Turks with 10 - 25% Mongoloid admixture ( Turkish people autosomal DNA )

[Alan]

Interesting comment, epicanthic eye-folds are not exclusive to Asia and mongoloid is a term that is used to describe non-Asians too.

View attachment 6239View attachment 6240View attachment 6241

Khosains as closest to Proto Humans, would have allot of the characteristic things. lighter skin than average Sub Saharan African, eye-folds, lower fat on cheeks and more prominent chin and brow ridge.

 

[KA-EL]

Which haplogroup are Mongoloid ? The Q and the N ?

 

[Gurka atla]

Turks with strong Mongoloid features / Turanid race

Even in a country like Turkey ( between west Asia/Europe) have some individuals with strong Mongoloid traits. The percentage of most provinces usually only ranges 1% - 10% or 5% - 17% Mongoloid admixture however a few province from the southeast apparently have much higher Mongoloid admixture than the Turks can be as low as 1.5% to as high as 24.5% Mongoloid

 

[Gurka atla]

 

[Gurka atla]

i am also turkish anatolian. slanted eyes very rare to see in turkey but we can have because mongolian invasion

Well however rare it is, it's still most common in Turkey and Azeris among all middle eastern nations

 

[Boreas]

Even in Turkey, we associate slanted eyes with Tatars, not Turks.

During the Ottoman Period, there is no nationalism and after that Ataturk nationalism aimed to create Turkish nation from different muslim people as in melting pot system. It wasn't successfull just in Kurd case. (Maybe a little bit succesfull, example current leader of Kurdish movement is Selahattin Demirtaş and his mothertongue is Turkish.)

But it is dramatically succesfull between Albanian, Bosnian, North Caucausian , Muslim Georgians and Tatars. Populations statistics about them are just funny guess.

Wiki says
it says 150 000 - 6 000 000, as you see, there is a huge difference. It is really hard to find real population statistics about these populations.

6 million means nearly 7% of Turkey Population.

And As you can guess, Tatar people has more strong Mongolid feather such as slanted eyes.

 

[LeBrok]

Even in Turkey, we associate slanted eyes with Tatars, not Turks.

During the Ottoman Period, there is no nationalism and after that Ataturk nationalism aimed to create Turkish nation from different muslim people as in melting pot system. It wasn't successfull just in Kurd case. (Maybe a little bit succesfull, example current leader of Kurdish movement is Selahattin Demirtaş and his mothertongue is Turkish.)

But it is dramatically succesfull between Albanian, Bosnian, North Caucausian , Muslim Georgians and Tatars. Populations statistics about them are just funny guess.

Wiki says
it says 150 000 - 6 000 000, as you see, there is a huge difference. It is really hard to find real population statistics about these populations.

6 million means nearly 7% of Turkey Population.

And As you can guess, Tatar people has more strong Mongolid feather such as slanted eyes.

It all depends on how strongly original Turks mixed with locals. They could have lost their mongoloid features by now. It might be the same case as with Tatar minority in Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. They look exactly, or almost exactly like surrounding local folks. You wouldn't even guess they used to look like Mongolians 500 years ago.
You would need to look into some secluded villages where Turks settled in great numbers. They might still sport some Mongolian features.

 

[Arame]

Gurka_atla

I think this mean one thing. You are the descendant of original Turks. Original Altaian people had some 30-40% Asiatic Mongoloid component + 30 % Central Siberian component. Plus some 20-25 % European.



Fig.1. Admixture results for K=6 showing the approximate location of the populations
included in this study. The names of the populations are coloured according to their
linguistic affiliation as follows: red = Mongolic, blue = Turkic, dark green = North
Tungusic, light green = South Tungusic (Hezhen) and Manchu (Xibo), brown = Ugric,
orange = Samoyedic, black = Yenisseic, azure = Yukaghirs, maroon = Chukotko-
Kamchatkan, pink = Eskimo-Aleut, purple = Indo-European, teal = Sino-Tibetan and
Japonic. Where two subgroups are from the same geographic location, only one of the
subgroups is shown (full results are presented in Fig.S1). Note that for reasons of space the
location of the two distinct Yakut subgroups does not correspond to their true location.
Each color indicates a different ancestry component referred to in the text as "(light) green”
or European, "yellow" or Western Siberian, "blue" or Central Siberian, "pink" or Asian,
"red" or Far Eastern, "dark green" or Eskimo.

This is from this study about Siberians

http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/4855/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/018770-1.pdf

 

[Arame]

One of the reasons that the East Asiatic component is low in today's Turkey is not only the fact they mixed heavily with locals but also the fact that Ottoman Empire was fighting and eradicating the original Turkic tribes because they became Shias. In the big war between Ottomans and Safavids, Turkic tribes who became Shia supported Safavid against Sunni Ottomans.
All Shia Turkomans were forced to move to Iran's Azerbaijan from Anatolia. Most of them were killed during battles.
So if You look at Azerbaijanis in Iran You will find that they have higher Mongoloid component than Turks in Anatolia. But even in Iranian Azerbaijan the original Iranian component is higher than the Eastern. The northern Azerbaijan (the Republic) is another story.
Iraqi Turkmens are for example the remnant of this struggle. Half of them are Shia.
In overall in Turkey the original East Asiatic components will not exceed 10 % in my opinion.

