think those books are very enough as they encompass most of the first hand accounts as well as they include genuine scholar investigations without falling in the trap of sensationalism

Onur Dincer said...

Oh, thank you SO much, Mr. Lars. I have read some of those books, some of them haven't read but heard or familiar with, and some, never heard. It is always a pleasure to share the same discussion medium with a historian like you. But as far as I can see, you are an expert not only in history but also linguistics, am I right?

Anonymous said...

mr Onur
I am not an expert, but just a graduate in ottoman history.
Linguistics on the other hand is merely a hobby and I think every person that knows 6-7 languages (as your brother in humanity)is naturally inclined to develop such hobby

Valikhan said...

The problem with Uzbeks is that they are NOT homogeneous. There are two very distinct clusters of them: of Turkic origin and of Iranian/Tajik origin.

So, I would very carefully treat them as a representative of Turkic nation, knowing nothing about their ethnic background.

Dienekes said...

These Uzbeks appear to be part of the cline on which most Turkic groups fall, between West and East Eurasians

They also don't appear to form two distinct groups, more like a continuum of West/East Eurasian elements, consistent with a fairly recently admixed population. In any case, as the Uzbeks are the least East Eurasian out of the available Central Asian groups, I am inclined to think that 1/7 may be an overestimate rather than the opposite.

Onur Dincer said...

mr Onur
I am not an expert, but just a graduate in ottoman history.

Didn't you write before that you have a Docent degree in Ottoman history? Did I get you wrong?

So, I would very carefully treat them as a representative of Turkic nation, knowing nothing about their ethnic background.

True, there may be some ethnic Tajiks (fully or partially) among them.

Onur Dincer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

mr Onur
What I meant is that I am not such an expert in Ottoman history, and even my current profession has nothing to do with ottoman or history in reality at then end I founnd myself more interested in the pre muslim history of anatolia as well as pre Turk history of Central Asia and not fond of the policies and nature of ottoman empire as a whole despite me being muslim.
if I had to make a choice I would rather study Iranology rather than Ottoman history
btw , most of the official curriculum about the ottoman history has many flaws and is a bit sensationalist
Remember that official history=/=real history

Onur Dincer said...

What I meant is that I am not such an expert in Ottoman history, and even my current profession has nothing to do with ottoman or history in reality at then end I founnd myself more interested in the pre muslim history of anatolia as well as pre Turk history of Central Asia and not fond of the policies and nature of ottoman empire as a whole despite me being muslim.

Could you reformulate this sentence as I didn't understand it well, especially this part:

"even my current profession has nothing to do with ottoman or history in reality at then end"

lars said...

mr Onur
I actually work as a translator in an import-export office
I would like to add that the official ottoman history curriculum is certainly not the most accurate nor the less sensationalist one

Valikhan said...

"They also don't appear to form two distinct groups".

This is depends where samples been taken. Because they live very separately, forming ethnic villages, blocks, even entire regions. So if you pick 10 random Uzbeks from Tajik region, they all will be Tajik Uzbeks, not Turkic Uzbeks. It does NOT work in European way, when you pick Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and they will be all the same.

Onur Dincer said...

There are indeed two separate clusters of Uzbeks according to Dienekes' "Turkic cline" genetic analysis in the above link. The cluster that includes bulk of the Uzbek samples forms a cluster with the other Central Asian Turkic groups (especially Uyghurs). The other Uzbek cluster, which includes only 4 samples, is much closer to Chuvash than to the rest of the Uzbek samples (as well as all of the Central Asian Turkic samples). I suspect that all of the 4 samples of that minor cluster are ethnic Tajiks from Uzbekistan. Because uniparental genetic tests done so far indicate that Tajiks of Uzbekistan are genetically generally less East Asian and more Caucasoid than ethnic Uzbeks (the dominant Turkic group in Uzbekistan) of Uzbekistan.

mr Onur
I actually work as a translator in an import-export office
I would like to add that the official ottoman history curriculum is certainly not the most accurate nor the less sensationalist one

Well, at least you are a university graduate in Ottoman history.

