September 27, 2011

Uzbeks as the nexus, Altai as the source of Turkic expansions

I have often used Uzbeks as a convenient population to assess the extent of Central Asian Turkic admixture in West Eurasia. The recent Yunusbayev et al. (2011) paper has provided some interesting supporting evidence for that use:


I have extended lines from Uzbeks through the four different western Eurasians Turkic populations: Turks, Turkmen, Nogais, and Chuvashs. It is interesting that these lines intersect West Eurasians at different points:
  • The line of Turks (Anatolia) with Armenians and Georgians
  • The line of Turkmen (Iran) with Iranians
  • The line of Nogais (North Caucasus) with Chechens
  • The line of Chuvashs (far eastern Europe) beyond Russians
These are what we expect if ancestral Turkic speakers en route from their ultimate eastern homeland were roughly like modern-day Uzbeks at some stage before their settlement in west Eurasia. The linearity of the Uzbek-Turkic population-Native population triples is striking

The only case where the fit is not almost perfect is that of the Chuvashs, who are the most northern population. It is easy enough to discover the cause of this. Chuvash have ~1.1% South Asian, as opposed to ~8.2% in the Uzbeks. There is a north-south latitudinal cline of the "South Asian" component in middle Eurasia, and the ancestors of the Chuvash moved at the northern end of that cline; of the Uzbeks at the middle.

If we add a line linking Russians with Chuvashs, we can reconstruct the hypothetical Proto-Chuvashs as a population that differed from Uzbeks in being less "South Asian", which confirms the Dodecad admixture data:

The mystery is further resolved once we look at the following PCA plot from my article On the northern/southern Caucasoid contributions to Asia


Notice that Turks, Uzbeks and the pair of Altai and Dolgan fall along one line, while Chuvashs, Russians, and the pair of Altai/Dolgan along another.

So, the data seems consistent with the idea that the primary source of the westward Turkic expansions was something like the Altai (pics) and Dolgan, undergoing transformations and successive admixtures all the way to the Mediterranean and eastern Europe.

89 comments:

  1. I think instead of Uzbeks, you should use Kazakhs to represent the source population of the Turkic migrations to West Eurasia, as what is now Uzbekistan was Turkified only within the last 1000 years (especially beginning from the 13th century push of Mongols on Turkic peoples from what is now Kazakhstan), thus Turkic-speakers of what is now Uzbekistan have been admixing with the pre-Turkic locals of what is now Uzbekistan (who were all Iranic-speaking) within the 1000 years. What is now Kazakhstan, on the other hand, was already Turkic-speaking before the Seljuq/original Turkmen migration to Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan, which happened within the 11th to the 13th centuries (they first arrived in Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan in the 11th century, thus during the same century, and migration to those lands must have happened more within the 11th to the middle of 12th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire still existed, than within the mid-12th to the 13th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire had dissolved), and more importantly, the original Turkmens almost completely lived in what is now Kazakhstan before the Seljuq/original Turkmen migration to Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IF Altai would be the origin, we'd see Turkic peoples like Kazakhs sporting Altaic lineages like Q and R1a. Instead the most distinctive Y-DNA markers found among Kazakhs (probably the purest Turks preserved to date) are Mongol-like and suggest an origin in Mongolia (before it was assimilated to Mongol language).

    This is consistent with the historical reconstructions I know of: most of Mongolia was the Turkic urheimat and Mongols lived rather to the east of it until Chingis.

    Also it is pretty well known that Altai was in the IE area before Turkic expansion, that they are, much like Uyghurs (and nearly every modern Turkic-speaker) acculturated Indoeruopeans (or mostly so).

    Your use of PC graphs to discern this is kind of perplexing. You do get a reasonable answer nonetheless (Altai is not far from Mongolia) but still...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Altai and Dolgan are more Caucasoid-admixed compared to Mongol and Yakut samples; the latter are already somewhat Caucasoid-admixed.

    It is of course the case that the ultimate Altaic ancestors of the Turkic peoples were Mongoloid, however, I have not yet seen any Turkic populations completely devoid of Caucasoid admixture.

    Therefore, it is likely that the Turkic peoples that started moving westward in the 1st millennium AD were themselves partially Caucasoid, although definitely majority Mongoloid, as the present-day Altai.

    Also it is pretty well known that Altai was in the IE area before Turkic expansion, that they are, much like Uyghurs (and nearly every modern Turkic-speaker) acculturated Indoeruopeans (or mostly so).

    That is nonsense, the Altai and Dolgan are ~ 20% Caucasoid, so they are definitely not "mostly acculturated Indo-Europeans".

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is interesting to see how far north South Asian extends into Central Asia,

    ReplyDelete
  5. By Y-DNA Altaians are 50% R1a. Sure: probably there was a previous substrate to Indoeuropeans (unlike in the Uyghur case) but 50% R1a is anything but East Asian in the paternal lineages.

    Also, IF they'd be at the origin, we'd see more R1a (and proportional amounts of Q) among destiny Turkified populations (we do not).

    I agree with Onur that Kazakhs are probably the "purest" surviving Turks today. The low densities and pastoralist lifestyle of the semidesert surely allowed for an almost complete replacement in that country. There's still some 25% Y-DNA that looks pre-Turkic (R1b, J, H, G, F*...)

    Judging by their apportions of C (>40%), O, N and Q, we can estimate the origins between three different sources: "Mongol", "Buryat" and "Altai". And the "Mongol" one is dominant, while the "Altai" one is less important (it does exist but is not the main source, and could even be pre-Turkic).

    Uzbeks by contrast have very low East Asian apportions of Y-DNA and are therefore mostly non-Turkic even by paternal lineages. Judging by their apportions of Q (very low), most of their R1a is pre-Turkic, while the oriental lineages (mostly C and O) make just 20% of all the paternal genetic pool.

    Of course, Turkic peoples had many bouts of expansiveness between their first migrations and the Ottoman Empire. Each time they were more diluted, less "genetically Turks". They actually make a great historical example for the Indoeuropean/Kurgan expansion itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Turkmens are Iranian folks (khwarezmians and dahaes) that used to spoke Iranian languages till the 11 th century (only in the 13 th century did Turk texts being written in what is nowadays Turkmenistan)
    30 thousand Turkmen4 male warriors (please see the book below)that migrated to 8-12 mln Anatolia did not and cannot kill all Anatolian christians

    http://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/default.asp?id=89658

    Also statistically Turkmen hg's and autosomal makeup dont match Anatolian ones but will match persian and balush speaking north-khorassanian ones(except perhaps a few additional mongoloid C3c Y-DNA)
    If there would be testing of north Khorassan Persians they will show as much (if not more) mongoloid input than Turkmens+caucasus indo-european iranian ossetians have nearly as high mongoloid input as Turkmens but there is no correlation between mongoloid input and identity shifting see iranian Hazaras who are nearly 50% mongoloid
    THE SOLE CONCLUSION WE COULD SAY IS THAT AS EXPECTED TURKMENS ARE THE CONTINUATION (CULTURALLY AND GENETICALLY) OF INDO-EUROPEAN IRANIAN KHWAREZMIANS AND DAHAES
    Modern Turkmens are Turkmen speaking Iranians and are different from 11th century Turkmens who should be genetically identical to modern kazakhs
    nomad oghuz turkmens and oghuz salars as well as oghuz turkmens from uzbekistan would surely be more mongoloid than the tested turkmens of yunusbayev(probably sedentary ones from merv or eshqabad)
    also Oghuz turkish derives from karakhanid turkish and by the 11-13 th centuries it did not yet distincly develop out of karakhanid Turkish (see book below)

    http://www.pandora.com.tr/urun/turkic-languages/40076

    Even if we take turkmen speaking khwarezmian iranian settled populations (aka turkmens) they dont fit with a paradigma of anatolianX turkmen mixing(according to a 3/1 ratio) because
    ARMENIANS[as anatolian matrix]=(1.5EEU+4WEU+28MED+50WAS+3SAS+1MONG+12.5SWAS) X TURKMENS(6EEU+10WEU+14MED+34WAS+13SAS+17MONG+6SWAS)[3/1 ratio]=/=TURKS(6EEU+7WEU+28.5MED+41.5WAS+2.5SAS+5.5MONG+9SWAS)
    BUT=4.5EEU+6WEU+23.5MED+44WAS+6SAS+5.5MONG+10.5SWAS
    IE SOME COMPONENTS ARE MORE AND OTHER ARE LESS THAN INSPECTED=>THERE IS NO A LINEAR CLINE

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Off topic) Onur, sentences with over 130 words do little to get your point across. Accurate ideas can mostly be expressed simply..

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It took a long time to understand Maju's very peculiar position; he appears to think that all P lineaages were originally "Caucasoid". His view is not shared by many in the academic community.

    In light of the distribution of M526 his view can be easily dismissed.

    If Altaians were "acculturated IE speakers" he should consider the possibility that the IE speakers themselves were originally speaking some other languages before they got assimilated into IE languages.

    ReplyDelete
  10. First a correction:

    as what is now Uzbekistan was Turkified

    I meant to say Turkicized.

    If you look at history, you will see that in all of the Turkic migrations to West Eurasia the source area was somewhere in the mostly steppe land that is composed of most of what is now Kazakhstan and the adjacent Asian parts of what is now Russia, whether in the ones through the north of the Caspian as in the case of the great majority of the Turkic migrations to West Eurasia or in the ones through the south of the Caspian as in the case of the Seljuq/original Turkmen migration to what is now Turkmenistan, what is now Azeri lands and Anatolia concurently within the 11th to the 13th centuries (as I wrote above, Turkic migration to Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan must have happened more within the 11th to the middle of the 12th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire still existed, than within the mid-12th to the 13th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire had dissolved).

    What is now Uzbekistan, on the other hand, was Turkicized only within the last 1000 years (especially beginning from the 13th century push of Mongols on some Turkic peoples from what is now Kazakhstan). What is now Uzbekistan was a recipient of Turkic migrations instead of source except the case of the Mughal Turkic migration to South Asia, which is a region that is not in West Eurasia and thus an irrelevant example.

    I agree with Onur that Kazakhs are probably the "purest" surviving Turks today.

    In Central Asian -stan republics, probably true. But further east there are some probably genetically purer Turkic peoples (Altai Turkic peoples are among them). What I meant to say was that Kazakhs are probably a better proxy for the direct source population(s) of the Turkic migrations to West Eurasia (including the one to Anatolia) than Uzbeks (read my this post and previous post).

    ReplyDelete
  11. There were several other papers that used Uzbeks as a simulated source population. It is not that they were implying that Uzbeks were the exact source but rather that they approximate the kind of central Asian people that eventually became Osman Turks.

    I also reject the idea that makes too much connection between Central Asia's putative IE speaking populations of ancient and medieval periods and today's Iranians.

    It sounds too much like the Chinese one; turning conquerers into their brethren in order to erase the shame of having been conquered and ruled by foreigners for most of the last 1400 years.

    Turkic ruling elites in Uzbekistan date back at least to the 10th century or before. Kwarezmid Empire Mongols destroyed already had a Turkic speaking ruling class and royalty.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It took a long time to understand Maju's very peculiar position; he appears to think that all P lineaages were originally "Caucasoid"".

