How much Turks and Slavic influence the Greek genetic pool ?

Here are the Balkan - Anatolian - Turkish admixture percentages for the Dodecad BAT calculator.

bat.png
 
How is it possible that Uygur and Uzbeks have so much Balkan admixture? I mean from 16.4 - 20.4 % is very much for Turkic people in Central Asia.
 
Because Pliny Elder mention Sarmathian nations of Serboi and Harauata - Serbs and Croats - they are not Slavic , they just took Slavic languagues , Serbs have only 5% Slavic R1a .
Also you should remember emperor Constantine , helped Yazigi ( Sarmathians), from Banat to defeat rebeled slaves , and settled 500.000 Sarmathians to Balkans , and how many inhabitabts do Balkan had in that time ?

Seriously, maybe is this your answer/proof to your claims that there is 'Sarmatian (Balcanic) DNA' in Central Asia!

 
I think that Greeks aren't West Asian at all. I mean their West Asian autosomal DNA component is mostly from West Anatolia, and as far as I know West Anatolia (Byzantium) has been always considered as historical part of Southeast EUROPE!
 
How is it possible that Uygur and Uzbeks have so much Balkan admixture? I mean from 16.4 - 20.4 % is very much for Turkic people in Central Asia.

It is the West Asian component in these populations that Dienekes has incorporated into the Balkan admixture.
 
It is the West Asian component in these populations that Dienekes has incorporated into the Balkan admixture.
Ok, thank you very much. But why? West Asian component is not from the Balkans. It is just from West Asia. According to me is West Asia: East Anatolia (+ maybe some parts the Taurus Mountains), the Caucasus Mountains (North + South), Kurdistan & the Zagros Mountains/Iranian Plateau!

I don't understand this.
 
It's easy: humans migrate. And Greece is next to Turkey (the main way), quite easy to get the component at substantial level after thousands of year of migrations.

Geographic notions in terms of ancestry shouldn't be taken that serious. Even the British & Irish carry the component (6.2%), the French (7.2%), Indians (12.5%) (North Italy (12.9%), Yemenese (19.3%), etc., etc.

I don't see nothing rare.
 
It's easy: humans migrate. And Greece is next to Turkey (the main way), quite easy to get the component at substantial level after thousands of year of migrations.

Geographic notions in terms of ancestry shouldn't be taken that serious. Even the British & Irish carry the component (6.2%), the French (7.2%), Indians (12.5%) (North Italy (12.9%), Yemenese (19.3%), etc., etc.

I don't see nothing rare.
Do you have about the Balkanic or West Asian component? I don't understad you.
 
Dorian said Balkanic includes West Asian if I understood well, but I think the Anatolian component is what reflects more West Asian admixture (and others, it's quite unclear). Balkans show more European admixture than the other populations at K=12 v3, that makes no sense.

Anatolia peaks in Armenians, the ones who show more West Asian admixture of the groups listed there.
 
Dorian said Balkanic includes West Asian if I understood well, but I think the Anatolian component is what reflects more West Asian admixture (and others, it's quite unclear). Balkans show more European admixture than the other populations, that makes no sense.
Yes. The Balkans = is Europe. But West Anatolia = is Europe too.

My point is that the West Asian component is NOT from the Balkans. Why did he rename West Asian DNA in Uygur and Uzbeks into Balkanic component? I don't uderstand this.

Almost all haplogroups in Europe are from West Asia. Maybe only E, Q and N are not from West Asia. And some subgroups of R1a are from Central Asia. Even the ancestor of I, hg. IJ is from to West Asia. West Asian DNA in India is due to the Aryans who invaded India from the Central Asia. These Aryans came originally from West Asia too.
 
Last edited:
Of course the West Asian component wasn't originated in the Balkans. The caucassus is the most likely place.

However, the component it's quite widespread in all Eurasia, even parts of Africa.
 
Last edited:
Yes. The Balkans = is Europe. But West Anatolia = is Europe too.

My point is that the West Asian component is NOT from the Balkans. Why did he rename West Asian DNA in Uygur and Uzbeks into Balkanic component? I don't uderstand this.

Almost all haplogroups in Europe are from West Asia. Maybe only E is not from West Asia. And some subgroups of R1a are from Central Asia. Even the ancestor of I, hg. IJ is from to West Asia. West Asian DNA in India is due to the Aryans who invaded India from the Central Asia. These Aryans came originally from West Asia too.

The easiest way to understand it is to realize firstly that these so-called groups used to identify an admixture are not set in stone, they change with every analysis depending on the needs of the study. If you take West Asian and try to understand it in terms of history and archaeology it will drive you around the bend. Don't think of it as a 'standard' group, it is more helpful to view this group as a 'variable measuring instrument' used to illustrate differences between populations more clearly.

For example, if we compare Poland and Greece, the admixture known as 'West Asian' will incorporate more South Asian and less West Asian to bring out the difference between Polish and Greek admixtures. Greeks and Polish may have similar levels of West Asian, but in such a comparison Polish should indicate much less West Asian and more North European. Contrast is good and altering one calibrates the measurement to get the best contrast. The names stay the same but their respective values and make-up alter to get the best effect.

Conversely, if we compare Sicilians and Greeks the admixture known as 'West Asian' will be dominant in Sicilians and North European identifiably more in Greeks. Where did they get North European in Greeks all of a sudden you may ask, because it is where the difference lies, the only difference is that now the weight of North European within Greeks is elevated and it appears proportionally higher than it would otherwise seem.

The Dodecad program puts more emphasis on a characteristic unique to a certain population. This characteristic may only be 5% of the population but it is significant if not found in the population you want to compare with. Therefore the proportion of 5% is in fact illustrated as 100% and 2.5% as 50% etc. etc. This is only for effect and helps make the comparison more representative and easier to read. Ultimately these types of analyzes are of limited value when comparing similar populations.
 
