Turkic replacement of IE languages in Central Asia

[Woden]

a Norwegian I1c shared the same Genetic that his cousin R1a 6000 years ago

Are you saying that haplogroups I1c and R1a were genetically the "same" 6000 years ago?

Please show us any scientific papers that establish that.

Willy, I get the impression that you are making this up as you go along!

Why do you say "6000 years ago", is that supposed to be the time of the garden of Eden or something?

[willy]

Scandinavian racial type (with 50 % haplo I) is the same as caucasian mummies Shin-Chiang tall blond
About the Indo european the Urheimat the most widely accepted theory places the Indo-European homeland in the steppes north of the Black Sea, proposing the following routes for the spread of Indo-european languages and peoples . Caucasian type appeared in that glacial refuge of Black Sea.

[transmitter]

I didn't say that. Please read my history of R1a and my post 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe. It explains all the migrations that have brought R1a to Eastern Europe. Turkic people (Huns, Alans, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Turks) were the last waves, only 500 years out of 5000 years of steppe migration. What I meant is that these Turkic people were R1a, but they are not responsible for all the R1a in Eastern Europe, just a part of it (impossible to determine the proportion at present).

Ok
Thanks for this :

(impossible to determine the proportion at present)

its is a pity ...

[Tautalos]

In other words all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe have closer ancestry with groups that are most common now in Asia than they have with each other.

Actually, there is more closeness between all Europeans than between any European and any non European people, generally speaking.

Where is the especial "racial unity" that you speak of there?

Here:

All the populations are quite similar, but the differences are sufficient that it should be possible to devise a forensic test to tell which country in Europe an individual probably comes from, said Manfred Kayser, a geneticist at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
The map shows, at right, the location in Europe where each of the sampled populations live and, at left, the genetic relationship between these 23 populations. The map was constructed by Kayser, Dr. Oscar Lao and others, and appears in an article in Current Biology published on line on August 7.
The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map. The major genetic differences are between populations of the north and south (the vertical axis of the map shows north-south differences, the horizontal axis those of east-west). The area assigned to each population reflects the amount of genetic variation in it.
Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago.
The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Kayser said.
The map also identifies the existence of two genetic barriers within Europe. One is between the Finns (light blue, upper right) and other Europeans. It arose because the Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.
The other is between Italians (yellow, bottom center) and the rest. This may reflect the role of the Alps in impeding free flow of people between Italy and the rest of Europe.
Data for the map were generated by gene chips programmed to test and analyze 500,000 sites of common variation on the human genome, although only the 300,000 most reliable sites were used for the map. Kayser's team tested almost 2,500 people and analyzed the data by correlating the genetic variations in all the subjects. The genetic map is based on the two strongest of these sets of correlations.
The gene chips require large amounts of DNA, more than is available in most forensic samples. Kayser hopes to identify the sites on the human genome which are most diagnostic for European origin. These sites, if reasonably few in number, could be tested for in hair and blood samples, Kayser said.
Genomic sites that carry the strongest signal of variation among populations may be those influenced by evolutionary change, Kayser said. Of the 100 strongest sites, 17 are found in the region of the genome that confers lactose tolerance, an adaptation that arose among a cattle herding culture in northern Europe some 5,000 years ago. Most people switch off the lactose digesting gene after weaning, but the cattle herders evidently gained a great survival advantage by keeping the gene switched on through adulthood.

[Tautalos]

The beginning of the previous article says this:

«Biologists have constructed a genetic map of Europe showing the degree of relatedness between its various populations.»

[Tautalos]

The source: www

nytimes.com/2008/

08/14/health/14iht-13visual.15267344.html?_r=1

[Tautalos]

Some more:

www

isteve.com/realityofrace

htm

«This is Cavalli-Sforza's description of the map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics: "The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."»

See the map at the above given site.

[Tautalos]

And more:
www
continuitas.com/intro
pdf
«(A) the areal distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of the world languages (Cavalli Sforza et al. 1988, 1994, Menozzi et al. 1978 etc.);
(B) language differentiation must have proceeded step by step with the
dispersal of humans (probably Homo sapiens sapiens) (idem).
(C) Independent geneticists working on DNA have recently ascertained that
that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic (e.g. Sykes 2001, 240 ff).»