    I have not used the terms Caucasoid or Mongoloid in all this discussion, so please do not put words in my mouth.

    "In light of the distribution of M526 his view can be easily dismissed".

    Just so the rest do not need to search for this marker, it is the one describing MNOPS (or K(xLT)).

    Sincerely, Rufus, I fail to see where you want to reach to. The genesis and distribution of MNOPS or even just P is a very interesting debate but has little to do with this one, which is about "recent" prehistory and even early history (and not the depths of Upper Paleolithic).

    I would not want to divert the debate towards the colonization of Eurasia in the depths of the Paleolithic: it's irrelevant.

    "If Altaians were "acculturated IE speakers" he should consider the possibility that the IE speakers themselves were originally speaking some other languages before they got assimilated into IE languages".

    It's theoretically possible but does it even matter?!

    What I meant is that Altai has been populated by H. sapiens since the dawn of Upper Paleolithic, maybe 40 Ka ago and that such a deeply rooted population should have resisted the IE migrations at least in part, being acculturated but not totally destroyed and replaced. That, unlike in the deserts of East Turkestan, there was not an ex-novo colonization but a layer on older layers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Turkic ruling elites in Uzbekistan date back at least to the 10th century or before. Kwarezmid Empire Mongols destroyed already had a Turkic speaking ruling class and royalty.

    But, as you yourself said, it was the ruling elites (at least in the beginning for the ruling elites before they entirely switch to Persian) and their slave soldiers who were Turkic-speaking, their populace were almost totally Iranic-speaking. So too was the situation in the Ghaznavid Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Onurs:I would not think too much of the linguistic change among the Uzbek ruling elites any more than of Manchu ruling class that started speaking Chinese soon after their conquest of China.

    Also the differece in population size between Turkic speakers and Iranian speakers in that region is not as great as that between Manchu and Chinese. I hear only from Iranians that their various neighboring ethnic groups are just "Persians speaking different languages".

    Even Ilkhanate Mongols started speaking Persian and that is how the Persian language spread to Pakistan. However they were Mongols to the end and add no glory to Persia any more than the British Empire is the glorious achievement of Indian men.

    Maju: I was pointing to your assumption that male lineages such as R1a are unmistakable indications of West Eurasian presence in the region in its entirety.

    That sounds false. Some R1a's may have been there long enough to be localized and that appears to be the case at least for some of the R1a's in the region. And there is also a question on whether R1a can really be classified as West Eurasian in its deep root classification.

    If there are Caucasoid people that speak languages originally from East Eurasia(as is the case for Anatolian Turks) it is also reasonable to assume that there might have been Mongoloid populations that spoke IE. And indeed that appears to be the case and most of them were absorbed into Turkic tribes.

    Also most of Tarim region was glaciated during the last glacial maximum. The archeology before that period has only a marginal significance since the current genetic landscape is the result of recolonization.

    In short your assumption that "Mongoloid markers" in that region are mostly post-Genghis Khan phenomenons is most likely false.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Europoid genetic contribution to the source population behind the earliest Turkic expansions may not have come from IE sources, but from Uralic, with which Turkic shares areal features.

    Looking further back, the "Altaic" expansion in East Eurasia has always been something of a mystery to me. East and Southeast Asia is almost entirely populated by people whose languages share numerous features that have led certain linguists to hypothesize the existence of a general "East Asian" macro-linguistic family consisting of all the major language families in East and Southeast Asia... Except Altaic, which appears to be something of an outlier.

    It occurs to me that many people commenting on this issue might be looking at this the wrong way, focusing specifically on Y-haplogroups, without considering that perhaps in pre-history the patriarchy wasn't powerful enough to consistently maintain language through paternal descent. Isn't it possible that at some point, an admixed population would speak the maternal language, or some hybrid language thereof, instead? If so, the lack of mtDNA analysis seems particularly problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lathdrinor: In light of the fact IE came to dominate West Eurasia very recently I do not see what is so strange about Altaic that is outside of Sino-Tibetan, Austric etc lingospheres even if the latter are related as some posited recently.

    And even if they are related their relationship probably is no stronger than among members of Nostratic languages.

    I don't think for instance the presence of O3 in northern part of East Asia can be directly linked to this so called "East Asian languages".

    Also have you noticed that if you except Chinese there is virtually no East Asian language(excluding SE Asia) among the proposed "East Asian language family"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I was pointing to your assumption that male lineages such as R1a are unmistakable indications of West Eurasian presence in the region in its entirety".

    Certainly it is not East Asian and that was my point R1a may link with Europe, South Asia other Central Asia or even West Asia but NOT with East Asia.

    My exact sentence was: "but 50% R1a is anything but East Asian in the paternal lineages".

    Read things properly before you throw accusations and put words in others' mouths.

    "... there is also a question on whether R1a can really be classified as West Eurasian in its deep root classification".

    West Eurasian or South Asian but NOT East Asian in any case.

    "... it is also reasonable to assume that there might have been Mongoloid populations that spoke IE".

    Not necessarily. But it's irrelevant because I'm not discussing phenotype here but genetic adscription. And R1a no matter what you speculate is NOT original from East Asia at any level.

    In fact you do not find any significant amounts of R1a (or any R at all) much further East by the steppe (there is in South Asia however). That area, together with other Central Asian zones is a range limit both for R Y-DNA and for Indoeuropean languages. You could, I guess, argue that these two phenomena are not related but the area is still a remote end of journey for both ethnic markers: the genetic one and the linguistic one.

    Further East it is a whole different continental region in those two as well as other aspects.

    "Also most of Tarim region was glaciated during the last glacial maximum".

    Exactly my point. Meanwhile Altai was major demographic hub for all the Paleolithic and the only known crossroads between West and East Eurasia north of the Himalayas.

    "In short your assumption that "Mongoloid markers" in that region are mostly post-Genghis Khan phenomenons is most likely false".

    I have not even said that either. However I do think that Y-DNA C3 and O3 (but not most Q, which has a clear West Asian origin) probably arrived mostly with the Turco-Mongol inflow (if you have evidence of the contrary feel free to illustrate me). But there could have been other Oriental elements in mtDNA, for example G, or further North Y-DNA N (accompanied by mtDNA CZ and D). Overall they may have 'conspired' with West Eurasian elements to forge a distinct, mixed, Central Asian and West Siberian pool, which I commented here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rufus, both Persian and Turkic languages are intrusive to Central Asia. Before their spread, East Iranic languages (e.g., Scythian, Sogdian) dominated Central Asia. East Iranic languages are closely related to Persian while Turkic languages are from an entirely different language family; also, Persian and all other Iranic languages are probably ultimately from Central Asia. These are the reasons why some of (or should I say many?) modern-day Persians, and also other Iranic-speaking peoples, lay claim to ancient Central Asian peoples.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Rufus : R1a1a in the Altai, not west eurasian?

    With female haplogroups typical of what is found in Europe nowadays? (and with plenty of modern matches there) ? With a north european component in their autosomal profiles (like among the Yakuts apparently sharing their lineages) ? With an Europoid morphology? With this population appearing with the Afanasevo culture (starting in 3,500 BC) having apparently its origin in the Pontic steppes?

    You're joking, right?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "In short your assumption that "Mongoloid markers" in that region are mostly post-Genghis Khan phenomenons is most likely false".

    No, he thinks that Y-DNA C3 and O3 probably arrived in Central Asia mostly with the Altaic (irrespective of whether it is Turkic, Mongol, Tungusic or a now extinct branch) migrations. Altaic migrations to Central Asia began in the 1st millennium BCE at the earliest for its northern parts; for most of the southern parts of Central Asia, on the other hand, they began as late as 1000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "These are the reasons why some of (or should I say many?) modern-day Persians, and also other Iranic-speaking peoples, lay claim to ancient Central Asian peoples."

    That is like anatolian Turks laying claim to West Manchuria and Liao river. You two(modern Persians and ancient Central Asians) probably are not even of the same racial stock.

    @waggg No I was not joking. It is west Eurasian only because of the historical accident that made the area better connected to West Eurasia. R1a1 as a M45 lineage is not intrinsically West Eurasian. In fact West Eurasia is almost completely devoid of M526 except this single lineage(P-M45 and its descendents) which most likely indicates its ultimate origin well outside West Eurasia.

    Also as I said previously remains from Kurgan burials may not be representative of the population at the time in that area as their East Asian mtDNA indicates, which is suggestive of East Eurasian stock in a close proximity. Remains from accidental deaths etc are required to infer what the general population looked like in that region.

    ReplyDelete
  22. With an Europoid morphology?

    I don't know the morphology or genetics of the ancient skeletons in the Altai region, but modern-day indigenous (I always use the words "indigenous", "autochthonous", "native" and "aboriginal" in a relative sense, not in an absolute sense as that would be unscientific and silly) peoples of the Altai region (all of them are Turkic speakers) have very limited Caucasoid features if at all. For instance, look at the photos of the Altaian people (the major indigenous people in the Altai region) Dienekes posted:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/32883928@N07/page4/

    Also, the autosomal genetics of the Altaian people is predominantly Mongoloid:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AiqxfdH1kqo/TnC1DOX7yUI/AAAAAAAAEHk/LanedZAS19Q/s1600/admixture-caucasus.png

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rufus: the expansion of the IE languages is much better documented, and its association with a genetic population possesses an empirical basis. The process by which the IE languages diffused, though still controversial, is at least backed by detailed models.

    The same is not true of the Altaic languages in East Eurasia. Little is known about their diffusion prior to a relatively late period. Insofar as they reflect a genetic basis, that genetic basis is not firm, and it's obvious from history that elite diffusion was at work, creating a situation in which Altaic languages are spread across a huge genetic spectrum (spanning Europoids and Mongoloids) that is not closely related. The problem with elite diffusion, however, is that it does not leave an easy trail to follow.

    Thus, whereas the presence of "East Eurasian" haplotypes in West Eurasia can be a marker for Turkic and/or Mongolic expansion, that same rule cannot be used in their East Eurasian "homeland." What, then, constitutes the markers for Altaic expansion among steppe peoples, and in places like Korea and Japan (assuming they are Altaic to begin with - if not, at least they are very different from other East Eurasian languages)?

    I suggested that perhaps paternity isn't what is at issue. My reasoning is that there is little that unifies the paternal side of the "Altaic sphere," except for the presence of O3, but O3 is unlikely to be a marker for Altaic expansion in East Eurasia due to its deep seated associations with southern populations and other language groups. Barring elite diffusion of a particularly parsimonious sort, using paternal haplogroups to trace the expansion of this language group in East Eurasia appears problematic.

    "Also have you noticed that if you except Chinese there is virtually no East Asian language(excluding SE Asia) among the proposed "East Asian language family"?"

    Not according to historical linguists, who believe that most of the East and Southeast Asian language families in question ultimately expanded from somewhere in China (or nearby Taiwan). Certainly, there remain pockets of their existence in modern Chinese regions which were not, historically, Chinese. And here, at least, the genetic data from the paternal side makes more sense: for example, the association of O1 with Austronesian speakers, and O2a with Austro-Asiatic speakers, is quite strong and models of their expansion can and have been built. The same is true, actually, of O3 and Sino-Tibetan, but I have a feeling you're not very supportive of that model.

