tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post564401058661132383..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Uzbeks as the nexus, Altai as the source of Turkic expansionsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82742394427828860172012-09-03T05:30:48.386+03:002012-09-03T05:30:48.386+03:00"I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any da..."I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any data re: presence and distribution of this subgroup outside of East Asia?" <br /><br />I'd be grateful for any information as to its distribution within East Asia. Anyone able to oblige?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85421802397596520792012-09-02T17:56:06.690+03:002012-09-02T17:56:06.690+03:00I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any data re:...I belong to O3a4 haplogroup. Is there any data re: presence and distribution of this subgroup outside of East Asia?mii201https://www.blogger.com/profile/14038446031015671865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14452179124359518092012-05-14T21:26:06.744+03:002012-05-14T21:26:06.744+03:00Arslan Giray/Kaygysyz/Pecheneg (I think they are t...Arslan Giray/Kaygysyz/Pecheneg (I think they are the same person),<br /><br />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. <br /><br />This will be my last reply to you if you don't reply again.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20492921282347404892012-04-30T21:50:55.111+03:002012-04-30T21:50:55.111+03:00Kaygysyz (are you Arslan Giray?),
I have never wr...Kaygysyz (are you Arslan Giray?),<br /><br />I have never written a comment in Youtube and no "orkunful" page or account belongs to me. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75865783132033502392012-04-30T21:01:25.059+03:002012-04-30T21:01:25.059+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87887262132010180102012-04-30T19:26:01.078+03:002012-04-30T19:26:01.078+03:00As I said, multiple posting will be labeled as spa...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.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83006845744187374952012-04-30T18:49:01.213+03:002012-04-30T18:49:01.213+03:00did you see the byzantine&arab sources about n...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."<br />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". <br />and if you want the numbers of the newcomer Turks, there are many sources about Seljuks and Oghuzes. <br />Turkey is mixture of central asian and mediterranean. "central asian" source of the Turks were Turkmens. not Siberians.Kaygysyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01942458277427722099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56727175416985287582012-04-30T18:33:36.112+03:002012-04-30T18:33:36.112+03:00@ARSLAN GİRAY
do not waste your time my compatriot...@ARSLAN GİRAY<br />do not waste your time my compatriot.<br />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. <br />i have theory about him;<br />1-) he is a Turk, but blue-anatolianist.<br />2-) he is non-Turk (armenian, kurds or etc), but he introduces himself as "Turk".<br />i think my 2.theory is more possible.<br />because usually, blue-anatolianist Turks don't hate Turks. they love their nation and people, but they ignore Turkic culture.<br />But ONUR, he hates Turkish people, culture, history, etc.<br />i can prove this, just check the "orkunful" youtube page. its belong to ONUR. and see how he is defending armenians against Turks :) <br />there are many fake-Turks on internet. do not believe them. <br />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. <br />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.Kaygysyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01942458277427722099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87364388109461340902012-04-28T02:31:24.184+03:002012-04-28T02:31:24.184+03:00Arslan Giray,
As usual, you are attributing to me...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62025911501718125772012-04-27T18:55:52.266+03:002012-04-27T18:55:52.266+03:00"As for the rest of your post, you are again ..."As for the rest of your post, you are again repeating the same false arguments and also continuing your usual impudent behavior. "<br /><br />ONUR, these are my last words to you.<br />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!<br />you are repeating yourself in all the researches about Turks, "seljuks were genetically kazaks bla bla bla"... <br />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. <br />your assertions about Seljuks are nonsense, since we have no data about the Seljuk/Oghuz people of 11.century.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88673354072986213302012-04-27T03:21:07.670+03:002012-04-27T03:21:07.670+03:00Arslan Giray,
I did not say using multiple accoun...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />I did not say using multiple accounts is wrong or problematic.<br /><br />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?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42669682320840901702012-04-27T01:18:20.324+03:002012-04-27T01:18:20.324+03:00"Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are th..."Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are the same person),"<br />yes i am pecheneg/arslangiray, i ve two accounts, what is the problem with this?<br /><br />"Most of your assertions are false."<br />according to me, most of your assertions are false.<br /><br />"Your attitude is very unscientific and emotional."<br />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.<br /><br />my population assertions;<br /> 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.<br /><br />my assertions about Turkic impact to anatolia;<br />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.<br /><br /> according to most researches, central asian impact to anatolia is changing between 16% - 30%.<br />but your assertations are even lower than these researches. <br /><br />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...<br />these migrations changed the ethic structure of anatolia. <br /><br />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%.<br /><br />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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21908767937341726282012-04-26T21:00:11.358+03:002012-04-26T21:00:11.358+03:00Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are the same...Arslan Giray/Pecheneg (obviously they are the same person),<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56729360232045067652012-04-26T20:05:14.380+03:002012-04-26T20:05:14.380+03:00If I see again multiple posting, I will label them...If I see again multiple posting, I will label them as spam.<br /><br />Limit yourselves to single or at most double comments.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59470270339438339912012-04-26T18:47:06.963+03:002012-04-26T18:47:06.963+03:00sorry for my repeated posts.