Onur Dincer said...

than to the rest of the Uzbek samples (as well as all of the Central Asian Turkic samples)

than to the rest of the Uzbek samples (as well as all of the non-Uzbek Central Asian Turkic samples)

Onur Dincer said...

Because uniparental genetic tests done so far indicate that Tajiks of Uzbekistan are genetically generally less East Asian and more Caucasoid than ethnic Uzbeks (the dominant Turkic group in Uzbekistan) of Uzbekistan.

Also autosomal genetic tests.

BTW, I hate to be transgressing the blog rules by triple posting, but it seems no one other than me is posting comments in this thread anymore, so I couldn't wait for someone else to post a comment before posting this comment.

Unknown said...

Onur and Lars,

Please do a huge service to the online anthropology community and stop posting. Have some self respect, stop imposing yourselves on everyone, it's embarrassing to see the way you behave.

Dienekes said...

BTW, I hate to be transgressing the blog rules by triple posting, but it seems no one other than me is posting comments in this thread anymore, so I couldn't wait for someone else to post a comment before posting this comment.

You have a one-way ticket back to ban-land if you don't stop immediately posting every thought that comes into your brain. The rule of the blog is "avoid double-posting" it is not double-post every single time (and if I hadn't deleted one of your countless "corrections" you'd have 4 back-to-back posts in this post.

Please do a huge service to the online anthropology community and stop posting. Have some self respect, stop imposing yourselves on everyone, it's embarrassing to see the way you behave.

I concur. It is a good idea for people to show some restraint in their posting by combining all their thoughts into one comment, and being on point and concise.

Onur Dincer said...

Onur and Lars,

Please do a huge service to the online anthropology community and stop posting. Have some self respect, stop imposing yourselves on everyone, it's embarrassing to see the way you behave.

Questions: Why should I stop posting? Are you in a position to know whether I have self respect or not, how much do you know me? What makes you think that I am imposing myself on others? And why is the way I behave embarassing for you?*

* I am asking the questions on my own behalf, not on Lars'.

I concur. It is a good idea for people to show some restraint in their posting by combining all their thoughts into one comment, and being on point and concise.

I am very sorry for the triple posting, Dieneke. I will never repeat that again.

BTW, my first attempt to post this comment was unsuccessful due to server error, so I am posting it the second time.

Unknown said...

Why should I stop posting? Are you in a position to know whether I have self respect or not, how much do you know me? What makes you think that I am imposing myself on others? And why is the way I behave embarassing for you?*

* I am asking the questions on my own behalf, not on Lars'.

Because you are irritating. You don't only communicate your beliefs, you shove them down peoples' throats. I am most certainly in a position to know whether you have self respect, you have demonstrated that thoroughly throughout the time I have been a participant of this project. Your incessant posting in light of warnings and resilience to offence further proves my point.

The way you behave is embarrassing to anyone with the smallest amount of social understanding. I hate seeing your posts every time I sign on to Dodecad. I'm not going to sit here arguing with you about your lack of self-respect, it's evident to anyone that wants to partake in this project, all I ask you is to tone down your posting, because you are extremely annoying.

Onur Dincer said...

You don't only communicate your beliefs, you shove them down peoples' throats.

I don't think I have done anything like that.

I am most certainly in a position to know whether you have self respect, you have demonstrated that thoroughly throughout the time I have been a participant of this project. Your incessant posting in light of warnings and resilience to offence further proves my point.

I will certainly avoid triple postings from now on. But that has nothing to do with whether I have self respect or not.

The way you behave is embarrassing to anyone with the smallest amount of social understanding. I hate seeing your posts every time I sign on to Dodecad. I'm not going to sit here arguing with you about your lack of self-respect, it's evident to anyone that wants to partake in this project, all I ask you is to tone down your posting, because you are extremely annoying.

If you hate my comments, there is nothing I can do to avoid that. But there is something you can do: just skip my comments.

Onur Dincer said...

Lastly, your statements like "the way you behave is embarrassing to anyone with the smallest amount of social understanding" and "it's evident to anyone that wants to partake in this project" mean nothing, as you - or anyone else - are in no position to know what others think on these matters. Also, you are in no position to know whether I have self respect or not.

Boran Dedeoglu said...

