Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

That's not necessary, they - the Turkic-speaking immigrants - just had to be much less Northest Asian than you think for that. I'm talking about the demographic impact of a migration, not about the intensity of its genetic imprint, bringing alien elements to the local genetic pool. I think that 25% to 30% is more plausible because the bulk of the Turkic migration to Anatolia happened after the 11th century and came not from the northern steppes nor even less so from anywhere near Siberia, but from present Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan, and the Turks had already started to expand extensively in that southern part of Central Asia for at least 500 years before they came in droves to Anatolia.
Keeping in mind that Anatolia was rather populous country compared to steppe/mountainous region like Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, it would require movement of all the inhabitants of this region to mix in proportions you suggest. It makes it very unlikely. Uzbekistan and farther to the center of Asia, numerous invasion would drastically lower Caucasian admixture in Turkey. So the direct invasion of Central Asiatic Turkish tribes in 30% proportion did not happen. Max is 15% by the numbers. Turkmenistan population is actually similar to Turkey, and it looks like they were the victim of the same conquering force. This more likely than being invaders themselves. Again, looking at massive 50% of caucasian admixture in Turkey, makes them overwhelmingly inhabitants of this caucasian/sub caucasian region almost forever.
The only huge replacement of population, from the available samples, I can see, was from late Neolithic to Bronze Age, when Anatolian Neolithic Farmer was replaced by BA Armenian Farmer. Possibly caused by expansion of IEs. Steppe admixture is growing in Armenia and Northern Anatolia at same time.

Besides, the Turks themselves that had expanded southward to Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan had already established important khanates and tribal confederacies in the Eurasian Steppe around modern Kazakhstan, where they definitely mixed with local Europoid tribes and thus arrived the Turan region with their East Asian-like ancestry already a bit diluted. So, in my opinion, the Turks that invaded Anatolia were already much more "West Eurasian" than the Turks that first invaded the Pontic-Caspian steppe and Central Asia centuries earlier. They had dozens of generations for that.
It might look like it, but it wasn't. Again, when I look at admixture numbers, it would take almost all Turkmenistan to replace contemporary Anatolians to get to modern Turkey numbers. It is hugely unlikely.

So, my position, at least until contrary proofs are presented (I have no strong personal interest in maintaining this opinion of mine), is that if Siberian+East Asian admixture in contemporary Turks account for ~10-15% of their genetic makeup, that must mean a demographic impact from the Turkic migrations between 20% and 30%.
I really think, the invasion was more direct from Central Asia. I have seen pictures of people from some secluded villages in Turkey, and people looked Central Asiatic/Mongolian.

Having said that there is quite a bit speculation on my part, though I'm trying to stay true to numbers. Getting our hands on IA samples from Anatolia, and the ones before Turkish invasion would answer few questions.
Peace out.
 
Keeping in mind that Anatolia was rather populous country compared to steppe/mountainous region like Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, it would require movement of all the inhabitants of this region to mix in proportions you suggest.

Not if they were originally significantly less than 20-30% (my medium estimate is 25%), but they had a demographic advantage (in terms of reproduction and rate of surviving children) over the natives for several generations during the Middle Ages and early Modern Era, which is quite likely considering they became the conquerors and the members of the new political and military elite. Also, there are at least a few evidences that Anatolia suffered some local demographic catastrophes during the later Middle Ages, with partial depopulation of some regions, so that some parts of Anatoli could've been impacted by the waves of immigration right when they were at a nadir of their native population. If, as I think is quite plausible, the Turks, especially elite Turks, left more offspring than others, their demographic impact could easily reach some 25% even if the number of immigrants as a percentage of the local Anatolian population was originally much inferior to 25%, say around 15%. They didn't need to have defined their final demographic impact in the makeup of Anatolia right when they came from Central Asia.

Anyway, I do agree with you that for now we are just speculating, although we could say that these are well informed guesses. I hope we will have Late Antiquity and Medieval samples from Anatolia soon, then it will easier to answer this question. There is, however, a certain overlapping of at least the West Asian and some of the Caucasian admixture between Anatolia and southern Central Asia, but there must be a way to distinguish one and the other since they must've had some noticeable drift in the last thousands of years. I look forward to the day when this controversy will be finally settled out, except for the fringe deniers, of course. :)
 
Dienekes calculated the Turkic admixture at 14%. I don't believe the impact can be as high as 30%. Turks would look too different in that case.
 