    In any case, my point is that if deeper relations do indeed exist between these language families, then the association of paternal descent with linguistic descent appears quite sound but for the presence of Altaic (or Koreanic or Japonic, if they are non-Altaic), which throws a wrench into the puzzle. These groups defy the haplotype-language association that many commentators find tantalizing.

    Of course, an alternative is to ignore the "Y-chromosome monolith" and to focus on admixture, which accounts for both maternal and paternal descent, and more besides. But as far as I know, there isn't presently a good model for language-admixture associations.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You two(modern Persians and ancient Central Asians) probably are not even of the same racial stock.

    You two? By "you" you mean me? For your info, I am not Persian, I am a Turk from Turkey.

    As for the issue of the racial stocks, how much do you know the genetics or morphology of ancient Central Asians?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Rufus : I didn't mean that R1a1a apppeared in west Eurasia, only that we KNOW that the R1a1a of the Altai had to come from eastern Europe during chalcolithic (for the reason I mentionned).


    @ Rufus : "Also as I said previously remains from Kurgan burials may not be representative of the population at the time in that area as their East Asian mtDNA indicates, which is suggestive of East Eurasian stock in a close proximity."

    @ Onur : "I don't know [...] mongoloid"

    Well, scientists don't seem to have much doubts about it.
    You can get informations about it in books such as those of J. P. Mallory for instance. Here's a few hints about the situation :

    http://dienekes.awardspace.com/blog/archives/000399.html (Especially the last part)

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/n08482r776530k4p/

    As for the east Asian female lineages, in the oldest time period the female haplotypes were almost all west eurasians (and their modern matches were almost all in Europe in the study from 2009 about the Krasnoyarsk/Altai region from bronze and iron age remains, made in 2009), the east Asian haplotypes start to be found in higher frequency only from early iron ages (kayser et al 2009 and Derenko et al 2002)

    If the kurgan remains would show a social bias (leaving aside the east Asian lineages), it would still fade through the time much faster than observed, at least in the female lineages. And the archaeologists only (or almost only?) see caucasoid skeletons untill the beginning of iron ages.
    I'm not saying there were no admixture from the earliest time period, just that it seems to have been very limited at first (then the situation reversed).

    Also they almost all matches Europeans in these data (that still goes well into the iron age IIRC) :

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/light-pigmented-caucasoids-from.html

    So if you combine:

    - the general morphology of the ancient popoulation
    - ligh pigmentation of many of them
    - the many matches of Y-DNA and mtDNA in Europe
    - the chalcolithic archaeoligical link with south Russia and Pontic steppes
    - the specific lactase persistence allele in common with Europeans (found in low quantity up to east of Siberia)
    - (north) European autosomal component (found up to the Yakuts)
    - The fact that the oldest male and female lineages there were not east asian (kayser et al 2009) and that the latter appear rather late

    I think the situation seems rather clear.


    "have very limited Caucasoid features if at all"

    There are such features findable in these peoples, according to Russian scientists, especially in specific peoples of these regions.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are many other East Asian languages besides Sino-Tibetan, Korean and Japanese. Nivkh(Gylliak) historically ranged much farther south. Korean appears to have a substantial Nivkh substratum.

    Your "East Asian Language family" should be just Southeast Asian and Sino-Tibetan even if some of the Southeast Asian languages ranged farther north historically just as Nivkh today is not considered East Asian.

    @Waggg
    Dicovery of East Asian mtDNA in prehistoric Europe completes the puzzle that pockets of Q in Balkan etc presented. East Asian lineages both male and female ranged much further west albeit sporadically. N1c's in northeast Europe also testify to that.

    The picture you presented in restricted to Kurgan burials. Come to talk only if you have any other "evidences". Whether the replacement should have been faster or slower all seems to be your wishful thinking.

    The fact of matter is that all P lineages, R1a R1b R2 Q were not present in Europe before Holocene. Perhaps as late as early Bronze age. Your definition of "West Eurasian" is too broad. It includes everything that is not East Asian and perhaps Southeast Asian.

    It is remarkable that M526 appears to be non-WestEurasian even under such a broad definition of "West Eurasian". On the other hand "WestEurasia" includes just about everything by default.

    One could with equal validity talk about Europe and "Asia". That way you can focus on how everything in Europe came from Asia.

    The closeness of Europeans and South Asians for instance is an accident of history and geography.
    The population movement and genetic exchange were easier. It does not mean that mesolithic populations in two regions were intrinsically closer by default.(though they may have been)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, Waggg, my judgements in my post you responded were about the modern-day indigenous peoples of the Altai region. But thanks for the info anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My reasoning is that there is little that unifies the paternal side of the "Altaic sphere," except for the presence of O3

    Cinnioglu et al. found O3 in 1 individual in a total of the 523 Turks from Turkey they analyzed. It was the only O clade found.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Waggg

    As for your insistence on Kurgan burials as representing the general population note that the area has fewer remains from later periods. Why? because of the nomads' burial practices.

    And no I am not just talking about social biases, I am talking about different cultures living contemporaneously in the same region with Kurgan people.

    As I said bring evidences from accidental deaths. Enough number of them will convince me in favor of your view if they are all like remains from Kurgan burials.

    Also you seem to overstate how West Eurasian, even European the kurgan people were. That is another long story.

    It is like Kennewick man. When it gets filtered down to laymen he becomes just an ancient white man in North America even though in reality he was anything but a white man as shown by more qualified professional anthropologists.

    There are enough of East Asian male and female lineages in Europe, both modern and prehistoric. If you think they all carefully bypassed "the steppe highway" and took the northern forest routes you need more evidneces to support that kind of outlandish view.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Rufus: "The fact of matter is that all P lineages, R1a R1b R2 Q were not present in Europe before Holocene."

    Still no absolute certainty of that.

    "The picture you presented in restricted to Kurgan burials. Come to talk only if you have any other "evidences". Whether the replacement should have been faster or slower all seems to be your wishful thinking."

    Actually I don't know if all the human remains used for the conclusions of the scientists I mentionned concerning their physiognomy are from Kurgans (even though it probably is), but your conclusions don't seem to be less wishful thinking I think because the Afanasevo culture starts around 3,500 BCE and the aDNA tests seem to show that there were no east Asian lineages in their gene pool until early iron age (more or less 2,500 yrs later). Such a barrier lasting so long in this forsaken place on the sole basis of a social bias is very difficult to believe, to say the least. It sounds impossible to me.

    BTW, the same phenomenon is seen in Kazakhstan (Lalueza-fox 2004 (about bronze and iron age mtDNA lineages of Kazakhstan)) : first only west eurasian lineages, then apparation of east Asian lineages at the beginning of the iron age. Certainly not a coincidence that we find the exact same pattern.

    There probably were some admixture early, but the data should lead us to assume it was not an important phenomenon (at first).

    "On the other hand "WestEurasia" includes just about everything by default."

    I mentionned half a ton of data that seem to particularly link this ancient Altaian population to Europe, so it should be of some help to pinpoint the source.

    @ Onur : "Well, Waggg, my judgements in my post you responded were about the modern-day indigenous peoples of the Altai region. "

    I did mention the opinion of Russian scientists about modern day Altaians in the last part of my post (an dId have seen pictures of people of the Altai that definitely not seem "pure" east Asians).

    When you look the general population of Kazakhstan (about 1/3 of their mtDNA is from west Eurasia IIRC. I don't remember the % of the Y-DNA but it's pretty low IIRC), they definitely look east Asian but you can find many individuals that the phisiognomy (and face shape, etc...) seems to betray other genetic elements.
    In all these regions you can see that there a little somehthing else "in it", so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Not according to historical linguists, who believe that most of the East and Southeast Asian language families in question ultimately expanded from somewhere in China (or nearby Taiwan)".

    I agree, but some disagree.

    "for example, the association of O1 with Austronesian speakers, and O2a with Austro-Asiatic speakers, is quite strong and models of their expansion can and have been built. The same is true, actually, of O3 and Sino-Tibetan"

    Those correlations seem very obvious to me.

    "Your 'East Asian Language family' should be just Southeast Asian and Sino-Tibetan even if some of the Southeast Asian languages ranged farther north historically"

    My guess is that the ''East Asian Language family' originated further north than where they survive today. I agree that Nivkh and the Altaic languages (including Korean and Japanese?) are not related to that family. However Ket and the Na-Dene languages may be distantly related to it. The region is obviously fairly complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I did mention the opinion of Russian scientists about modern day Altaians in the last part of my post (an dId have seen pictures of people of the Altai that definitely not seem "pure" east Asians).

    These do not contradict my statement "modern-day indigenous (I always use the words "indigenous", "autochthonous", "native" and "aboriginal" in a relative sense, not in an absolute sense as that would be unscientific and silly) peoples of the Altai region (all of them are Turkic speakers) have very limited Caucasoid features if at all". I have never said all of them look pure Mongoloid. Bulk of them look pure Mongoloid, but occasionally individuals with some Caucasoid features can be found.

    ReplyDelete
  33. In his last paper before death Sergei Starostin talks about Altaic loans in Old Chinese.
    He thinks Yangshao culure was Altaic-speaking and Sintic speakers were newcomers there later.
    See "Past Human Migrations in East Asis" Routledge Studies in the Early History of Asia
    He actually is more specific;he thinks the Altaic in that area was most likely Korean-Japanese.

    Sino-Tibetan, actually even broader, newly proposed "East Asian Languages"(I resent this terminology) date only to about 6500BC. Sino-Tibetan only to about 4500BC. This is not comparable to the age of O3.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Rufus: Sergei Starostin proposed the Sino-Caucasian theory, which is not well accepted within the linguistic community and indeed heavily criticized for methodological errors. His "last paper" hasn't been published, and like his Sino-Caucasian theory is considered a fringe view, at best, by linguists. While a late Neolithic elite diffusion of the Sinitic language cannot be ruled out as a hypothesis, the idea that the language of northern China was a branch of Korean-Japanese is rather far-fetched.

    The Nivkh languages are also not "East Asian," even by stretching the definition of the term. It is a typical Paleo-Siberian language isolate, thought to be descended from peoples who migrated eastwards from the Transbaikal area, or at least some other part of Siberia, which is not and has never been considered "East Asian."

    Consequently, I find neither of these points satisfactory as aids for explaining why there is a dichotomy between Altaic and the other major language groups in the East Asian region. And even if one were to suppose the unlikely scenario that Sino-Tibetan displaced Altaic en masse in North China, one would still have to propose a reason for how it happened. Sergei Starostin failed to do this (his idea that the Zhou Dynasty was a platform for ST linguistic conquest across North China is largely rejected by historians and linguists), and the Y-haplogroup profiles are not supportive, either (O3 being rather unlikely to be intrusive to Sino-Tibetan speaking peoples). Indeed, the last point is what brought me to the question, in the first place, regarding whether language may have been inherited maternally in pre-historic times. Of course, a simpler explanation would be that it is Altaic, and not the other language groups, that is the intrusive element in East Asia. Such a scenario has the support of historical examples - that of militaristic nomads invading sedentary neighbors and spreading their languages in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Lathdrinor

    You don't really have the right background to talk about population genetics.

    O3 is too old to be a exclusive marker for Sino--Tibetan, too old even for the broader "East Asian Languages".
    Actually even O3-M117 is too old.