Dear Sir,

I am curios as in which way does the Y haplogroup N fit in to this model. Did this haplogroup enter Anatolia via the Turkic immigration patterns? Is there any link between this haplogroup and the indigenous Anatolian population? Its only found in Anatolia at a rate of %4. It is also dispersed around different regions of Anatolia.
Thank you

Dienekes said...

Haplogroup N in itself is not uniquely associated with Turkic speakers. Determining whether a particular haplogroup-N chromosome was carried by a Turkic speaker depends on context. For example, if a Swede carries this haplogroup, it's more likely that he had a Finnic ancestor. In the case of Anatolian Turks, a reasonable explanation is that haplogroup-N was part of the Turkic speakers that settled in Anatolia from Central Asia.

Boran Dedeoglu said...

Thank you for the informative response. I've read on some sources that haplogroup N is also existent in the Balkans. This haplogroup is said to be valid in Serbia and Bosnia, at minor rates. So can we assume that these people could be carrying the genetic remnants of the Ottoman Empire? Any possibility of mixed Slavic hordes bringing this haplogroup to the Balkans? I am relatively interested in the background of this haplogroup's connection with the Balkans and Anatolia, particularly because my paternal ancestors have migrated from the Balkans to Turkey.(I cannot trace when or if they settled in the Balkans during/after the Balkan inquisition of the Ottoman Empire)

Dienekes said...

This haplogroup is said to be valid in Serbia and Bosnia, at minor rates. So can we assume that these people could be carrying the genetic remnants of the Ottoman Empire?

I would consider Avars a much more likely source of haplogroup N for the Balkans, also Magyars and assorted peoples of ultimate eastern origin.

It is of course possible that some N in the Balkans is of Ottoman or Seljuk origin, but I don't think it is currently well understood which is which, because N occurs overall at extremely low frequencies in either the Balkans or Anatolia and has never been the object of a proper study.

Arslan Giray said...

ONUR and LARS, if you will happy;
im a Turk, and ok you are right, there is no Turk on earth, Turkic impact to anatolia, central asia even to earth is "0%". There was no Turk in history. Turkic languages are derived by indoeuropean iranian words... even yakuts are Turkified siberians. every Turk on earth is Turkified. Turks have shameful history and culture, they stole everything they have from others. actually Turkic/mongol words such as "KHAN, YURT, KHAGAN, BASH, AT," etc.. are iranian words...are you happy now? are you relaxed now? ok then go get some fresh air, spend your times to yourself instead of Turkic genetic/culture/language... please stop messing with us for GOD SAKE

Onur Dincer said...

Arslan Giray,

Stop putting words in my mouth. You are purposefully lying by attributing to me assertions I have never made. Also, my assertions are very different from those of Lars; I don't share many of his views. Lastly, I am free to express my opinions on whatever issue I want.

Pecheneg said...

dienekes,
Can you compare Turks and Turkmens in your next researches?
it seems turks of turkey are 1/7 uzbek.
but im curious about the Turkish-Turkmen comparison.

Bulan Goldstein said...

Onur has claimed that "invaders of Anatolia (the original Turkmens) were more Mongoloid and less Caucasoid than Uzbeks." He wrote "he thinks..." Ok, who cares what anyone thinks? Where is the accurate data? Please just google "tyurki.jpeg" petroglyph and see what Turks in Mongolia looked like 12-14 centuries before. Look carefully their almond shape eyes and long-narrow noses. According to which data somebody claims that Turks are Mongoloids. Is it too hard to compare central Asian Turkish kurgans' burials and Today's Turks' physical attributes or genetic relations at least by Russian researchs? If Anatolian Turks are all Turkicified Anatolian local people, why is that not a single source mention this process in the last millenium? How could Patriarchate records, Christan chronicles, etc. not contain a single complain about Turkicification of such a great settled Christian population by nomads and lost of Christian communities. There is just some records about individual conversion, even that shows such a conversion is rare and worthy to mention it.