Last edited:
The easiest way to understand it is to realize firstly that these so-called groups used to identify an admixture are not set in stone, they change with every analysis depending on the needs of the study. If you take West Asian and try to understand it in terms of history and archaeology it will drive you around the bend. Don't think of it as a 'standard' group, it is more helpful to view this group as a 'measuring instrument' used to illustrate differences between populations more clearly.

For example, if we compare Poland and Greece, the admixture known as 'West Asian' will incorporate more South Asian and less West Asian to bring out the difference between Polish and Greek admixtures. Greeks and Polish may have similar levels of West Asian, but in such a comparison Polish should indicate much less West Asian and more North European. Contrast is good and altering one calibrates the measurement to get the best contrast. The names stay the same but their respective values and make-up alter to get the best effect.

Conversely, if we compare Sicilians and Greeks the admixture known as 'West Asian' will be dominant in Sicilians and North European identifiably more in Greeks. Where did they get North European in Greeks all of a sudden you may ask, because it is where the difference lies, the only difference is that now the weight of North European within Greeks is elevated and it appears proportionally higher than it would otherwise seem.

The Dodecad program puts more emphasis on a characteristic unique to a certain population. This characteristic may only be 5% of the population but it is significant if not found in the population you want to compare with. Therefore the proportion of 5% is in fact illustrated as 100% and 2.5% as 50% etc. etc. This is only for effect and helps make the comparison more representative and easier to read. Ultimately these types of analyzes are of limited value when comparing similar populations.
Thank you very much that you took so much time to explain this to me! You just opened the whole new world for me!
 
I2A2 are Indo-Europeanized for sure.But their identity remains mystery
 
All HP I people were the original native Cro-Magnon. J and E people came during the neolithic migrations of Near Eastern farmers. And last came: R1a and R1b from the central Asian Steppes and brought with them the genes for light hair and eyes, and the ability to digest milk. Most Greeks are descendants of neolithic farmers, but their oligarchs and leaders were mostly R1b/R1a descendants (they conquered the area and made themselves the dominant class). Later on, more R1b/R1a genes came during the Germanic and Slavic invasions. The original I people mostly preserved their genetic traits in the mountainous regions of the Balkans: former Yugoslavia. That is why most people in Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia are tall, have high bone density, and wide shoulders. These are all Cro-Magnon traits.
 
Most Greeks are descendants of neolithic farmers, but their oligarchs and leaders were mostly R1b/R1a descendants (they conquered the area and made themselves the dominant class)

This claim is unsubstantiated. I would be interested to know on what historical basis you can make such an assumption.
 
Last edited:
This claim is unsubstantiated. I would be interested to know on what historical basis you can make such an assumption.

During the Bronze Age Indo-Europeans (who are mostly R1b/R1a) conquered most of Europe. Conquerors are usually the new leaders of a country/land.
 
The Mongolian Turks who carried Asiatic-Mongoloid Haplogroups is a tiny fraction of the Turkish population and it appears Turks are in general local Anatolians for the most part. You will not find Mongoloid haplogroups in the Greek population. The Slavic admixture in Greeks is from the Eastern Roman Empire and can be seen in M458+ Greek men. This is found in about 5% of Greek men in Northern Greece and represents 15-20% of R1a in North Greece.

Don't forget the Turkmenes or Turcomans of ancient iranic speaking regions of East Caspian, türkic speakers but with principally 'indo-afghan' phénotypes and surely for a big part ancient iranic speaking people: they got some mongoloïd blood during their acculturation but at low levels and they went to Anatolia; that can explain the very low level of East asian autosomals among anatolian Turks today - these Turkmens, I think, had a lot of western asian autosomals very + some south asian ones and are hard to segregate from other ethnic influences
 
we have to be very carefull when speaking about HGs;
Y-R1a is present at 9% in Kreta and I'm not Kreta has been a place under strong slavic occupation... (I think in first I-Es waves
Y-J2 is very frequent in Kreta and that denotes rather old migrations in Greece from Anatolia than about strong turkish heritage
Y-J1 has to be lookad at in details, beacause Y-J1 is from the peri-Caucasus region at first and not are all its sublineages the mark of recent arabic intrusions... I think the slavic demic influence in Greece is lighter than a first sight to global HGs could bring us to conclude - surely it exists in some proportions, more in Northern Greece as can be hoped? the turkic one is very uneasy to evaluate.
 
we have to be very carefull when speaking about HGs;
Y-R1a is present at 9% in Kreta and I'm not Kreta has been a place under strong slavic occupation... (I think in first I-Es waves
Y-J2 is very frequent in Kreta and that denotes rather old migrations in Greece from Anatolia than about strong turkish heritage
Y-J1 has to be lookad at in details, beacause Y-J1 is from the peri-Caucasus region at first and not are all its sublineages the mark of recent arabic intrusions... I think the slavic demic influence in Greece is lighter than a first sight to global HGs could bring us to conclude - surely it exists in some proportions, more in Northern Greece as can be hoped? the turkic one is very uneasy to evaluate.

what do you mean by Kreta?....crete, if so, it has no slavic occupation. If crete, then early occupation ( not including minoans) , was the Doric people,

currently, I read that R1a came into europe via the Thracians and the E Hg in the balkans was the migrating Hittites from anatolia at the time of the great bronze age migrations around 1200BCE.

as for J1, these are coastal levant people...most likely the ancient Phoencians and the J2 are mesopotamians .

Again, I stress, I am still unsure on these facts as i still have not read anything in great depth
 

This thread has been viewed 91962 times.

Back
Top