    Altaic is also younger than 8000 years and it is not all too unlikely that O3 was present right from the beginning.

    Since the proposed "East Asian Languages" is around 8500 years old there were other, probably extinct language groups in the rest of East Asia which certainly harbored O3. Some of them may have been consanguine with SinoTibetan but others may not have been. And who knows some of them may have been now-extinct distant relatives of Altaic?

    And the Chinese "scientists" you are trying to defend elsewhere are considered, in the field ,as much loons as Sergei Starostin. Actually far more.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Rufus :

    "There are enough of East Asian male and female lineages in Europe, both modern and prehistoric."

    Modern? It's extremely rare.
    Are you talking of Y-DNA N1c and mtDNA Z1 and D5? Clearly It's linked to what you call the northern forest route.

    The mtDNA C5 found in east Europe is extremely rare.

    As for the Ancient east Asian mtDNA lineages in east Europe, who knows how representative they were and since when they were there (-> "dilution", so to speak).

    (And as for your Kennewick man example, I'm not really sure what you have so much contempt for the Russian scientists that gathered the morphological data I mentionned, especially since they seem confirmed by genetics and archaeology)

    "Also you seem to overstate how West Eurasian, even European the kurgan people were."

    I don't see what else they could have been. The chalolithic kurgan (Afanasevo) Altaians clearly seem derived from them, so unless you didn't bother to read the elements I listed previously, I don't think you can have much doubts about their global nature (the Afanasevo population says something about its original source of population).
    We can't just forget about the actual available data, right?

    Whatever. It's not important.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Rufus In language diffusion theory, O3 is not a "Sino-Tibetan" haplogroup, just as O1 and O2a are not "Austronesian" or "Austroasiatic" haplogroups. Rather, they are markers of population expansions associated with those language families.

    O3, O1, and O2 are far older than the expansions in question - that is accepted by all. After all, one would be stupid to think that the moment M117 mutated was also the moment the Sino-Tibetan language was born - it's absurd to even think about, and I am insulted that you would attribute such an idea to me.

    But just because a haplogroup is older than the language group in question, does not mean it cannot be characteristic of the expansion of said language group. The haplogroup is, in diffusion theory, used to track the movement of a (paternally-defined) population, which, if coincident with the expansion of a particular language group, may then be said to be the marker of that language group's expansion.

    But of course, we don't actually know whether O3 is the marker of a language expansion or not - that is controversial. What we do know, however, is that O1 and O2a are highly associated with certain linguistic populations, and so presumably played a sizable role in their respective expansions.

    Similar observations across the world have led to a more general principle that male ancestry is significant in the determination of language families, and that a proportion of "common" male ancestry is always present in the range of language groups.

    My use of Altaic is actually as a challenge to this idea. Because if one were to look at the general distribution of haplogroups across the Altaic spectrum, one would find that very few haplogroups are shared across the entire spectrum. This raises the question of how Altaic expanded in the regions in which it is spoken - not a trivial question, by any means - and how this expansion may be understood in genetic terms, since out of all the macro language groups in the world, Altaic has perhaps the most diverse profile in relation to the genetic spectrum.

    To this end, my use of M175 as an expansion marker for a group of related language families is by no means absolute. It is a simple association that any observer could have noted. In the same way, that Altaic deviates from the other language families represented by M175 in a non-trivial way can also be simply noted. Why this deviation exists, I don't know, but I do know that repeating the refrain "O3 is too old to be Sino-Tibetan or East Asian" is not likely to be useful. The development of a model for language-genetic interaction in East Asia requires one to go far beyond such casual observations.

    Oh, and save the patronizing "you don't have the background to talk" for when you become an expert in the field. It's quite obvious at the present that your own ideas are by no means what passes as "academic." So, since we're all biased here - why try to hide your own?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "While a late Neolithic elite diffusion of the Sinitic language cannot be ruled out as a hypothesis, the idea that the language of northern China was a branch of Korean-Japanese is rather far-fetched".

    Rather far-fetched indeed.

    "O3 being rather unlikely to be intrusive to Sino-Tibetan speaking peoples"

    True.

    "a simpler explanation would be that it is Altaic, and not the other language groups, that is the intrusive element in East Asia".

    Agreed. Especially considering your earlier statement, 'The Nivkh languages are ... typical Paleo-Siberian language isolate, thought to be descended from peoples who migrated eastwards from the Transbaikal area, or at least some other part of Siberia'. Altaic could have an ancient connection to it, although Japanese and Korean are not very closely related to it so probably arrived independently.

    "O3 is too old to be a exclusive marker for Sino--Tibetan"

    Are you sure of that? It is certainly not 'exclusive' to Sino--Tibetan as it is associated with Austronesian in the eastern region of that language family. However O3 could well have originated somewhere at the western end of the Chinese Neolithic, the Chinese/Tibetan border region. But that doesn't mean it originated with the Neolithic. Simply that it began its expansion with the Neolithic. As is moved into the SE Asian islands members adopted Austronesian languages. Probably as a consequence of 'whether language may have been inherited maternally in pre-historic times'.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rufus, you constantly speak about the East Asian affinities of the kurgan peoples and ancient Central Asians and describe them as being from a different racial stock from West Eurasians but don't give references for your claims. Elaboration please.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The owner of this site deletes double posts and there is a limitation on the number of characters per post so I cannot answer all of you.(besides, I don't like to spend a long time to write a post and to be unsure whether it will go through the moderation)

    Fortunately there is not much to answer. If someone thinks I am a novice like him so be it.

    Onur etc also clearly misunderstood most of what I was saying. In fact quite funny since I was saying the opposite;Kurgan burials were initially assoiciated
    with West Eurasians. If there were people of other cultures living even in the same area they probably may not be represented archaeologically. Especially if they leave their dead in the open like most nomads do.

    That is why I am demading to see remains from accidental deaths or other burial practices(not as good as accidental deaths but ...).

    As for SinoTibetan and all that...
    If Sino Tibetan is 6500 years old, that means 6500 years ago it was spoken in a small area perhaps by a tribe. There clearly were other people and languages in the rest of East Asia. Some of them may have been related to ST while others may not have been, not even to the broader "East Asian Languages".

    O3 being as old as it is was likely already present elsewhere in East Asia. So at least some O3 ,say, in "Central Plain"(assume for a moment that this is not the home of ST) most likely descends from a group not belonging to ST until relatively recently. Certain sublineages of O3 may be a ST markers but not the whole O3. O3 is too old.

    In particular some O3's among Alaic speaking people may not have come from Sino Tibetan and not even from "East Asian Languages" speakers.
    It could have come from certain extinct language speakers but the same can be said of some O3 among ST speakers.

    I don't see any valid objection to my idea so this will be likely my last post on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rufus, maybe kurgan peoples was the wrong term. I should have framed my post as:

    Rufus, you constantly speak about the East Eurasian affinities of the ancient Eurasian steppe peoples and ancient Central Asian peoples and describe them (even the ones speaking IE languages) as being from a different racial stock from West Eurasians (whether Europeans or West Asians), but don't give references for your claims. Elaboration please.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Similar observations across the world have led to a more general principle that male ancestry is significant in the determination of language families, and that a proportion of "common" male ancestry is always present in the range of language groups.

    Indeed that is why R1b is the best haplogroup candidate to have spread Proto-Indo-European.

    Quote:

    R1b almost certainly crossed over from northern Anatolia to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It is not clear whether this happened before, during or after the Neolithic. A regular flow of R1b across the Caucasus cannot be excluded either. The genetic diversity of R1b being greater around the Caucasus, it is hard to deny that R1b settled and evolved there before entering the steppe world. Does that mean that Indo-European languages originated in the steppes with R1a people, and that R1b immigrants blended into the established culture ? Or that Proro-Indo-European language appear in northern Anatolia or in the Caucasus, then spread to the steppes with R1b ? Or else did Proro-Indo-European first appear in the steppe as a hybrid language of Caucasian/Anatolian R1b and steppe R1a ? This question has no obvious answer, but based on the antiquity and archaic character of the Anatolian branch (Hittite, Palaic, Luwian, Lydian, and so on) an northern Anatolian origin of Proto-Indo-European is credible. Furthermore, there is documented evidence of loan words from Caucasian languages in Indo-European languages. This is much more likely to have happened if Proto-Indo-European developed near the Caucasus than in the distant steppes. R1b would consequently have been the spreading factor of PIE to the steppes, and from there to Europe, Central Asia and South Asia.

    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Rufus since you fundamentally reject the notion that O3 in Altaic speakers have anything to do with other "East Asian" language families, as I suspected and said I suspected in an earlier post, let me pose the question in a different way: what, if any, were the diagnostic genetic markers of Altaic expansion in East Asia?

    From your numerous other comments regarding the "East Asian" genetic affinity of various groups in the rest of Eurasia, most of which you link with migrations from either the Altai region or Northeast Asia, it seems fairly obvious that you have in mind the profile of such a group and ideas about its expansion.

    And it is a good general question, besides, since much of the assumptions surrounding East Eurasian lineages in West Eurasians designates an originally Mongoloid homeland somewhere in East Eurasia, presumably populated by the "Altaic source population" whose linguistic expansion can be traced through genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Lathdrinor: If anything, it should be more C3 (some subclades of it, specially C3c I infer) than O3. Even if some O3, as well as some N and other lineages also took part with lesser significance.

    C3 is what links Mongols from Mongolia, Buryats, Tungus and Central Asian Turks (notably Kazakhs).

    Of course I mean "micro-Altaic", without Japanese or Korean, that are more often than not placed outside Altaic.

    Still I wouldn't try to bring this notion of genes and languages as being related too far. It's too easy that other peoples, with different genetic background, switch language either because of contact or because of being dominated by the expansive group.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Certain sublineages of O3 may be a ST markers but not the whole O3".

    I'd say you are correct there.

    "based on the antiquity and archaic character of the Anatolian branch (Hittite, Palaic, Luwian, Lydian, and so on) an northern Anatolian origin of Proto-Indo-European is credible. Furthermore, there is documented evidence of loan words from Caucasian languages in Indo-European languages. This is much more likely to have happened if Proto-Indo-European developed near the Caucasus than in the distant steppes".

    But IE may have developed on the northern side of the Caucasus, adjacent to the steppe. Even on the northern slopes they would have been exposed to Caucasian languages. Hittite and Luwian may have moved through the Caucasus into Anatolia. I think the R1b/R1a hypothesis is the most likely association with the main language spread.

    ReplyDelete
  46. OMG. the place are full of anti-Turkic idiots... hey dienekes. according to you, greeks are purest nation on the earth, right?
    but all Turkic peoples are turkified ? fucking anti-Turkic idiot! 400.000 yurts of Oghuz nomads migrated to anatolia during the 11. to 14. century! idiot!

    ReplyDelete
  47. OMG. the place are full of anti-Turkic idiots... hey dienekes. according to you, greeks are purest nation on the earth, right?
    but all Turkic peoples are turkified ? fucking anti-Turkic idiot! 400.000 yurts of Oghuz nomads migrated to anatolia during the 11. to 14. century! idiot!


    I usually don't let a post of this type to go through, but it is instructive of a certain mentality.