Other controversial claim is that Anatolia had over 12 million population when the Turks come. Where is the accurate data again? Anatolia had 12 million population in the 2-3 centurias AD. after t3rd century Roman imperial system collapsed, by that system, trade routes, trade, etc. population could rise to that number. Until 20th century Anatolia could not feed more than 10 million people with her own agricultural production. Anatolian people's survival depended on weather/rain, or they had to starve. Even Anatolia In the beginning of 18th century BC Anatolia had just 6 million population. After 3rd century Roman imperial system collapsed, trade failed, and also we should mention destructive wars between Sasanid Iran and Eastern Roman Empire over 130 years. Sasanid-Roman wars based on destruction of the land to prevent logistics of enemy. After Islam expansion Anatolia still was a continuous battlefield, population lived around the castles and fortified settlements and all the settlements were shrinked to their minimal size. Even the last active Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid swept Anatolia. In summary how a land crushed in contunous wars more than 600 years, has a great population in number? So the number of inhabitants of Anatolia in the 10-11 centuries totaly wrong assumptions.

Onur also falsely claimed that "Turkic tribes coming to Anatolia ...came from what is now Kazakhstan very quickly passing through what is now Turkmenistan and Iran"? Really? Have you ever heard Oghuz Yabgu State (750-1055)? You are calling 300 years as a state "quickly passing"? Who says Oghuzes come from eastern Asia? Probably they were always there, before as a part of western Turkish kaghanate, even according to Divan al-Lugat al-Turk before the era of Alexander the Great. Also Turks ruled Persia/Iran in the last millenium until 1920. Is it again a "quickly passing"?

Bulan Goldstein said...

Let's continue a little bit more...

Another unsolved actually not researched problem is origin of Turks and their homeland. For example according to Chinese chronicles Turks (the tribe that gives its name to all Turksih speaking people) once a time lived at the western side of western sea (Caspian?, Aral?) and migrated to eastern side of the western sea, migrated again 1000 li (app. 500km) northwest of Gaochang, ... and finally migrated to Altays, etc. It is clear Turk tribe come from western Asia, not from Khingan mountains.

About local people of Kilikia, Anatolia, Caucaus, Syria, Iraq, Zagros, etc. everyone forget to mention Hurrians, Subarians, Hattians, etc. that absolutely not spoke an Indo-European or Semitic language. Ancient Armenia was just a continuum of Urartu/Hurrians. So maybe Armenians were just Armenianized Hurrians, if those non-Indo European, non-Semitic peoples did not evaporate.

And Iran was from the very beginning under constant migration from central Asia. Iranist try to make us believe that all the central Asia, north of Black Sea, etc. settlements and steppes were full of civilized, settled and nomadic Iranian people, and Turks come from Eastern Asia 1500 years ago and in a century all the Iranians assimilated by a bunch of nomads?!? How could this be true? A little in number, socalled uncivilized people assimilated civilized, populous in number, setled people of Central Asia, partly Iran, Caucaus, Anatolia, etc.? (all are ancient civilizations)

In summary no one take into consideration that before Indo-Iranians, Indo-Europeans, Semitics, etc. all those lands, all western Asia was homeland of non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people from China to Balkans. So if modern Turks are assimilated local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people then those local indo-European and Semitic, etc. people should be assimilated ancient non-Indo-European, non-Semitic people. Just consider this.

Note: Dienekes, if you do not erase or prevent my comments, and consider my comments are worthy to read I want to write as I have free time.

Regards,

Onur Dincer said...

RAGERAGE,

You made claims that are so incorrect, baseless, ignorant and/or tendencious that they are not worth a reply (you seem to have a very poor knowledge of genetics, history, geography, demographics, physical anthropology and archaeology and also a reading problem). I am almost sure that you are a Turkish nationalist who dogmatically believes that most of the ancestry of Turks comes from the Turkic migrants coming to Anatolia rather than the pre-Turkic-invasion Anatolians.

Bulan Goldstein said...

Onur, "telling your urguements are wrong" is not an answer. Stop your idiotic deliriums, and give scientific resources about the arguements. Who cares what you think? I have answered your false claims and you can not answer back a single one them. Accusation of ethnocentrism is ridiculous while I do not mention a single Turkish source, this is your way to escape, that is it! Also not a single Turk should accused with ethnocentrism because almost everything about Turks have found by non-Turks, not Turks.

