Turks are Anatolians under the hood?

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
Razib Khan has been running an analysis on their data sets versus Greeks and Armenians.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018...menian/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He concludes they're about equidistant between Anatolian Greeks and Armenians. Is that right?

See:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018...menian/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"To my mild surprise, the Anatolian Greeks and Cypriots cluster together, at the end of the Greece cline toward West Asians. :

I disagree with his following conclusion. I would think there are other reasons why Bulgarians, even Bulgarian Turks, might have some East Asian other than inter-marriage with Ottoman Turks. Perhaps Eastara will see this and opine.

"
Additionally, there are two Balkan Turk samples. Even on the PCA it’s pretty clear that they’re genetically very different from the other Turks (one of them is from what has become Bulgaria), though the shift toward East Asians indicates that Turkification is very rarely a matter purely of religious conversion to Islam and assimilation of the Turkish language (obviously it initially is for many people, but these people then intermarry with those with some East Asian ancestry)."

"
One of the major problems is that the Armenian sample and the Anatolian Greek/Cypriot sample are genetically very close. This is obvious in the Fst distance. This is also totally reasonable since both populations occupy Anatolia, and historically there would have been a lot of gene flow between the two groups through isolation-by-distance dynamics."

"
In terms of drift the Turks seem about as far from Anatolian Greeks as Armenians. There’s the gene flow you’d expect, there are two from East Asians to Turks. I think that’s due to the East Asian source being somewhat heterogeneous, and the Dai outgroup not modeling the source populations perfectly."

"
Finally, there’s the f3 statistics. They basically show what I’m saying above: Armenians and Anatolian Greeks are both good model sources for Turks. The likely truth is that there is gene flow from all across Anatolia into these Turkish samples."
 
I think that isn't surprising. I find it a bit baffling that so many Turks, as I've had some discussions on this topic on the web, still struggle to accept that, even though, as I reminded them more than once, this fact is actually a positive thing about their ancestors, since it suggests that they weren't genocidal murderers that engaged in massive ethnic cleansing. But it seems that some peoples are still to concerned with outdated ideas of nationalist essentialism, with the necessary myth of a continuous and permanent chain of ancestral lineages until the present world, something that would make their nation completely unique and distinct from others. As we all know, that's not how the past of humankind and the ethnogenesis of most nations happened.

I've read some sensible comments by Turks on the inadequacy of using the Northeast Asian or East Asian admixture to infer the degree of genetic impact of the Turkic migration into Anatolia, and that really makes some sense.

If we want to determine how much of the Proto-Turkic ancestry is still found in modern Anatolian Turks, then it is fair to use those admixtures mainly found among overwhelmingly Mongoloid peoples like the Yakut, but one must bear in mind that the Proto-Turks were definitely very different from the medieval Turks of Central Asia, so even though the language and much of the characteristic Turkic culture came from Northeast Asia it isn't right to say that most of the expansion of Turkic languages came from there. The bulk of the expansion was done by the heavily mixed Turks of Central Asia, migrating and making warfare on all sides, north, west, east and south, and those were peoples that were already perhaps only 50% similar to their Proto-Turkic forebears of the Altai and near the Baikal.

What makes it tricky, then, to establish the real degree of Turkic introgression into Anatolia in the Middle Ages is mainly that, if they came mostly from present-day Turkmenistan, it must be difficult to distinguish what is "Turkic" from what is actually "Iranian Plateau admixtures" or broadly "West Asian".

The Turks who conquered Turkmenistan must've absorbed a lot of Iranic-speaking peoples, peoples who already had close genetic links especially with the eastern Anatolians, in the Armenian Highlands. The peoples of Central Asia probably descended in high proportions from those in Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau, and those in Anatolia, after the Bronze Age, also had a lot of that mixed ancestry. Even today Turks often appear very close to Iranian samples on PCAs. How can we then determine whether some Iranian-like ancestry was already dwelling in Anatolia for centuries before the arrival of Turks or it in fact arrived with the mixed, heavily Iranian-shifted Turkmen? I wonder...
 
because we are mixed before ottoman on seljuks. seljuks are turko-persian empire. if you can see our historic leaders, ertugrul gazi or other ottoman leaders you can't see mongoloid or turkic face. greeks dont fight with mongoloid turks they fight persians always only name is change.

now we are close more greeks now and fight persians again. anatolia history always like this. just names is different.

and have some reality about asian hablogroups. they are not dominant. where you go you look like native peoples.

i live in turkey i can say turkey people not looking like real turks. west anadolia is greek/rum middle anatolia greek/semitic/mongoloid east anatolian kurds pers/arab.

but have slanted eyes peoples too. but not so much.

and this is a true about our history we are not genociders like some european invaders.

our beliefs and cultures dont accept this.
 
The peoples of Central Asia probably descended in high proportions from those in Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau, and those in Anatolia, after the Bronze Age, also had a lot of that mixed ancestry. Even today Turks often appear very close to Iranian samples on PCAs. How can we then determine whether some Iranian-like ancestry was already dwelling in Anatolia for centuries before the arrival of Turks or it in fact arrived with the mixed, heavily Iranian-shifted Turkmen? I wonder...