[Tautalos]

An interesting map:

http

2.bp.blogspot.com/_suD1pzsRnwE/SwRPeU3qo_I/AAAAAAAADWs/28hogfr7eas/s1600

/EuropaAriana.gif

taken from here:

http

://

books.google.pt/books?id=zdeWdF_NQhEC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=Indo-European+people+languages+Cavalli&source=bl&ots=wb HfHLizyU&sig=Pg2V8IkWqtuzJykaSOgm74MnulE&hl=pt-PT&ei=5qYFS7ulJIiz4Qbyu5m9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&c t=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Ind o-European%20people%20languages%20Cavalli&f=false

[willy]

Tautalos : no easy links

[Tautalos]

The Greeks are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey, especially the western half and to the people of southern Italy than they are to the Germanics or the Celts.

Not a proper analysis...

It is not the Greeks who are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey than they are to the Germanics or the Celts.

It is the Turks of contemporary Turkey that are much closer genetically to the people of Greece, and Europe, than they are to other Turkic people of Asia.

The European peoples cluster more tightly than any other race, according to The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza. However, even within the European clustering, some ethnic groups are found closer to the center. A study of Table 5.5.1 on page 270 of HGHG shows that the Belgians have the smallest total genetic distance to all the other White groups, and moreover they continue to have the smallest total distance as you lop off the more peripherial groups. So the Belgians are probably the most centrally located ethnic group within the White race cluster.

Most closely related to the Belgians, in order of increasing genetic distance, are: Dutch, Swiss, Germans, English, Austrian, Danish, Norwegian. The French and the Italians are also fairly central. The Hungarians are not far off, either.

Just to give an idea of the differences involved here, let me give you the genetic distances from the Belgians.

Ethnic group Genetic
Distance
Belgians 0 Center
Dutch 12 Core Group
Swiss 14 Core Group
Germans 15 Core Group
English 15 Core Group
Austrian 16 Core Group
Danish 21 Core Group
Norwegian 24 Core Group
Italians 30 Core Group
Portuguese 31 Core Group
French 32 Core Group
Swedish 34 Core Group
Poles 40 First Ring
Spanish 42 First Ring
Czech 43 First Ring
Yugoslavian 50 First Ring
Russians 51 First Ring
Hungarians 52 First Ring
Scots 59 First Ring
Fins 63 First Ring
Irish 75 Second Ring
Iceland 78 Second Ring
Greeks 103 Second Ring
Basques 107 Second Ring
Iranians 197 Periphery
Sardinians 256 Periphery
Lapps 333 Exception?

Now, using the same scale, where are the other races in terms of distance from, say, the English? (Refer to Table 2.3.1A on page 75 in HGHG.)

North Turkic 866
N Amerindians 947
Koreans 982
Filipinos 1117
S Chinese 1152
Japanese 1244
S Amerinds 1300
Nilo-Saharans 1767
Bantu 2288
Mbuti 2373


Source: http

://

indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/9469.html?1036517048

[willy]

This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .

[Woden]

This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .

What does it even mean to say "opposed genetically"? Do you even understand that this is science and not a game of checkers for kids?

In reality, not your little WN imaginary world, Turkic is a language group that includes various populations in the same way that Indo-European does.

The Turkic speaking populations in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans and not with Turkic speaking Asians. You will notice that the people of Turkey cluster with Europeans while Turkish Cypriots cluster closely with Thracian Greeks.



Associated with: Population history of the Dniester-Carpathians: evidence from Alu markers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387576

Genetic studies show that the ancient Greek genetic signature is as strong in western Turkey (less so in the Kurdish east) as it is in Greece.



http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/

Compare with map of Byzantine Empire



The border between Europe and Turkey is a religio-political construct of the last 500 years and it has no bearing on race.

It is now becoming clear that the 'Turkic' invasions of Europe were later waves of R1a ex-IE speakers from central Asia, which is why geneticists have been surprised with regard to Hungarians and Bulgarians. All R1a came to Europe from central Asia. R1b came through Anatolia and R1b is still present at over 25% through most of Turkey, which is a higher R1b level than anywhere SE of Austria.

It appears that Turkic quickly replaced the Scythian and other Iranian dialects all over Central Asia. Other migratory waves brought more Turkic speakers to Eastern and Central Europe, like the Khazars, the Avars, the Bulgars and the Turks (=> see 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe). All of them were in fact Central Asian nomads who had adopted Turkic language, but had little if any Mongolian blood. Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones.

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

[Wilhelm]

I don't see Turkey clustering with european countries . Turkey is way south in the map, of europeans

[Woden]

I don't see Turkey clustering with european countries . Turkey is way south in the map, of europeans

You are misrepresenting the map that I produced. The whole purpose of the map is to show that speakers of Turkic languages in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans. Do you get that bit?

I repeat, the people of Turkey cluster with Europeans and the Turkish Cypriots cluster closely with the Thracian Greeks as the detailed study that I cited above shows and with which the map above is associated.