Dienekes calculated the Turkic admixture at 14%. I don't believe the impact can be as high as 30%. Turks would look too different in that case.
Good point, At 30% we would definitely see more asiatic phenotypic features.
 
I don't know what the percentages will turn out to be; I think you need genomes from the invaders at that time period for comparison.

However, Ygorcs' point is that this 30% would have been itself mixed. The "Mongolian" or "East Asian" like component could have easily been less than 50%. So, the lack of "Mongolian" phenotypes would not be very surprising.

Plus, it does show up, depending on the area.

These are Central Asian Turks.
Ancient%20Turks%20-%206.jpg


_42254754_assembly.jpg


By the time they reached Anatolia they might have been even more admixed.

These are modern day Turks. Now, granted, many Turks don't look like this, but a lot of "Turks" are full or part Balkan, or Turkified Greek, or Armenian.

13007167_859634910846651_583744785519511874_n-332x630.jpg


df94359a7ed6f2f6b0a548cbff093372.jpg
 
Ygorcs is rational. The admixture can be even higher than 30% because those who migrated and eventually conquered the land weren't proto-Turks (and I don't believe proto-Turks were East Asian) but Oghuz Turks and they could have been mixed more with Persian-like populations than other Oghuz Turks.I don't believe we earn anything by denying their Turkicness and I don't understand what the motives are.
 
I don't know what the percentages will turn out to be; I think you need genomes from the invaders at that time period for comparison.

However, Ygorcs' point is that this 30% would have been itself mixed. The "Mongolian" or "East Asian" like component could have easily been less than 50%. So, the lack of "Mongolian" phenotypes would not be very surprising.

Plus, it does show up, depending on the area.

These are Central Asian Turks.
Ancient%20Turks%20-%206.jpg


_42254754_assembly.jpg


By the time they reached Anatolia they might have been even more admixed.

These are modern day Turks. Now, granted, many Turks don't look like this, but a lot of "Turks" are full or part Balkan, or Turkified Greek, or Armenian.

13007167_859634910846651_583744785519511874_n-332x630.jpg


df94359a7ed6f2f6b0a548cbff093372.jpg

Chad Michael Murray is 1/4 Chinese. Keanu Reeves is 1/4 Polynesian and 1/4 Chinese. Even if you can see it now, would you have guessed?

chad-michael-murray-baby.jpg


Keanu-Reeves2.jpg


SSA ancestry is more visible.
 
Strange that whoever wrote that wiki article neglected to mention that this area was part of Magna Graecia, and if Southern Italy, for example, received a lot of gene flow from Greece, than so did the Pontian area.

The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here.

Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus

---
 
Good point, At 30% we would definitely see more asiatic phenotypic features.

As I said, if the mix was not between Mongol-like people and West Asians, but instead between Uzbek-like and West Asians, you may be almost sure that the outcome would be more or less what many Turkish people look like today. The strongest Turkic expansion to Anatolia happened roughly 1,000 years after the first signs of widespread Turkic expansion to the west, first causing the absorption of the Scythians into the Turkic culture/identity. That's a lot of time for a lot of mixing to happen. There are several - not a majority, but still a sizeable minority - Turks in Turkey that absolutely look like they have some East Asian phenotypical features thrown into their mostly West Eurasian traits. Some of them even look like the average Central Asian (not Kazakhs, but the "southerners" like Turkmen and Uzbeks). I've talked to a few Turkish men who told me their autosomal results for East Asian & Siberian ancestry were well above the average of other Turkish people, around 30%. Many other people have less than 5%. So, it seems like there is still quite a lot of structure within Turkey itself, even after hundreds of years.
 
The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here.

Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.


---

The majority of those in Colchis and Black Sea region were Greek by identity after colonization right up until the exchange. We can't tell for sure what genetic input is like there but it's safe to assume that it's fairly minimal. I've run across a few Pontic Greek GEDmatch results myself and they basically come up as Laz as you would expect.
 