You falsely claimed that "Turkic tribes coming to Anatolia ...came from what is now Kazakhstan very quickly passing through what is now Turkmenistan and Iran"? And I wrote 300 years Oghuz Yabgu State and a millenium Turkish domination in Iran and asked do you think such a long political bodies could be called "quickly passing"

But there is no answer of course. If you deny that Hattians, Hurrians, Subarians, etc. were not indo-European or Semitic populations, then please show us your scientific sources.

Everyone sees your bad intentions and on purpose writings, and your claim about that you know history, archaeology, geography, etc. is ridiculous. You are possibly an anti-Turk nationalist of a little nation, who try to twist facts by using a Turkish nick. You called Turksih conquest as Turkci-invasion! When in the history Turks called thenmselves as Turkic, and why do you call it as invasion? Did Akkadians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, etc. not invade but conquer the land in your opinion? I, myself for example always write The Fall/Cohquest of constantinople, because of course it had double sides. Both of them, defenders and attcakers' armies consisted Chirstians and Muslims. History according to ideology is just stupidity.

At the end, I do not write to someone whose motives are so clear but for smart people, to show the truth by putting facts on the table.

Onur Dincer said...

Onur, "telling your urguements are wrong" is not an answer. Stop your idiotic deliriums, and give scientific resources about the arguements. Who cares what you think? I have answered your false claims and you can not answer back a single one them. Accusation of ethnocentrism is ridiculous while I do not mention a single Turkish source, this is your way to escape, that is it! Also not a single Turk should accused with ethnocentrism because almost everything about Turks have found by non-Turks, not Turks.

I have written on these issues for years in various Internet blogs and have presented sufficient explanations and proofs for my arguments. You can find answers to all of your questions and claims in my writings.

Your nationalist bias is very obvious from your writings. That is why I was 99.9% sure that you are a Turkish nationalist after reading your first posts. No non-Turkish nationalist would write what you write.

You falsely claimed that "Turkic tribes coming to Anatolia ...came from what is now Kazakhstan very quickly passing through what is now Turkmenistan and Iran"? And I wrote 300 years Oghuz Yabgu State and a millenium Turkish domination in Iran and asked do you think such a long political bodies could be called "quickly passing"

The territories of the Oghuz Yabghu state were in what is now Kazakhstan, not in what is now Turkmenistan or Iran. The original Turkmens invaded Anatolia and the Armenian Highland concurrently (during the same centuries) with what is now Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, the Transcaucasus, Mesopotamia, Syria, etc. They invaded all those lands from what is now Kazakhstan, the territories of the Oghuz Yabghu state.

But there is no answer of course. If you deny that Hattians, Hurrians, Subarians, etc. were not indo-European or Semitic populations, then please show us your scientific sources.

I have never claimed that Hattians and Hurrians were Indo-European or Semitic, it is rather the opposite; do not ascribe to me views that I have never held. Also I have never said anything about the identity of Subarians (they are a rather obscure peopole).

Everyone sees your bad intentions and on purpose writings, and your claim about that you know history, archaeology, geography, etc. is ridiculous. You are possibly an anti-Turk nationalist of a little nation, who try to twist facts by using a Turkish nick. You called Turksih conquest as Turkci-invasion! When in the history Turks called thenmselves as Turkic, and why do you call it as invasion? Did Akkadians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, etc. not invade but conquer the land in your opinion? I, myself for example always write The Fall/Cohquest of constantinople, because of course it had double sides. Both of them, defenders and attcakers' armies consisted Chirstians and Muslims. History according to ideology is just stupidity.

At the end, I do not write to someone whose motives are so clear but for smart people, to show the truth by putting facts on the table.

I am a Turk and I am not an anti-Turkish nationalist. I do not care about nationalism. I see nationalism as a passing whim of the world that climaxed during the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries.

I see no difference between invasion, conquest, fall, etc. I am not obsessed with words.

There is nothing of value in your posts and I see corresponding with you as a waste of time.

Bulan Goldstein said...

Most of the assumptions about Mongoloid origin of Turks are based upon Altaic theory that an Altaic language was existed and consisted of Turks and Mongoloid populations. The theoretical Proto-Altaic language's vocabulary consisted of 92% proto-Turkish words! Just a question: Which language's vocabulary in the world consisted 92% proto-Turkish words? The answer: Of course just Turkish! We should talk about Proto-Turkish and its heavy influence over Mongoloid populations in the east from 3rd millenium BC.