 

[AnatoliansNotTurk]

İ am from central anatolia i never seen people with slanted eyed or turanid face. their ancestor is raped. Asiatic people in turkey is nogais and tatars they sre immigrant we are original anatolian descend

If you are an original anatolian then you are not turkish.

The Turkish people invaded Anatolia

So you are Greek or Armenian

 

[Nikolay Iliev]

What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.

 

[Sile]

What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.

I would agree

As per the latest doco I saw yesterday (on Byzantium) which investigated the Turk history, even the Turks acknowledge (via their literature and bards ) that they arrived in firstly in eastern Anatolia in 1079 AD from central asia

 

[Boreas]

One of the reasons that the East Asiatic component is low in today's Turkey is not only the fact they mixed heavily with locals but also the fact that Ottoman Empire was fighting and eradicating the original Turkic tribes because they became Shias. In the big war between Ottomans and Safavids, Turkic tribes who became Shia supported Safavid against Sunni Ottomans.

Good analysis but partly true. Yes there was a rivalry between Ottomans and Shia Safavids but also there were Sunni Crimea Khanate which was ally.

So if You look at Azerbaijanis in Iran You will find that they have higher Mongoloid component than Turks in Anatolia. But even in Iranian Azerbaijan the original Iranian component is higher than the Eastern.

Another good analysis

In overall in Turkey the original East Asiatic components will not exceed 10 % in my opinion.

Totally right Mine says 7%

If you are an original anatolian then you are not turkish.

The Turkish people invaded Anatolia

So you are Greek or Armenian

Greeks ??? Greeks are not Anatolian and Armenoid name is just a name which include also all Caucausian, so your words doesn't make sense.

there is no such thing as a "real" turk.

Yeap, no pure blood nations, espeacially in Turk case.

As per the latest doco I saw yesterday (on Byzantium) which investigated the Turk history, even the Turks acknowledge (via their literature and bards ) that they arrived in firstly in eastern Anatolia in 1079 AD from central asia

1079 AD, what is that?

Manzikert Battle was in 1071 AD. Even this is not the date of first arrival. If we don't count the looting attacks, first arrival could be capturing of city Ani in 1064 AD

 

[Sile]

1079 AD, what is that?

Manzikert Battle was in 1071 AD. Even this is not the date of first arrival. If we don't count the looting attacks, first arrival could be capturing of city Ani in 1064 AD

have an arguement with this series

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1coo0f_byzantium-a-tale-of-three-cities-2of3_travel

2nd video..................better still , watch all 3

 

[Sile]

Greeks ??? Greeks are not Anatolian and Armenoid name is just a name which include also all Caucausian, so your words doesn't make sense.

Where did you get this map from?

 

[MOESAN]

What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.

So today Turks are a mix of the whole planet earth? theyre a mix, yes, but with some historical basis, and some recent weddings with foreign people are not eough to change the anatoolian Turcs basis: Anatolians of diverse origin (Greeks, Armenians, Anatolian I-Eans and others like Kurds) + Steppes people for the most dating from the Turkic extension, of turlicized Iranians and genuine Turcs (this last ones a Central Steppes mix of 'europoids' plus at first a strong 'east-asian' imput from S-E Altay - at last in the terminal point it gives us a very light 'east-asian' or 'mongoloid' imput in Anatolia, perhaps varying according to regions.

 

[Boreas]

Where did you get this map from?

It is Eickstedta's map

 

[Drac II]

It is Eickstedta's map

Not quite. Someone has been tampering with that map and putting his own conceptions in. Eickstedt did not label any "Europid" race as "Berberid", he considered North African populations to basically be a composite of Mediterraneans ("Westische"), Alpines ("Ostische") and "Orientals" ("Orientalide"; meaning in this context Near Easterners, not East Asians), with Nordic ("Nordische") and Negroid ("Sudanide") minorities:

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/map-eickstedt-eur.jpg

 

[ukaj]

So does that mean that Turkish people are not closer to original Turks?

I though the heavy Asian looking Turkmen is the result of Mongol invasion. Aren't these Mongol descendant?

These people look like the huns.But from what i have learned that old turkic people look very asian.amazing I thought turks came from asia minor,I have never seen this before would like to learn more about it,,

 

[ukaj]

Good analysis but partly true. Yes there was a rivalry between Ottomans and Shia Safavids but also there were Sunni Crimea Khanate which was ally.



Another good analysis



View attachment 7449

Totally right Mine says 7%



Greeks ??? Greeks are not Anatolian and Armenoid name is just a name which include also all Caucausian, so your words doesn't make sense.

Yeap, no pure blood nations, espeacially in Turk case.



1079 AD, what is that?

Manzikert Battle was in 1071 AD. Even this is not the date of first arrival. If we don't count the looting attacks, first arrival could be capturing of city Ani in 1064 AD

Their were greek speakers in anatolia im sure..