    1. One is not "anti-Turkic" if they give an estimate of the source and level of Central Asian Turkic admixture. There is a cline of opinion among the Turks of this site going from a few thousand to almost half Central Asian Turkic speakers arriving in Anatolia. My own opinion of 1/7 is a rather middling one, and one which is also supported by Turkish researchers themselves. Hence, there is no basis for the "anti-Turkic" accusation.

    2. I never claimed that Greeks are the "purest nation on Earth", so keep your strawman arguments for yourself.

    3. The idea that "all Turkic peoples are turkified" is another red herring. Actually, I am sure that there are some folks in Siberia that have largely retained the early Proto-Turkic gene pool to a great degree of approximation. Yakut and Dolgan, for example, are some of the populations that have most of the "Altaic" ancestral component.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidimensional-scaling-and-admixture.html

    Most present-day Turkic speakers have, however, been Turkified. There is nothing mysterious about this assertion. One just has to look at the PCA map to see that Turkic groups form separate clusters all over the Eurasian continuum. The simplest explanation for this pattern is that the original Turkic nucleus has been modified by different types of admixture in different locations.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 400.000 yurts of Oghuz nomads migrated to anatolia during the 11. to 14. century!

    Did you count the number of yurts entering Anatolia during those times? No one knows how many yurts entered Anatolia, but certainly the number you give is a very colossal exaggeration and impossible to be true. The only source from those times that gives information about the population figures of Anatolia is William of Rubruck, a Flemish explorer who traveled the territory of the Rum Seljuqs (=Anatolian Seljuqs) thoroughly during the 1250s, thus after the Mongol invasion. He reports that less than 1/10 of the total Rum Seljuq population is Muslim and more than 9/10 of the total Rum Seljuq population is Greek or Armenian Christian. He doesn't give information about the ethnicity of the Muslim population, it certainly includes Greek or Armenian converts to Islam. Also he only gives the population figures of the Rum Seljuq territory, but as you know, the regions of Anatolia that were not part of the Rum Seljuq state completely belonged to Christian states during those times, whether Greek or Armenian states, and comprised big regions in the western, southeastern and northwestern parts of Anatolia, and in those Christian states almost all of the population was Christian. Thus during those times in the whole territory of Anatolia the ratio of Muslims was much lower than 1/10, probably less than 1/20, and those Muslims included all Muslims of Anatolia irrespective of ethnic background. Also note that William of Rubruck traveled the Rum Seljuq lands after the Mongol invasion and in a time migration from Central Asia was almost over.

    ReplyDelete
  49. comprised big regions in the western, southeastern and northwestern parts of Anatolia

    I made a typo here. It would be "comprised big regions in the western, southeastern and northeastern parts of Anatolia".

    ReplyDelete
  50. I heard that the Seljuk rulers in the Ottoman Empire tended to intermarry with the locals rather than breed as a distinct racial caste. That would have diluted the genetic effects of any social reproductive advantage. Dont quote me on that though, it needs verifying. The Normans are (now) said to have done the same in France and England. Hinduism on the other hand presents a different, caste model; historical South Africa too.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I heard that the Seljuk rulers in the Ottoman Empire tended to intermarry with the locals rather than breed as a distinct racial caste.

    There was no Seljuq ruler in the Ottoman Empire. If you meant Ottoman rulers, as a general rule they married or concubinized enslaved daughters of Christian families from the Balkans, Anatolia, the Caucasus or somewhere else in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The origin of Turkic languages and dispersal is Yakutia so I think you should use Yakutia and not Altay as the origin.

    Also I suggest you use Oghuz Turk salars from China in the analyzis as they seem very pure "Turks" (and thus original Turks) because they did not intermarry with the local budhist hans

    ReplyDelete
  54. My own opinion of 1/7 is a rather middling one, and one which is also supported by Turkish researchers themselves.

    Certainly there is no consensus on the ratio of the Central Asian Turkic admixture in Turks among Turkish reasearchers and also non-Turkish researchers. Professors Cinnioglu, Kalfoglu and Atasoy, who are all Turks and among the most prominent Turkish genetic researchers, together with many prominent genetic researchers worldwide, including L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, calculated the ratio of the Y-chromosome thus paternal contribution of the Central Asian Turkic migrants on Turks and found it to be less than 9% in the most comprehensive study to date on Turkish Y-chromosomes. The mtDNA and autosomal DNA of Turks are less well examined than their Y-chromosomes, so it is currently very pre-mature to make conclusive general estimations based on them on the issue of the Central Asian Turkic admixture in Turks. Recently Gokcumen et al. found the Turks he examined to be genetically indistinguishable from their non-Turkish neighbors in mtDNA thus maternal DNA, also a recent spatiotemporal craniofacial study found Turks to be almost completely descended from Neolithic Anatolians on maternal side. These all indicate that Turks are even more local in their maternal origins than in their paternal origins. So in autosomal thus overall genetics Turks should be expected to be even less Central Asian Turkic admixed than the ratio of the paternal contribution of the Central Asian Turkic migrants on Turks Cinnioglu and his team found. Of course, only with more research we will have more conclusive answers on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  55. BTW, the 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.

    Lastly, a minor correction:

    Recently Gokcumen et al. found the Turks he examined

    Recently Gokcumen et al. found the Turks they examined

    ReplyDelete
  56. Forgot to mention: In 2010 I made a criticism of that study thus both papers:

    "What does it mean "with respect to the Balkans"? In order to estimate Central Asian genetic contribution to Anatolia, Anatolian Turkish genes should also be compared with Anatolian Greeks, Armenians and Kurds and also with the eastern neighbors of Anatolia, not just with the Balkans. But a much better method is ancient DNA tests and this has never been done in Anatolia in a large scale. Only large-scale spatial-temporal studies done in Anatolia so far are craniofacial studies; they pointed to strong genetic continuity in Anatolia at least since Neolithic times, especially in the maternal line, but that isn't conclusive as craniofacial studies are limited in their ability to detect small gene flows. A large-scale spatial-temporal DNA study would be much more conclusive."

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/isba4-abstracts.html?showComment=1285409650403#c2358180912947980767

    Sorry for the triple posting BTW. Won't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Turks migrated many different places and established many states in the different parts of the world like China, India, Iran, Egypt, Northern Caucasia/Russia, Balkans etc. but locals always assimilated the Turks except Anatolia. What is the reason for this? Why only Anatolia? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Master, your question is based on an erroneous and too simplistic interpretation of history. So there is no point in attempting to answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ Maju: "Still I wouldn't try to bring this notion of genes and languages as being related too far. It's too easy that other peoples, with different genetic background, switch language either because of contact or because of being dominated by the expansive group."

    I don't disagree at all with a the second sentence of your statement, but I do think we should try to take the gene-language connection as far as available data reasonably permits.

    After all, the long deceased person who had the mutation that defines y-DNA hg C3 most certainly spoke a language, and therefore, even if massive language drift occurred by these processes (contact, domination, etc.), especially in the speakers of the Turkic languages, it wouldn't shock me, based on the work of the historical linguists and the data from the other micro-Altaic speaking populations, if the native tongue of Mr. C3 was ancestral to the micro-Altaic languages including the Turkic branch.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Kevin Borland wrote: "... but I do think we should try to take the gene-language connection as far as available data reasonably permits".

    The risk, Kevin, is that if you begin with that premise, then you may find correlations that are not really there. It's like finding genetic connections between French and Spanish (but not Italians) and deciding that's the origin of Latin/Romance. It's like finding genetic connections between Morocco and Ethiopia and deciding that they are the origin of Semitic (or Morocco and Sudan as origin of Arabic).

    In these examples, we know that these conclusions are wrong but nothing in the genetics precludes us from such conclusions. Careful then it's a minefield, a labyrinth full of false paths.

    Otherwise I do agree in the association of C3 and original micro-Altaic (but also Na-Dene, for example).

    ReplyDelete
  61. the problem is, no one knows the genetics of the first-Turks...no one... perhaps they were full-caucasoids later mixed with mongoloids...and there is one more thing; yakuts or other siberian Turkic people cannot represent the original Turks... compare them with chukchis and koryaks, they are genetically same. yakuts speak Turkic language while koryaks&chukchis speak native siberian language... so is it impossible that yakuts are Turkified siberians... i think possible..because they had not horse/steppe culture and their cultures and lifestyles are close to other natiev siberians rather than Turkic steppe people. and ONUR; do you know that most Kazakhs have mongolian ancestry? do you know the naiman, oirad and buryat tribes? Most of the Kazakhs have Mongolian origin, their tribes were originally mongolian , not Turkic. you are claing that Turkmen/Oghuz of 10.century were genetically same with the Kazakhs...because of their geographical location? geographical location cannot say anything about ancient people's genetics... then scythians who lived in today's Kazakhstan's lands were genetically Mongoloid??? answer me? btw, how could Oghuz Turkmen nomads Turkified settled people of eastern Roman empire? werent they "barbarian steppe hordes (according to you)" , how the anatolian native settled people began to speak Turkish language? and check this link;
    http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26
    those are Turkmen tribes of anatolia during the ottoman era and their numbers, these numbers taken from Ottoman archival data by Yusuf halaçoğlu, the historian. there were 655.800 nomadic families in anatolia during the Ottoman era... one family=5 person, so there were at least 3 million nomadic people in anatolia during the Ottoman era. werent they Turkmens? were they anatolian natives, whom became Turkoman nomads?? lol, native anatolian farmers became nomadic Turkic speakers??? interesting... ONUR your perspective is ideological, you are trying to minimize the Turkic impact to anatolia. and about ASHRAF, according to you, there is no TURK in history. every Turkic nation is Turkified by the ghosts...and Turkic languages&words are stolen by iranian-aryan languages right?
    DIENEKES, sorry for my english. and sorry for my previos comment, i was angry, its not about you. im not genetic engineer or something. but i think at least %30-35 of the anatolia have Turkic ancestry. and another discussion is 20.century...there were massive migrations to anatolia...from balkans and caucasus.today, ethnic Turks in anatolia comprised 60% of the total population. ethnic Turks are ( turkmen, tahtacı, yoruk, tatar, nogai, alevi-bektaşi, karachai, karapapak , azeri, Turkic balkan immigrants etc...)other 40% are kurds, zazas, balkanians (non-Turkic albanians, bosniaks, macedonians etc.), caucasians (non-Turkic chechens , cherkes, etc... here is my theory, today's anatolian ethnic Turks are 50-60% anatolian and 40-50% Turkic(Oghuz/Turkmen). The Oghuz people were neigbour to kypchaks and khazars, which were heavily caucasoid peoples... and after they migrated to transoxania and khorasan , they mixed with indo-europeans. " türkmenlerin ablak yüzleri, horasanda tacik'e döndü". those words are belong to iranian historian, i cannot remember his name. it means "their chubby faces turned into tajik when they migrated to khorasan"...it is clear that they mixed with iranians before they migrated to anatolia. so the Seljuks/Oghuz were %17-20 mongoloid when they conquered to anatolia. Turkish/Oghuz impact to anatolia is much more than your claims.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Arslan Giray,

    Unlike me, you make a lot of strong assertions without any strong evidence.