"It has been suggested that the Turkish, Mongolian and Tungus languages form such a family, commonly called the Altaic, and that they are all descended from a lost primaeval language called Altaic or Proto-Altaic. For some years now I have been coming more and more to the opinion that this is an error and that the fact that these languages gave a good deal of vocabulary material in common is best explained, not by assuming that they have inherited it from a common ancestor, but by assuming that a prolonged and complicated process of exchanges has taken place between these languages. … I am quite convinced that Turkish is not genetically related to either of them". (CLAUSON GERARD, 2000: Studies in Turkic and Mongolic linguistics).

Onur Dincer said...

Most of the assumptions about Mongoloid origin of Turks are based upon Altaic theory that an Altaic language was existed and consisted of Turks and Mongoloid populations. The theoretical Proto-Altaic language's vocabulary consisted of 92% proto-Turkish words! Just a question: Which language's vocabulary in the world consisted 92% proto-Turkish words? The answer: Of course just Turkish! We should talk about Proto-Turkish and its heavy influence over Mongoloid populations in the east from 3rd millenium BC.

The Mongoloidness (dominantly if not fully) of the original Turkic peoples does not depend on whether the Altaic language family exists or not. Most of the support comes from harder disciplines such as genetics, archaeology (including craniometric studies), etc. and also from history.

Bulan Goldstein said...

Archaeological excavations of kurgans and burials of Central Asia and surroundings show the process of mixture of earliest Caucasoids with Mongoloids in a thousands year timescale. Most of kurgans contains a Caucasoid male and an Eastern Asian female, so the original Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloids at least in their mtDNA. This pattern of Caucasoid patrilineages combined with Mongoloid mtDNA in present-day non-IE, Turkic speaking people shows us that most of the Central Asian Turks are originally Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloids at least in MtDNA. In other explanation who are the descendants of the Kurgan burials (mostly Caucasoid patrilineage with Mongoloid matrilineage) from bronze age to present? Turks! Indo-Iranian populations has no such a mixture of Caucasoids and Mongoloids. So they could not be the descendants of these people.

The problem is in summary a) accepting Turks as pure Mongoloids mixed with Caucasoids, or b) accepting Turks as pure Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloids. And archaeological data supports the Caucasoid mixed with Mongoloids in Central Asia. So most of the present day Turks of Central Asia are descendants of these Caucasoid Males and Mongoloid females in different ratios.

BTW for example archaeologists tell us that X culture was IE because Linguists told them so. And linguist tell us that X culture is IE because archeologists told them so. Total vicious circle! Assumptions, suggestions and "should be so"s were accepted as axiom!

And please compare present day Turkic populations and Eastern Asian Mongoloids-Tungusic people in genetics. So everyone can see the difference between them and Mongoloid genetic admixture in originally Caucasoid Turkic people.

And at the end Proto-Turkish and PIE had loanwords that was considered both of them lived side by side in the ancient times. In summary where is the urheimat of PIE, Proto-Turkish should be her neighbour.

Onur Dincer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Onur Dincer said...

RAGERAGE,

As I repeatedly told you, there is no value in making a discussion on your fringe and incorrect views and statements. Please go waste your time somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from the blog of a Greek?

Just look at the so-called research.

20 samples trying to tell us that Turks are not real Turks Lol.

Who did you take those samples from? Kurds, Armenians?

All of this is a deliberate and systematic operation with a political agenda behind it.

Science should be left at the hands of charlatans.

-

Assimilation and forced conversion was never a traditional and historical policy of Turks and you have no arguments to prove the opposite.

* The languages and cultures of the nations that formed the Ottoman Empire were protected so well that in such a short time, a new Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Arab states were established with all of their uniqueness.
(Jean Paul Roux, French Turkologist)

Turks were never Asiatic looking at first place. Eastern Huns that are considered as the ancestors of modern Turks, were a hybrid of Caucasian and Asiatic, but predominantly Caucasian.