The settlement of the Hellenes in Italy was significantly higher than in Pontus. Syracuse was the second or the biggest ancient Greek city in history. (in terms of population) I know something about Magna Graecia but I will not belabor it here.

Pontus was majority non-Greek before the kingdom of Lazia was established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus

---


1) What connection have the Laz? with the greek of Pontos?
2 Why Mithridates you think changed his satrapy to primary Helenistic?
and why he always tried to unify Greek colonies of Black sea?

The Pontic greek dialect is more ancient than Homer,
In it exists more ancient forms, that even Homer did not use,


BTW,
I am not a Pontic Greek,
But I live among them,
Laz are different, but they never had problem with Greeks
Pontic Greeks are a mix of Ionians, with Anatolians, a part of Persians, and Laz

as for numbers?
and %?

search,
 

hmm

Thessalonki is consider the homeland of Kemal correct?

Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis

DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND ONE?

I know cause about 1500 Ofle people live about 4 km from my house,
he has far relatives here in Makedonia

Serach the effects of the 2 russo-Turkish wars one at 17th century
one at early 19th century,

at the last one, how many expelled to Georgia, and how many islamizised

Do you know the second ofle great leader ?
 
Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis

DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND ONE?

Even I couldn't find any Ipsilantis who was born in Of. I guess This family was Pontic Greek but all historian figures were born in Istanbul.


at the last one, how many expelled to Georgia, and how many islamizised?

and how many of local Caucausians were Hellenized...
 
hmm

Thessalonki is consider the homeland of Kemal correct?

Somewhere in Pontos exist a valley,
his river name is snake ΟΦΙΣ ofis Turkish Of,
that area gave 2 big leaders, in modern History.
the 1rst was Yψηλαντης Ypsilantes Turkish Ipsilantis

DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND ONE?

I know cause about 1500 Ofle people live about 4 km from my house,
he has far relatives here in Makedonia

Serach the effects of the 2 russo-Turkish wars one at 17th century
one at early 19th century,

at the last one, how many expelled to Georgia, and how many islamizised

Do you know the second ofle great leader ?

From the last time that we discussed i remember that Ypsilanti was a total failure. When we talk about Greece, a great leader or hero is someone dressed with fustanella.
 
From the last time that we discussed i remember that Ypsilanti was a total failure. When we talk about Greece, a great leader or hero is someone dressed with fustanella.

Mind your heroes

and leave the Greeks to have their own,

cause if do not know the Greek revolt correct and the Filliki
better go serve west,
 
Mind your heroes

and leave the Greeks to have their own,

Stay on topic Yetos and don't involve other ethnic groups who have nothing to do with that region of the world.
 
Even I couldn't find any Ipsilantis who was born in Of. I guess This family was Pontic Greek but all historian figures were born in Istanbul.




and how many of local Caucausians were Hellenized...

Ipsilanti was born in Con/polis
But his father came from Of

Now do you know anyone else who born in Istanbul
but his amncestors came from Of? offcourse not that back.

You want help?
 
Stay on topic Yetos and don't involve other ethnic groups who have nothing to do with that region of the world.

I suggest the same also to you.


BTW
find kasomoulis,

you will find my greater family surname there.


BTW2
kontea Fustanella etc are Greek dressing

so either Fustanella, either vraka, either panteloni
the revolt was one,
The ones who want to divide,
are enemies of Balkans,
 
1) What connection have the Laz? with the greek of Pontos?
2 Why Mithridates you think changed his satrapy to primary Helenistic?
and why he always tried to unify Greek colonies of Black sea?

The Pontic greek dialect is more ancient than Homer,
In it exists more ancient forms, that even Homer did not use,


BTW,
I am not a Pontic Greek,
But I live among them,
Laz are different, but they never had problem with Greeks
Pontic Greeks are a mix of Ionians, with Anatolians, a part of Persians, and Laz

as for numbers?
and %?

search,

I found them here:
http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=168784#post168784

Not related but probably you would interested on this one:
SWvHIOY.png
 

This thread has been viewed 76048 times.

Back
Top