    The Ottoman tax registers don't give information about the ethnic origins of people; they don't include any genealogical information, and they count taxable households and not individuals. These should be expected, as they are not censuses (Ottomans did not take censuses until the modernization during the 19th century) but tax registers with a practical purpose: efficient taxation. Another important fact to note is that nomads are always in the minority among not only in the general Anatolian population but also in the Muslim majority of the Anatolian population in the Ottoman tax registers. Sedentary Muslims always constitute the majority of the Anatolian population in the Ottoman tax registers irrespective of the time period. Your inference of the approximate number of nomadic individuals is unscientific and unfounded. The Ottoman tax registers allow us to make relatively strong inferences about proportions such as sedentary versus nomad or Muslim versus non-Muslim, but not about their approximate numbers. Another important fact to take note: nomads of Anatolia in the Ottoman tax registers include nomadic Kurds and Arabs.

    Your inferences about the proportion of the ethnic identities in today's Anatolian population is wrong and clearly contradicted by scientific statistical information about today's ethnic identities in Turkey, for example:

    http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/03/22/guncel/agun.html (they control for mother tongue)

    Clearly, today ethnic Turks constitute the great majority of Turkey's population. The only ethnic minority in Turkey with a significant number is Kurds.

    As for your assertions regarding the genetics of the Turkic invaders of Anatolia, you use today's Turkmens of Turkmenistan as a representative of the Turkmen invaders of a thousand years ago. Turkmens did not invade Anatolia from what is now Turkmenistan but from what is now Kazakhstan concurrently (=during the same centuries) with their invasion of what is now Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Their Mongoloid appearance began to change in favor of a Caucasoid appearance after their invasion of all these lands and as a result of centuries of mixing with the local populations. So, for instance, their look Caucasoidized in Anatolia only with the centuries of mixing with the local Anatolians whether Greek, Armenian, Assyrian etc. and in what is now Turkmenistan only with the centuries of mixing with the local Iranic population of what is now Turkmenistan. Racial traits of an invading population don't change so much in just one or two centuries, such big changes take longer time (e.g., half a millennium) to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Arslan Giray,

    As for your assertions regarding the racial traits of the original Turkic peoples, they are likewise unfounded; Kok Turks and the successor Turkic peoples in Central Asia all had a Mongoloid appearance, as is clear from their descriptions and representations by their contemporaries.

    BTW, Altai Turkic peoples and southern Yakuts are traditionally pastoral nomads and not hunter-gatherers.

    As for your assertions regarding Kazakhs, there is no historical source that gives information about the ethnic origins of Kazakh tribes and Kazakhs in general. Obviously Kazakh are a mixture of various groups like all other ethnic groups in the world. The proportion of Mongolic tribes in the mixture that would become Kazakhs is by no means clear. But one thing is clear: Mongol invaders of Central Asia were not numerous enough to even change the language from Turkic to Mongolic and they were small enough to be completely assimilated by Central Asian natives rather fast (so, your Scythian objection is irrelevant). Lastly, I have never said today's Kazakhs are genetically the same as the Turkmen invaders of Anatolia, all I have said is that today's Kazakhs are probably the genetically closest extant population to the Turkmen invaders of Anatolia. But I have always emphasized the importance of the use of ancient DNA in determining the exact genetic profiles of the Turkmen invaders of Anatolia.

    Lastly, your accusations of me for being ideological and for trying to minimize the amount of the Turkic origins of Turks are unfounded and, worse still, only reflect your own ideological bias (just like your inferences about the amount of the Turkic origin of Turks, which are not supported by genetic or craniometric analyses). Also, I have never seen you write on genetic-related blogs on topics other than how much Turkic Turks are. In contrast, on those blogs I write on many many topics, most of which have nothing to do with Turks or Turkic peoples.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ONUR, since i ve spotted that you are an anti-Turkic, i will not talk to you anymore. your claims are ideological. and the Seljuks were not Kazakhs! Most kazakhs are belong to Naiman, jalair, buryat, oirad tribes, which are mongolic tribes, perhaps you know this better than me! Mongol nomads of kazakhstan steppes began to kypchak dialect of the Turkic language. i love kazakh people, but they cant represent the Seljuks of 10-11th century.
    i showed you ottoman archival datas. i said that 655.000 nomadic Turkoman tribesman live as nomads in anatolia during the Ottoman empire. which means at least 3 million people. i don't think they were kazakh-looking people.
    and the population of byzantine anatolia was not 8 or 12 million that most anti-Turkics claimed! even the population of anatolia was only 5 million in the beginning of the 19.century. check this!
    http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm

    and note that its also indludes thrace/balkan region of turkey!

    the population of 11th century anatolia was maximum 2 million (before the arrival of the seljuks)
    .
    and there are many iranians-tajik came to anatolia with seljuks turks, even mevlana celaleddin rumi was just one of them.
    according to you, mevlana has kazakh appearace lol.

    im not claiming that Turks are 100% central asians as most Turkish nationalists. but nor i claim that Turks are only 10%Turkic.
    Turkic impact to anatolia is 30-35%. its very normal, because nomads were not NAZIS. they associated and intermarried with locals/natives.

    and lastly, if our genes was 1% Turkic, i would still consider myself 100% asian.

    LARS/COLIN WILSON/ ASHRAF you are all the same person. i think you are secret fan of the Altaic-Turkic people. thats why you are trying to show the Turks as 0% Turkic. sometimes i wonder are you mercenary or something? because normal people cannot spend all his life/time to anti-Turkism.

    ONUR, im not racist but i think you are non-Turk from anatolia. and you should accept that all of your claims are idological, and you spend your time to show Turkic impact as "minimum".

    dienekes, i have respect to your researches. but you know better than me that pre-Turkic anatolia was not ethnical greeks. they were greek-speaking hittites, luwians, galatians, cappadocians etc. because the greeks were not nomadic nation, they had many colonies around the meditterenean sea.
    so IMO, Turks of Turkey are middle eastern + central asian (Turkmen) + european with some south asian admixture (s.asian admixture is also came with Seljuks from khorasan, check the avshar genes)

    ReplyDelete
  66. and Onur, an advice to you; if you still trying to minimize the Turkic impact of anatolia. you can claim that Seljuks/Turkomans were 100% mongoloids. because perhaps some Turkic clans lived in siberia/northeastern asia so they must be same as "koryaks/dolgans" etc...
    so you can calculate the Turkic impact to anatolia as 5-6%.,
    Turks lived in anatolia and surrounded by non-altaic peoples just like the greeks, persians, georgians, armenians, kurds etc. we lived here for 1000 years! its very normal to we have lesser mongoloid than eastern Turks, since the Oghuz&kypchaks&khazars probably intermarried with the scythian-caucasoid nomads, and also Oghuz intermarried with transoxanian and khorasanians.

    Onur ,you should notice that not all the Turks came to anatolia in 11.century. most of them came to anatolia in between 11th - 14th centuries. so the Turkomans stayed more than 2-3 centuries in khorasan before they migrated to anatolia.
    the first turkoman waves to anatolia were danishmends, saltuks, mengujeks etc. and also suleiman shah with 50.000 turkoman and tatar nomadic family. (yes there were some tatars in suleiman shah's clan)
    the later turkoman waves were larger and much later than those first turkoman waves.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Arslan Giray,

    Your double post is long, so let's go by a case-by-case basis.

    ONUR, since i ve spotted that you are an anti-Turkic, i will not talk to you anymore. your claims are ideological.

    I want to be not talking to you anymore more than you do for me, as you are wasting my time with your ideological and incorrect rantings.

    and the Seljuks were not Kazakhs!

    Who claimed that?

    Most kazakhs are belong to Naiman, jalair, buryat, oirad tribes, which are mongolic tribes, perhaps you know this better than me!

    You are making out a tribal pedigree for Kazakhs that is vastly different from the actual one and trying to pass it off as the truth. Kazakhs and people who specialize on the peoples of the Central Asian steppes would laugh at your claims. BTW, Naimans have always been Turkic, not Mongolic.

    Mongol nomads of kazakhstan steppes began to kypchak dialect of the Turkic language.

    I don't dispute that. What I dispute is their numbers. Surely Mongolic peoples were not that much in number in Central Asian steppes.

    i love kazakh people, but they cant represent the Seljuks of 10-11th century.

    They and any other Central Asian Turkic people other than Turkmens almost certainly repesent the genetics of the Turkmens of the 11th, 12th and even 13th centruries much better than modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan. Modern-day Kazakhs are not much different genetically from the other Central Asian Turkic peoples except modern-day Turkmens (even Uzbeks are genetically closer to Kazakhs than they are to Turkmens despite their significant recent Tajik admixture). Modern-day Turkmens are genetic outliers when they are compared to all the other Central Asian Turkic peoples, and that is because of the large genetic input in modern-day Turkmens from the Iranic natives of what is now Turkmenistan, which postdates the arrival of their original Turkmen ancestors to what is now Turkmenistan from what is now Kazakhstan during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

    i showed you ottoman archival datas. i said that 655.000 nomadic Turkoman tribesman live as nomads in anatolia during the Ottoman empire. which means at least 3 million people. i don't think they were kazakh-looking people.

    Your only source is Yusuf Halacoglu, a pan-Turkist nationalist who is well known to be distorting the truth and to be far from being objective. Another issue is that in Anatolia Turkic nomads were already admixed with Anatolian natives in the relevant centuries.

    and the population of byzantine anatolia was not 8 or 12 million that most anti-Turkics claimed!

    Those estimations were not made by "anti-Turkics" but by respectable historians and other specialists of the relevant topic.

    even the population of anatolia was only 5 million in the beginning of the 19.century. check this!
    http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm

    and note that its also indludes thrace/balkan region of turkey!


    Those numbers are from a time when women and many men were not counted. Ottoman censuses are not as much reliable as you seem to think.

    the population of 11th century anatolia was maximum 2 million (before the arrival of the seljuks)

    This is one of the most ridiculous claims I have heard from you.

    and there are many iranians-tajik came to anatolia with seljuks turks, even mevlana celaleddin rumi was just one of them.

    They were clearly in the minority among the arriving Muslims. Turkmens were clearly in the majority among the arriving Muslims.

    according to you, mevlana has kazakh appearace lol.

    You don't surprise me. As always, you are putting words in my mouth like a small kid. I have never made or implied such a ridiculous claim.

    Turkic impact to anatolia is 30-35%.

    This is just your claim. But, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  68. and lastly, if our genes was 1% Turkic, i would still consider myself 100% asian.

    "Asian" is just a word, just like "European".

    ONUR, im not racist but i think you are non-Turk from anatolia. and you should accept that all of your claims are idological, and you spend your time to show Turkic impact as "minimum".

    I am a half Anatolian and half Balkan Turk. All my traceable ancestors are Turkish speakers with Muslim background, that is more than enough to make me a Turk (a very recently created ethnic identity). I won't accept that all of my claims are ideological or that I spend my time to show Turkic impact as minimum just because you say so. Your attitude seems obsessive and repulsive to me. BTW, Turkish and Turkic genetics take very little of my time, much less my writing time, and are surely very far from being a daily practice or interest for me.

    and Onur, an advice to you; if you still trying to minimize the Turkic impact of anatolia. you can claim that Seljuks/Turkomans were 100% mongoloids. because perhaps some Turkic clans lived in siberia/northeastern asia so they must be same as "koryaks/dolgans" etc...
    so you can calculate the Turkic impact to anatolia as 5-6%.,


    I advise you to leave your coarse sarcasm to yourself, as this is no place for it. You are only cheapening yourself this way.