Population history of the Dniester-Carpathians: evidence from Alu markers.

Varzari A, Stephan W, Stepanov V, Raicu F, Cojocaru R, Roschin Y, Glavce C, Dergachev V, Spiridonova M, Schmidt HD, Weiss E.

The area between the Dniester and the eastern Carpathian mountain range is at a geographical crossroads between eastern Europe and the Balkans. Little is known about the genetics of the population of this region. We performed an analysis of 12 binary autosomal markers in samples from six Dniester-Carpathian populations: two Moldavian, one Romanian, one Ukrainian and two Gagauz populations. The results were compared with gene frequency data from culturally and linguistically related populations from Southeast Europe and Central Asia. Small genetic differences were found among southeastern European populations (in particular those of the Dniester-Carpathian region). The observed homogeneity suggests either a very recent common ancestry of all southeastern European populations or strong gene flow between them. Despite this low level of differentiation, tree reconstruction and principle component analyses allowed a distinction between Balkan-Carpathian (Macedonians, Romanians, Moldavians, Ukrainians and Gagauzes) and eastern Mediterranean (Turks, Greeks and Albanians) population groups. The genetic affinities among Dniester-Carpathian and southeastern European populations do not reflect their linguistic relationships. The results indicate that the ethnic and genetic differentiations occurred in these regions to a considerable extent independently of each other.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387576

[Wilhelm]

You are misrepresenting the map that I produced. The whole purpose of the map is to show that speakers of Turkic languages in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans. Do you get that bit?

No, because it's not true. It does not cluster with the other european countries, plus there are only a few represented european countries. There are no Western nor Northern countries. And stop repeating posts. You have an exactly the same post in another thread.

[willy]

What does it even mean to say "opposed genetically"? Do you even understand that this is science and not a game of checkers for kids?

In reality, not your little WN imaginary world, Turkic is a language group that includes various populations in the same way that Indo-European does.

Alans (mostly R1a1) Indo-European horsemen were swept away by the invaders hunno-Turkish-Mongol, came from a Siberian region north of Manchuria, their original homeland. The Alans were pushed to the Caucasus Mountains, the current North Ossetia or "Alania".
In recent history, Armenians another Indo euopéen was massacred by the Turks. Europeans in the Ottoman Empire were killed or subjected they had no choice and were mixted to the Turkish so Siberians haplogroups are not europeans R1a1 is not a siberian haplo so I am not WN the Spaniards have done the same thing in South America: forced conversion or killing native americans

[Thracian]

This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .

You can be right,but still i have a few quesitons about Turks.Even Uyghur Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?

On the other hand,I'm confusing about me.I know my forefathers came from Bulgaria(3/4) and Greece(1/4).Just my mothers mother came from Greece.(my family came to Turkey 1920's).So many people saying you all are not Turks.They are saying just a few thousands Turks came.But Anatolia and Thrace population were 25 Million,then how can we still speaking Turkic language?Culturally and genetically we are not belong to Asia,you know too.

And can someone explain me DNA of Thracian people.We are belong to where?

[R. Beiter]

Thracian : "Even Uyghurs Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?"

Indo-european migrations.
An early wave around 3,500 BC at the origin of the Afanasevo culture, apparently coming from the north of the black sea (it could be at the origin of the tocharian language), then later some Indo-iranian addition.

[secherbernard]

The Tarim mummies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies of european features are the link between Afanasevo culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture and Tocharian in Tarim Basin. They are another proof of the Indo-european homeland in Steppes.

[Thracian]

Thank you all so much.

I watched a tv programme on discovery channel,riddle of the desert mummies,than i was thinked wrong.I was thought they could be Turkic,and that makes Turks as white(i thinked Turks were white and some of them mixed with Mongolian and Chinesse,lol.).But when i see a Turk who live in Asia their face's look like Japanesse or Chinesse.Most of them are slant eyed.Than i take my answer about Uyghurs.But still i have quesitons about Anatolia and Thrace.

[Joro]

I wouldn't say most Turks look like Chinese or Japanese, although they show some affinities.

[Thracian]

I was talking about Turks from Kyrgzistan,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan etc..

[Caneker]

The Tarim mummies: of european features are the link between Afanasevo culture and Tocharian in Tarim Basin. They are another proof of the Indo-european homeland in Steppes.

Could you please explain this...
Tocharians belong to Afanasevo culture. Afanasevo came from? Anatolia? And when?

[secherbernard]

Could you please explain this...
Tocharians belong to Afanasevo culture. Afanasevo came from? Anatolia? And when?

Afanasevo culture is an IE culture who came from Pontic Steppes about 3.500 BC.