i ll ask you somethi...sorry for my repeated posts.<br /> 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?<br />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? <br /><br />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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67228695456324879592012-04-26T18:28:39.952+03:002012-04-26T18:28:39.952+03:00ONUR;
lastly, the your theory about the Seljuks i...ONUR;<br />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. <br />the south asian admixture in anatolia carried by Seljuks/Turkomans to anatolia. no doubt about this!<br />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.<br />1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601<br />2-)genetic link between modern Turks and xiongnu<br />http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml<br />3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)<br />http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm<br />4-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed<br /><br />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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78833464974938423122012-04-26T18:23:28.796+03:002012-04-26T18:23:28.796+03:00so personally, i do not care your theories about T...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. <br />they cant represnt the TURKEY.<br />and about the ethnic Turks.<br />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. <br />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"<br />the ethic Turks comprise 60% of the anatolia, im sure you know better than me. Kurdish population is higher than official claims. <br />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. <br />even Kurds claim that at least 25 million Kurds live in anatolia and i think its not a lie. <br />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.<br />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. <br />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. <br />so you can claim that anatolia is only 1-2% Turkic or something like that. but nobody will care this. <br />ONUR<br />and about Uzbeks&Kazakhs. they can't represent the OGHUZ! they are <br />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.<br />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.Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-559955398699001212012-04-26T18:22:43.974+03:002012-04-26T18:22:43.974+03:00yes, Yusuf Halaçoğlu is nationalist, since he saw ...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? <br />and these numbers are mostly true!<br /><br />http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm<br /><br />there were maximum 2 million people in anatolia in 11.century! not 11 or 12 million! Anatolia was not china!<br /><br />and ONUR , this is for you;<br /><br />"peki neden çekik gözlü değiliz?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />yani türk olan bu kimselerin yüz hatlarının ve dillerinin asyadaki orjinalinden farklılaştığı daha 14. yüz yılda bilinmektedir. ama kökenlerin asya'da olduğu da vurgulanır."<br /><br />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.<br />Saltuks, Mengujeks, Danishmends, Suleiman Shah's clan. etc..<br />but in the 13.century, many Turkoman clans migrated to anatolia and created their own beyliks/states. <br /><br />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%<br />.<br />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.<br />and remember, there were researches about 4 central anatolian settlement. 2 of them were Turks. other 2 were Circassians and Kurds.<br />did you see the results of the 2 Turkish settlements? <br />""""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.<br />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."""<br /><br />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)<br />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 historyArslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85757990883865825282012-04-26T12:25:08.688+03:002012-04-26T12:25:08.688+03:00I accidentally skipped this part of Arslan Giray&#...I accidentally skipped this part of Arslan Giray's post:<br /><br /><i>so the Turkomans stayed more than 2-3 centuries in khorasan before they migrated to anatolia.</i><br /><br />This is incorrect. As I already said many times, migrations to Anatolia and Khorasan (including what is now Turkmenistan) happened during the same centuries.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86645132355735060982012-04-26T01:59:02.683+03:002012-04-26T01:59:02.683+03:00and lastly, if our genes was 1% Turkic, i would st...<i>and lastly, if our genes was 1% Turkic, i would still consider myself 100% asian.</i><br /><br />"Asian" is just a word, just like "European". <br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>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...<br />so you can calculate the Turkic impact to anatolia as 5-6%.,</i><br /><br />I advise you to leave your coarse sarcasm to yourself, as this is no place for it. You are only cheapening yourself this way.<br /><br /><i>Oghuz intermarried with transoxanian and khorasanians</i><br /><br />That has little relevance for the Turkmens coming to Anatolia, as it largely postdates the Turkmen migrations to Anatolia.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />Khorasan (including what is now Turkmenistan) witnessed Turkmen migrations to itself (from what is now Kazakhstan) during the same centuries.<br /><br /><i>the later turkoman waves were larger and much later than those first turkoman waves.</i><br /><br />Not much later. They largely happened during the first few generations following the Battle of Manzikert.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46373299837562323492012-04-26T01:57:08.512+03:002012-04-26T01:57:08.512+03:00Arslan Giray,