    Oghuz intermarried with transoxanian and khorasanians

    That has little relevance for the Turkmens coming to Anatolia, as it largely postdates the Turkmen migrations to Anatolia.

    most of them came to anatolia in between 11th - 14th centuries. so the Turkomans stayed more than 2-3 centuries in khorasan before they migrated to anatolia.

    Khorasan (including what is now Turkmenistan) witnessed Turkmen migrations to itself (from what is now Kazakhstan) during the same centuries.

    the later turkoman waves were larger and much later than those first turkoman waves.

    Not much later. They largely happened during the first few generations following the Battle of Manzikert.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I accidentally skipped this part of Arslan Giray's post:

    so the Turkomans stayed more than 2-3 centuries in khorasan before they migrated to anatolia.

    This is incorrect. As I already said many times, migrations to Anatolia and Khorasan (including what is now Turkmenistan) happened during the same centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  70. and about the ethnic Turks.
    you know better than me that most bosniaks, albanians, circassians, chechens and even some kurds consider themselves as Turks emotionally. but they know their real ethnic origin.
    here are the list of the ethnic Turks in anatolia "manav, yörük, türkmen, muhacir(turkic background), tatar, nogay, karapapak, azeri , karaçay, kumuk, ahıskalı,etc ..."
    the ethic Turks comprise 60% of the anatolia, im sure you know better than me. Kurdish population is higher than official claims.
    40% of anatolia has different ethnic backgrounds. the largest ethnic group is kurds. there are also large circassian, bosniak, albanian, chechen, zaza , arab , georgian, laz, pomak , roma/gypsy , etc communities in anatolia. when someone ask them "what/who are you" many of them consider themselves "Turks" . because of patriotic emotions etc.. but they all know their real ethnic origins. do not claim me that 80% of the anatolia are ethnic Turks. this is official lie. you know better than me.
    even Kurds claim that at least 25 million Kurds live in anatolia and i think its not a lie.
    and note that. 6 million balkan and caucasian migrated to anatolia in 19th & 20 th centuries. 6 million for God sake. most of them were non-Turkic. this demographic events changed the anatolia's ethnic structure. and the population of pre- balkan-caucasian migrate anatolia was only 7-8 million in 20.century.
    most of the central anatolians, south anatolians, and southwestern anatolians(part of aegea) claim Turkoman/Yörük ancestry. they are not liers.but of course they mixed with native anatolians, no doubt about that.
    few hundred samples from developed-city Turks cannot represent the Turkish population's genetic. The Turks from countryside are more asiatic. even researches proves this.
    so you can claim that anatolia is only 1-2% Turkic or something like that. but nobody will care this.
    ONUR
    and about Uzbeks&Kazakhs. they can't represent the OGHUZ! they are
    not Oghuz! Uzbeks have chagatai & Karluk ancestry. the western Turkic clans were already heavily caucasoids like Pechenegs, Kypchaks, Khazars, Oghuz etc... of course they had important asian admixture. but the Oghuz/Seljuks were not eskimos from the north pole.
    and the Kazakh population of central asia is not high. There are 9 million kazakhs in kazakhstan Many Kazakhs have mongolian ancestry. Even they claim Genghis Khan as their ancestors. İ love Kazakh people and i consider them “Turkic”. But genetically, they cant reprent the Turkic , since most of them have mongol ancestry.
    and the your theory about the Seljuks is false. they mixed with transoxanians and khorasanians. because most of the Turkomans arrived in anatolia in 13.century. even many historians say that "mongol invasion caused main Turkicization of anatolia". its true.
    the south asian admixture in anatolia carried by Seljuks/Turkomans to anatolia. no doubt about this!
    i repeat again; i dont claim that anatolia is 100% central asian. İ think central asian input to anatolia is 30-35% even there are many researches support me.
    1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601
    2-)genetic link between modern Turks and xiongnu
    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml
    3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm
    4-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed

    of course , these researches are not important for you, since you decided to show the Turkic impact to anatolia is <%10. Good luck to you. Lastly; we will never forget our Turkishness, you can mess with my nation as long as you want.

    ReplyDelete
  71. yes, Yusuf Halaçoğlu is nationalist, since he saw the anti-Turkic claims about Turks. İt is very popular to discuss the idendity of the Turks. When someone claim that Turks are Turkic, he become fascist/nationalist through of your eyes.. but then you should accept that you are anti-Turkic. because all of your claims about Seljuks/Turkomans are trying to minimize the Turkic impact to anatolia. btw, yusuf halaçoğlu's sources are ottoman archival datas. what is your sources?
    and these numbers are mostly true!

    http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm

    there were maximum 2 million people in anatolia in 11.century! not 11 or 12 million! Anatolia was not china!

    and ONUR , this is for you;

    "peki neden çekik gözlü değiliz?

    bu soruyu ilk defa soran siz değilsiniz. cevaplayan ilk kişi de ben değilim. aşıkpaşazade, meşhur tarihinde anadolu'ya göçen türklerin "ablak çehrelerinin tacik'e dönüştüğünü lehçelerinin de revanlaştığını" aktarır.

    yani türk olan bu kimselerin yüz hatlarının ve dillerinin asyadaki orjinalinden farklılaştığı daha 14. yüz yılda bilinmektedir. ama kökenlerin asya'da olduğu da vurgulanır."

    Most Turkomans came in 13.century. largest turkoman waves were in this century. Because of the Mongol invasion. after the battle of manzikert, only some clans of the Turkomans migrated to anatolia.
    Saltuks, Mengujeks, Danishmends, Suleiman Shah's clan. etc..
    but in the 13.century, many Turkoman clans migrated to anatolia and created their own beyliks/states.

    and according to you , Turkic impact to anatolia is < 10% ?...so you claim that Seljuks/Turkomans were at least 80% mongoloid...because the mongoloid aadmixture in anatolia is already 7-8%
    .
    btw, dna samples of anatolia mainly taken from highly developed city Turks. i do not think that Turkmens or Yoruks of anatolia send their samples to dna test. Countryside Turks even do not know what dna/haplogruop is..they are simple Turks.
    and remember, there were researches about 4 central anatolian settlement. 2 of them were Turks. other 2 were Circassians and Kurds.
    did you see the results of the 2 Turkish settlements?
    """"1) At an Afshar village whose oral stories tell they come from Central Asia they found that 57% come from haplogroup L, 13% from haplogroup Q, 3% from haplogroup N thus indicating that the L haplogroups in Turkey are of Central Asian heritage rather than Indian, although these Central Asians would have gotten the L markers from the Indians from the beginning. These Asian groups add up to 73% in this village. Furthermore 10% of these Afshars were E3a and E3b. Only 13% were J2a, the most common haplogroup in Turkey.
    2) An older Turkish village center that did not receive much migration was about 25% N and 25% J2a with 3% G and close to 30% of some sort of R1 but mostly R1b."""

    oral stories are not lies. for example, my village is also in central anatolia. our people are ilbeyli Turkoman clan of sivas. they were live as nomads between sivas and halep. the ilbeyli turkoman tribe settled in 50 villages of sivas. And our population is at least 100.000 people in Sivas & İstanbul. (many of us migrated to İstanbul)
    http://www.elbeyli.org/bpi.asp?caid=198&cid=547 most of us were nomads until the 17th-18.th centuries. and also, almost half of the population of anatolia were nomads during the 15th-17th centuries, as we see in the yusuf halaçoğlu's ottoman arhival datas.this informations are not lie, but OTTOMAN ARCHIVAL DATA, one of the most reliable sources in history

    ReplyDelete
  72. so personally, i do not care your theories about Turkic impact to anatolia. my ancestors were nomadic Turkomans. i do not care their haplogroups. as i said before, most of the dna samples from anatolia are taken from highly developed city-Turks.
    they cant represnt the TURKEY.
    and about the ethnic Turks.
    you know better than me that most bosniaks, albanians, circassians, chechens and even some kurds consider themselves as Turks emotionally. but they know their real ethnic origin.
    here are the list of the ethnic Turks in anatolia "Avşar, Yörük, Manav, Dadaş, Türkmen, Alevi, Tahtacı, Kıpçak, Tatar, Nogay, Cerit, Kırgız, Karapapak, Muhacır, Terekeme, Azeri, Özbek, Harzem, Çepni, Kırımçak, Karaçay, Balkar, Yıva, Begitli, Büğdüz, Bayat, Yazır,Eymür, Karabölük, Alkaevli, İğdir, Üreğir, Tukirka, Ulayundluğ, Tüger, Çavuldur, Çarukluğ, Çuvaş, Kumuk, Karakalpak, Uygur, Ahıska, Salurlu, Yerli, Pallık, Aydınlı, Abdal,Üçok, Sıraç, Nalcı, Çaylak, Teber, Beydili, Barak, Karabağlı, Şaman, Şamlı, Torbeş, Bayındır, Kınık, Ortakçı, Amuca, Bedrettinli, Karamanlı, Kırım Tatarı, Kazan Tatarı, Başkırt, Karakeçili, Sarıkeçili, Torlak, Kızılbaş, Peçenek, Çıtak, Zeybek, Sancaklı, Dobrucalı, Kıbrıslı.etc"
    the ethic Turks comprise 60% of the anatolia, im sure you know better than me. Kurdish population is higher than official claims.
    40% of anatolia has different ethnic backgrounds. the largest ethnic group is kurds. there are also large circassian, bosniak, albanian, chechen, zaza , arab , georgian, laz, pomak , roma/gypsy , etc communities in anatolia. when someone ask them "what/who are you" many of them consider themselves "Turks" . because of patriotic emotions etc.. but they all know their real ethnic origins. do not claim me that 80% of the anatolia are ethnic Turks. this is official lie. you know better than me.
    even Kurds claim that at least 25 million Kurds live in anatolia and i think its not a lie.
    and note that. 6 million balkan and caucasian migrated to anatolia in 19th & 20 th centuries. 6 million for God sake. most of them were non-Turkic. this demographic events changed the anatolia's ethnic structure. and the population of pre- balkan-caucasian migrate anatolia was only 7-8 million in 20.century.
    most of the central anatolians, south anatolians, and southwestern anatolians(part of aegea) claim Turkoman/Yörük ancestry. they are not liers.but of course they mixed with native anatolians, no doubt about that.
    few hundred samples from developed-city Turks cannot represent the Turkish population's genetic. The Turks from countryside are more asiatic. even researches proves this.
    so you can claim that anatolia is only 1-2% Turkic or something like that. but nobody will care this.
    ONUR
    and about Uzbeks&Kazakhs. they can't represent the OGHUZ! they are
    not Oghuz! Uzbeks have chagatai & Karluk ancestry. the western Turkic clans were already heavily caucasoids like Pechenegs, Kypchaks, Khazars, Oghuz etc... of course they had important asian admixture. but the Oghuz/Seljuks were not eskimos from the north pole.
    and the Kazakh population of central asia is not high. There are 9 million kazakhs in kazakhstan Many Kazakhs have mongolian ancestry. Even they claim Genghis Khan as their ancestors. İ love Kazakh people and i consider them “Turkic”. But genetically, they cant reprent the Turkic , since most of them have mongol ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  73. ONUR;
    lastly, the your theory about the Seljuks is false. they mixed with transoxanians and khorasanians. because most of the Turkomans arrived in anatolia in 13.century. even many historians say that "mongol invasion caused main Turkicization of anatolia". its true.
    the south asian admixture in anatolia carried by Seljuks/Turkomans to anatolia. no doubt about this!
    i repeat again; i dont claim that anatolia is 100% central asian. İ i think central asian input to anatolia is 30-35% even there are many researches supporting me. the term "central asian" i mean not 80% mongoloids unlike you. but heavly caucasoids with asian admixture.
    1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601
    2-)genetic link between modern Turks and xiongnu
    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml
    3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm
    4-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed

    of course , you wont accept these researches, since you decided to show the Turkic impact to anatolia is <%10. Good luck to you. Lastly; we will never forget our Turkishness, you can mess with my nation as long as you want.