"Look in the mirror" is not argument either since as science proved, eastern and western Turks are not two distinct ancestry. Skull, blood group type, height, face scale measurements confirm the unity in the root, which means the same nation and you have no arguments to prove the opposite.

* Under various names, the Turks lived long before our era in the Eastern, Western Europe, Asia Minor, Near East, Central Asia and Western Siberia.
(M. Zakiev)

What you call Armen and Greek are artificial identities, invented by 19th century western historiography based on myths and legends. Turks and Persians are the only two historical nations with state tradition in Asia Minor and you have no arguments to prove the opposite

Gökhan said...

Good work. 1:6 is even so high for a mixing effect of nomadic tribes with Anatolians. It means those nomadic tribes able to mixed with native anatolians in last 1000 thousand year and formed nowadays hybrid Turkish culture in Anatolia (although some idiots does not accept that facts). But I have some question about your study (which disturb me a bit for measuring a ethnicity to detect how much invader they were!!! If i am wrong i m sorry for judging you ) Which datasets of Turks you used? Where those Turkish samples selected? Did you include North Eastern Turkish samples? like Turkish_Trabzon dataset as well? Where was those Turkish samples located? Central and western Anatolia?

And while you are tring to findout effect of nomadic migration on anatolia have you ever thought to find out whats the effect of greek colonists on pontic people to measure "how much greek" are Pontic Greeks? Actualy i dont think that you could find any population on the world to create a pontic greek admixture, by mixing a non pontic greek from greece with it. (May be you can get pontic greek admixture by mixing Cypriots and Lazs, but not Greeks from greece)

Onur Dincer said...

Which datasets of Turks you used? Where those Turkish samples selected? Did you include North Eastern Turkish samples? like Turkish_Trabzon dataset as well? Where was those Turkish samples located? Central and western Anatolia?

Dienekes used the Behar et al. Turkish samples and his Dodecad Project's Turkish samples for this analysis. The Behar et al. Turks are from Cappadocia. The Dodecad Turks are from the Anatolian and Balkan Turkish lands in general, but overhwelmingly from the Anatolian Turkish lands judging by their average results.

Zaya Kolpa said...

"Uzbeks, the best representative of the Central Asian ancestors of the Turks"

Huh, really?! Well, among all Central Asians, Turkmens are closest to Turkish people in terms of language, culture and traditions. Turkmens and Turkish people have very similar cuisines, similar national costumes and ornaments, very similar traditional folk music, the same epics and legends such as Koroglu/Gorogly and Korkut/Gorkut Ata. Even the names of the tribes/clans are the same or very similar in Turkey and Turkmenistan.That's not surprising because the Seljuk Empire and the later Anatolian Beyliks were both Turkmen entities and those Turkic people who came to Anatolia were Turkmens. The ethnonym of Turkish people have been Turkmen (Turcoman in English). Ottoman documents refer to ethnic Turks as "Turkmen" too. They called themselves Turkmen; many people in Turkey still do. All the Turks in Iraq and Syria, who originally brought from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, still call themselves Turkmen as well.

Turkmen language is from the Oghuz branch whereas Uzbek language is from the Qarluq/Chaghatai branch. Turkmen and Turkish are mutually intelligible while Uzbek and Turkish isn't. Uzbek culture, including the traditional costumes, music and epics, isn't as close to the Turkish ones as Turkmen culture are.
By the way, Uzbeks came to Central Asia centuries after Oghuzes and drove them out of what is now Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. (Kyrgyzes came to Central Asia in the 17th century from the Yenisei-Altay region and they drove the Uzbeks out of what is now Kyrgyzstan. Karma is a b..ch, ehhehe) Also, Uzbeks have high amount of Mongolic input (like Kazakhs do) thanks to the Turkicised Mongols in the Chaghatai and Timurid eras; this is evident in many of their clan/tribe names which are historically Mongolian. They have also assimilated and absorbed countless Tajik Persians so far.

So, how can today's non-Oghuz Uzbeks (who are conglomeration of Karluks, Chigils, Tukhsis, Yaghmas, Kypchaks, Mongols, Kalmuks, Tajiks) be the best representative of the 11th-14th centuries' Oghuzes/Turkmens?