Your double post is long, so let...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />Your double post is long, so let's go by a case-by-case basis. <br /><br /><i>ONUR, since i ve spotted that you are an anti-Turkic, i will not talk to you anymore. your claims are ideological.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>and the Seljuks were not Kazakhs!</i><br /><br />Who claimed that?<br /><br /><i>Most kazakhs are belong to Naiman, jalair, buryat, oirad tribes, which are mongolic tribes, perhaps you know this better than me!</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Mongol nomads of kazakhstan steppes began to kypchak dialect of the Turkic language.</i><br /><br />I don't dispute that. What I dispute is their numbers. Surely Mongolic peoples were not that much in number in Central Asian steppes. <br /><br /><i>i love kazakh people, but they cant represent the Seljuks of 10-11th century.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>and the population of byzantine anatolia was not 8 or 12 million that most anti-Turkics claimed!</i><br /><br />Those estimations were not made by "anti-Turkics" but by respectable historians and other specialists of the relevant topic.<br /><br /><i>even the population of anatolia was only 5 million in the beginning of the 19.century. check this!<br />http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm<br /><br />and note that its also indludes thrace/balkan region of turkey!</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>the population of 11th century anatolia was maximum 2 million (before the arrival of the seljuks)</i><br /><br />This is one of the most ridiculous claims I have heard from you.<br /><br /><i>and there are many iranians-tajik came to anatolia with seljuks turks, even mevlana celaleddin rumi was just one of them. </i> <br /><br />They were clearly in the minority among the arriving Muslims. Turkmens were clearly in the majority among the arriving Muslims.<br /><br /><i>according to you, mevlana has kazakh appearace lol.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>Turkic impact to anatolia is 30-35%.</i><br /><br />This is just your claim. But, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47450767337468218452012-04-25T13:43:23.684+03:002012-04-25T13:43:23.684+03:00ONUR, since i ve spotted that you are an anti-Turk...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.<br />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.<br />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!<br />http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm<br /><br />and note that its also indludes thrace/balkan region of turkey!<br /><br />the population of 11th century anatolia was maximum 2 million (before the arrival of the seljuks)<br />. <br />and there are many iranians-tajik came to anatolia with seljuks turks, even mevlana celaleddin rumi was just one of them. <br />according to you, mevlana has kazakh appearace lol. <br /><br />im not claiming that Turks are 100% central asians as most Turkish nationalists. but nor i claim that Turks are only 10%Turkic.<br />Turkic impact to anatolia is 30-35%. its very normal, because nomads were not NAZIS. they associated and intermarried with locals/natives. <br /><br />and lastly, if our genes was 1% Turkic, i would still consider myself 100% asian. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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". <br /><br />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. <br />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)Arslan Girayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06194500303564273052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60619404935725815422012-04-18T23:29:34.659+03:002012-04-18T23:29:34.659+03:00Arslan Giray,
As for your assertions regarding th...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />BTW, Altai Turkic peoples and southern Yakuts are traditionally pastoral nomads and not hunter-gatherers.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68988648887260117522012-04-18T23:28:13.550+03:002012-04-18T23:28:13.550+03:00Arslan Giray,
Unlike me, you make a lot of strong...Arslan Giray,<br /><br />Unlike me, you make a lot of strong assertions without any strong evidence. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/03/22/guncel/agun.html (they control for mother tongue)<br /><br />Clearly, today ethnic Turks constitute the great majority of Turkey's population. The only ethnic minority in Turkey with a significant number is Kurds. <br /><br />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.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10836271651735289002012-04-18T19:34:38.001+03:002012-04-18T19:34:38.001+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com