    ReplyDelete
  74. sorry for my repeated posts.
    i ll ask you something. if the Turks turkified by few Turkic rulers of anatolia. then why the egypt, syria, iraq not turkified? Syria ruled by Turkic rulers for almost 900 years. egypt ruled by first Tolunids, then Turkic oghuz/kypcak memluks for hundreds of years. why didnt they became Turks? and if this is about religion-change. why didnt albania & bosnia became Turks?
    it seems Turkic rulers decided to turkify only anatolia... ? and there are hilarious claims that invader Turks were only 1000-2000 cavalry.LOL. so were they Turkish-teachers? and teached the Turkish language to anatolians?

    even 40.000 kara-tatar (ilkhanid mongol) family settled in anatolia around sivas-yozgat! at least 2 million Oghuz migrated to anatolia between 11th and 14th century.and anatolia's population was not more than 2 million. but many Turkoman tribes left the eastern anatolia during the shia-sunni war. then Kurds began to spread eastern anatolia. Kurds were not native people of anatolia. they spread to eastern anatolia in 16th century , wwhen the shia Turkomans migrated to iran.

    ReplyDelete
  75. If I see again multiple posting, I will label them as spam.

    Limit yourselves to single or at most double comments.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are the same person),

    Most of your assertions are false. Your attitude is very unscientific and emotional. There is no way you and I can make a serious discussion under these circumstances. I have already given replies to your assertions (and not just on this thread), so I won't repeat them.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are the same person),"
    yes i am pecheneg/arslangiray, i ve two accounts, what is the problem with this?

    "Most of your assertions are false."
    according to me, most of your assertions are false.

    "Your attitude is very unscientific and emotional."
    im not emotional, if i was; i would probably claiming that Turks are %100 Turkic/central asian. i only think that Turkic impact to anatolia is not low as you claimed. but your assertions are ideological.

    my population assertions;
    source of my population assertions are yusuf halaçoğlu-ottoman archival data. Ottomans were not Turkish nationalists, their numbers about Turkoman nomads are not emotional , but reliable.

    my assertions about Turkic impact to anatolia;
    well there are many researches supporting my assertions. many researches says that turkic/central asian impact to anatolia is at least 30-35%. i showed these researches in my previous comments.

    according to most researches, central asian impact to anatolia is changing between 16% - 30%.
    but your assertations are even lower than these researches.

    30% central asian input is very normal. since Seljuks didnt massacred the native anatolian and mixed with them. and also you should notice that there were huge non-Turkic migrations to anatolia in 19th & 20th centuries. 6 million balkan&caucasians migrated to anatolia, when anatolia's Turkish population was only 7 million...
    these migrations changed the ethic structure of anatolia.

    i would respect you, if i did not spot that you are an anti-Turkic. you are forcing yourself to believe Turkic impact is 0%.

    and lastly, the different clans of the Turks in central asia were not same. for example, Kypchaks always described as "blonde", Kyrgyz were red-haired people, and also there were possibly very mongoloid Turkic tribes. so the Turkic tribes were not same, even the term "Turk" was first used for confederation of many asian nomadic clans.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Arslan Giray,

    I did not say using multiple accounts is wrong or problematic.

    As for the rest of your post, you are again repeating the same false arguments and also continuing your usual impudent behavior. Don't you understand that I don't want to discuss with you anymore (for the reasons I cited above)? Why are you reiterating the same arguments despite the fact that I gave my answers to them multiple times? You are acting like a spambot that periodically sends the same messages over and over. Does not it catch your attention that it is always you who starts the debates? Are you obsessive?

    ReplyDelete
  79. "As for the rest of your post, you are again repeating the same false arguments and also continuing your usual impudent behavior. "

    ONUR, these are my last words to you.
    you are the one, who is repeating himself in dienekes blog for months/years. all of your efforts/words trying to minimize the Turkic impact. even once; you claimed that "N" choromosome of the Turks came to anatolia via russian slaves. Y choromosom is from paternal side, not maternal one!
    you are repeating yourself in all the researches about Turks, "seljuks were genetically kazaks bla bla bla"...
    your are trying to impose your ideology to everyone with your comments. and you claim everyone "fascist/emotional/nationalist", who is claim that Turks are Turkic.
    your assertions about Seljuks are nonsense, since we have no data about the Seljuk/Oghuz people of 11.century.

    ReplyDelete
  80. and also ; there is no pure race, except some tribes&peoples in northern peole or siberia.
    frank impact to france is perhaps less than 10%.
    even spanish people came from many different ethnic backgrounds such as the iberians, gauls, celtic, vandal, moors, carthaginians and even some negroid.
    norman impact to england was also very low.
    and russians were actually not slavs, but a viking tribe "rus".
    also, the greeks are probably one of the most mixed nations in the meditterenean, since many of the greeks came from different areas such as pontus, central anatolia, aegea and all of them were ethnically different.
    so the Turks, are central asian+ anatolian + (balkan+caucasian). but we are Turks now, some of us has balkan ancestry, some of us central asian, it doesnt matter now. nobody can claim "Turks are not Turks" nobody!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Arslan Giray,

    As usual, you are attributing to me statements that I have never made and intentions that I have never had and are misrepresenting my arguments. This is one of the main reasons why I don't want to discuss with you again. But don't worry, your slander tactics don't work on me. As for the issue of haplogroup N in Turks, on the relevant thread I already made clear that I do not have a clear opinion about its sources.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ARSLAN GİRAY
    do not waste your time my compatriot.
    i know ONUR. he is absulutely anti-Turkic and he has hatred against Turkish nation/language/culture/history. did you see his comments about Turks in youtube? i even think that he is a liar about his ethnic origin. he loves Kurds. he loves also Armenians.
    i have theory about him;
    1-) he is a Turk, but blue-anatolianist.
    2-) he is non-Turk (armenian, kurds or etc), but he introduces himself as "Turk".
    i think my 2.theory is more possible.
    because usually, blue-anatolianist Turks don't hate Turks. they love their nation and people, but they ignore Turkic culture.
    But ONUR, he hates Turkish people, culture, history, etc.
    i can prove this, just check the "orkunful" youtube page. its belong to ONUR. and see how he is defending armenians against Turks :)
    there are many fake-Turks on internet. do not believe them.
    i think ONUR is armenian. he is lying about his ethnic origin. and also ARSLAN GİRAY; you should know that there are millions of armenians live in Turkey with "Kurdish idendities". as you said in your comment, only 60% of anatolian population comprised by "ethnic Turks". and sadly, most of the so-called Turkish genetic-scientist are non-Turks. such as the timuçin binder, cinnioğlu. may God protect us from these new-anti-Turkic attack on us.
    Dienekes, Oghuz Turkish input to anatolia is far bigger than 1/7. if you read some history, you should know that Uzbeks are ethnically Turkic+Mongol+some iranian. Chagatai Khanate in uzbekstan was Mongol. even Tamerlane of uzbekistan was originally from Turkicized mongol tribe, barlas.

    ReplyDelete
  83. did you see the byzantine&arab sources about new-comer Turkish migrants of anatolia? they were describing the newcomer Turks as "they were like ants, they came with their herds, women, children, they are now living in every plateau of anatolia."
    in between 11.-14.century. Turks didnt came with only armies, all the MUSLIM OGHUZ nation migrated to anatolia. it was move of a nation. there were huge 24 OGHUZ clans in central asia. 23 of them migrated to anatolia . some non-muslim Oghuz stayed in central asia. later, they became muslims, and now they are Turkmenistan Turkmens. and in 11.century, Mahmud of Kashgar described the Oghuz in his divan-lugat-al Turk as "they are largest tibe of the Turks, they mixed with persians and tajiks".
    and if you want the numbers of the newcomer Turks, there are many sources about Seljuks and Oghuzes.
    Turkey is mixture of central asian and mediterranean. "central asian" source of the Turks were Turkmens. not Siberians.

    ReplyDelete
  84. As I said, multiple posting will be labeled as spam. Making a new account to post the same repetitive stuff over and over again will result in a ban.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Kaygysyz (are you Arslan Giray?),

    I have never written a comment in Youtube and no "orkunful" page or account belongs to me.

    What I write has nothing to do with my ethnicity. I am not a robot that acts according to a preprogrammed course of action, which means my ethnicity doesn't govern my thoughts and actions. That is why I shun dictating ideologies like nationalism, communism, etc.

    I don't care a bit whether you believe my ethnic Turkishness or not, as I have a pre-nationalist way of thinking (not even post-nationalist) regarding ethnic and all other similar identities, so I am a medievalist when it comes to ethnic and similar identities. Labeling everyone who doesn't share your nationalist ideology as non-Turk is a pathological behavior and shows how disconnected from reality you are.

    As for whether I love or hate a certain ethnic group, you certainly have no clue about my thoughts about ethnic groups and I don't expect you to understand me with your nationalist and robotic way of thinking and behavior.

    Like Arslan Giray (assuming you are a different person), you have a very poor grasp of both genetics and history and use them in a very flawed, biased and purposeful way. So there is no value in discussing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Arslan Giray/Kaygysyz/Pecheneg (I think they are the same person),

    No serious geneticist, historian or archaeologist I know makes an estimation of the number of the Turkic immigrants to Anatolia as large as you do and an estimation of the number of the native Anatolian population as small as you do. The genetic, archaeological and historical data do not support you. Anatolia was still a principally Christian and non-Turkic-speaking region at the end of the last Turkic migration wave (by 1300 CE). So its transition to a majority Muslim and Turkic-speaking region largely happened later than the last Turkic migration wave to Anatolia, and hence largely as a result of Anatolia's local dynamics. The Turkic immigrants to Anatolia were large enough to trigger a language shift in Anatolia, but they were surely not as large as you claim. Likewise, you exaggerate the number of the Mongolian immigrants to Central Asia. I explained why your claims are implausible before, so I don't want to repeat them.

    This will be my last reply to you if you don't reply again.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any data re: presence and distribution of this subgroup outside of East Asia?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any data re: presence and distribution of this subgroup outside of East Asia?"

    I'd be grateful for any information as to its distribution within East Asia. Anyone able to oblige?

    ReplyDelete

Stay on topic. Be polite. Use facts and arguments. Be Brief. Do not post back to back comments in the same thread, unless you absolutely have to. Don't quote excessively. Google before you ask.