I have written a short summary explaining how the Indo-European speakers of Central Asia came to speak Turkic languages.
Forum | Europe Travel Guide | Ecology | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
![]() |
I have written a short summary explaining how the Indo-European speakers of Central Asia came to speak Turkic languages.
My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.
Hello Maciamo ,
I don't understand What you Mean by : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ?
And about "Hungarian, sometimes mistaken for the heir of Hunnic because of its name, is in reality an Uralic language (Magyar)" I have read : The Madjars show evidence of extensive genetic drift, with 24/45 carrying the same 12-STR haplotype within haplogroup G. Genetic distances based on haplogroup frequencies were used to compare the Madjars with 37 other populations and showed that they were closest to the Hungarian population rather than their geographical neighbors .
source : "Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Information, Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Reference ... Information and research on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) on FindTarget Reference ... of the tested men were G. The Madyars of Kazakhstan were found to be 87% G1"
Nico
humm.. heu you think really this ?
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).
Huns Turks ? and Alans ? Turkic people were R1a ? hummm ... Alans ok but Huns ..
When you say : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ? There is a big confusion between indo european that is a culture and a langage and Turkic invasion R1a ? Turkic people are not indo europeans !
Turkic speakers diffused mainly "IE lineages" into Europe in so far as they distributed ancient racial lineages that are associated with the historical spread of IE culture. They were predominantly of R1a lineage, indeed formerly spoke IE languages and they entered Europe as a later of many R1a waves, the earlier of which contributed to the spread of IE culture into Europe.
Do you define 'Indo-Europeans' as you put it solely by the language that people presently speak? That would mean that the African slaves in the Caribbean for instance became IEs as soon as they adopted an IE language.
Or do you define it to mean that persons are IE only if none of their ancestors ever spoke a non-IE language? That would exclude all present Europeans AFAIK as we all have non-IE ancestry AFAIK, including ice age I Hg and Near Eastern J2, E3b etc.
So how exactly do you define it?
If its by language then Africans are in, if its by race then Europeans and Africans are all out and if its by both then all are still out.
Sorry but Turkic people are not europeans ! Indo Europeans are the ancestors of the European people Germanic Celts the Ancient Greeks ... etc There is no Turkish in that team .Under the Ottoman Empire people of European origin were numerous but they were dominated and mixed by a non-European culture and a non-European people.
"Are you saying that the ancestors of Europeans were IEs?"
Yes the ancestors of Europeans were indo europeans .
"So any group that enters Europe and adopts an IE language becomes IE and so do all of their ancestors?"
If I go to Japan and I learn Japanese langage and integrate Japanese culture it does not make me a Japanese .
Can you offer any etymology for that use of the term?
As I said, that would include the full E to R of European haplogroups and I am not aware that anyone else uses the term in that way.
Do you get the bit about the spread through Eurasia of IE languages being linked to the diffusion of Hgs. R1a and R1b?
It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago . This population is similar in its culture and its genes from the Germanic countries to Ireland from Austria to Sweden whatever is hp G, R or I ..
Can you refer us to any peer-reviewed scientific studies that purport to establish that?
You may as well say that Europeans are descended from Adam and Eve and got booted out of the garden of Eden 6000 years ago for stealing apples off the tree and that Adam and Eve were IE.
just look at the racial unity of the North European and the mixed Turkish people
All European nations, including those of northern Europe, are multi-hybrid and made up of a spectrum of distinct ancient Eurasian races that entered Europe at different times, plus the north African E3b, the last to leave Africa.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml
There is no IE Adam and Eve there.
Indeed the ice age European I Hg has common ancestry with the Near Eastern J group while the IE R1 groups have common ancestry with the Asian Q group.
The north Eurasian N group is also strong in northern Europe, particularly to the NE and that has common ancestry with the east Asian O group that is common in China.
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.
Where is the especial "racial unity" that you speak of there?
Northern Europe is just as Eurasian as anywhere else?
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.
The map that shows the present distribution of ancient Greek DNA correlates closely with the map of the Byzantine Empire (see below.)
Yes the population of Turkey is predominantly of Anatolian stock but that does not mean that they are "of European origin" as you say. Rather Europe was populated through Turkey though there has of course been a certain amount of back migration and general movement back and forth.
The border between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and essentially political. Political lines have not always been drawn in the same places.
The present distribution of ancient Greek autosomal DNA:
http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/
The Byzantine Empire:
![]()
"In other words of all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe are closer to groups that are most common now in Asian than they are to each other."
Haplo N O P Q R are from the same family and therefore the populations of northern Europe being R1a are closer genetically Asian haplotypes O N as northern haplotype I1c .
I do not agree because a haplogroup does not represent the genetic pool of individuals and a Norwegian I1c shared the same Genetic that his cousin R1a 6000 years ago Populations I and R should be more identical to each other than R with O , Y haplogroup does not give the racial type.
"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"
There was on this area a Turkish invasion and Greeks were resigned to the Ottomans.
I did not say that the nations in northern Europe are now closer genetically to Asians but that they have closer ancient racial ancestry.
Anyway each group is generally genetically closer now to the group beside it, such as the Greeks and the Turks. So what is your point?
Forgive me but that is nonsense, even gibberish.
I ask you again for scientific papers that say that "It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago ."
Willy, please refer us to any peer-reviewed scientific papers that purport to establish what you say.
The ancient ancestors of Europeans were not all IE but they were distinct Eurasian races who entered Europe at different times and mixed at various times, plus the African E3b.
If you cant cite any scientific papers then its all Adam and Eve nonsense, fairy stories.