I would rather think that Central Asians and the populations of Anatolia/Caucasus/Iranian Plateau had common ancestors.
 
This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks. Genetics of Turkey is more complicated than that of Italy. Western Turkey is mixed Euro-Asian-Middle Eastern because of recent large population movements. Western Turkey is industrialized and large number of people from everywhere have moved in the west of Turkey. Istanbul and its immediate surroundings house 1/33 of Turkish population. So any genetic study in this part of Turkey is meaningless.

Also Turks moved in the Balkans way before the Ottoman times. They were part of Byzantium and at that time there are many large Turkish population movements in Bulgaria, Greece, or Albanians to Thessaly, etc. So not all Turkish genes in the Balkans are legacy of Ottomans
 
This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks. Genetics of Turkey is more complicated than that of Italy. Western Turkey is mixed Euro-Asian-Middle Eastern because of recent large population movements. Western Turkey is industrialized and large number of people from everywhere have moved in the west of Turkey. Istanbul and its immediate surroundings house 1/33 of Turkish population. So any genetic study in this part of Turkey is meaningless.

Also Turks moved in the Balkans way before the Ottoman times. They were part of Byzantium and at that time there are many large Turkish population movements in Bulgaria, Greece, or Albanians to Thessaly, etc. So not all Turkish genes in the Balkans are legacy of Ottomans

i agree. anatolia people totally mixed. i am half albanian and half turkish. i have curly hair white skin and slanted eyes. we are mixed of everything and central asian peoples better mixed than us.

because we live on nomadic area and we are nomadic peoples.
 
i agree. anatolia people totally mixed. i am half albanian and half turkish. i have curly hair white skin and slanted eyes. we are mixed of everything and central asian peoples better mixed than us.

because we live on nomadic area and we are nomadic peoples.

I am not an expert of Turkey, you know better. But I said the big cities of western Turkey are, because of industrialization. Cities like Istanbul, Bursa, Izmir and many others. But I don't see why Eastern and Central Turkey should be mixed. Over there genetics of people is local. The original inhabitants of Turkey were not nomads. The central Asia Turks were.
 
Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:

https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/2018/02/the-genetic-structure-of-anatolia-from_21.html

Considering they're already rather close to the western Anatolia_BA, my guess is Cappadocian Greeks will end up being very close to ancient Central Anatolians. Despite migrations over time, the Aegean-Anatolian area overall retained a more robust population in medieval times unlike, say, the more depopulated mainland Balkans which were much more influenced by northern intrusions. We still need much more sampling but that's my current guess. Turks seem to be modelled well as Cappadocian Greeks + something East Asian but as mentioned, the exact proportions will depend on early samples of the period, how East Asian the Turkic populations were like and what pre-Turkic post-BA Western Anatolians looked exactly like.


DuPidh, do you actually have a coherent narrative in your mind at least or do you post just whatever you can think up in every topic? You wrote this a while ago:

Knowing all this stuff, had Hellenes been a majority, today's Greeks genetically should have been closer to Armenians, Western Turks, Syrians, Lebaneese

Now you write

This is what I have said all the time and getting banned from the forum for telling the truth. That Greeks and Turks are genetic cousins. If you talk privately Greeks admit that they are almost the same with Turks.

You're incoherent, at least partially because you don't seem to understand these studies at all, and your additions to these topics are anything but useful.
 
Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:

https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/2018/02/the-genetic-structure-of-anatolia-from_21.html

Considering they're already rather close to the western Anatolia_BA, my guess is Cappadocian Greeks will end up being very close to ancient Central Anatolians. Despite migrations over time, the Aegean-Anatolian area overall retained a more robust population in medieval times unlike, say, the more depopulated mainland Balkans which were much more influenced by northern intrusions. We still need much more sampling but that's my current guess. Turks seem to be modelled well as Cappadocian Greeks + something East Asian but as mentioned, the exact proportions will depend on early samples of the period, how East Asian the Turkic populations were like and what pre-Turkic post-BA Western Anatolians looked exactly like.


DuPidh, do you actually have a coherent narrative in your mind at least or do you post just whatever you can think up in every topic? You wrote this a while ago:



Now you write



You're incoherent, at least partially because you don't seem to understand these studies at all, and your additions to these topics are anything but useful.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I would add anti-Greek Albanian agenda to the mix.
 
and have some reality about asian hablogroups. they are not dominant. where you go you look like native peoples.

Is that even such a thing as "non-dominant" haplogroups? I really mean this question. As far as I know, those are just genetic markers of the Y chromosome or mytochondrial DNA, not as actively selected as those alleles that are directly related to some function.
 
this probably isn't a question for the topic but i sometimes hear that modern day greeks are closer related to swedish people than they are to modern day turkish and other middle eastern people. does anyone know better? my guess is, that this is absolute rubbish.
 
this probably isn't a question for the topic but i sometimes hear that modern day greeks are closer related to swedish people than they are to modern day turkish and other middle eastern people. does anyone know better? my guess is, that this is absolute rubbish.

As all other genetic studies and also Razib Khan's analyses comparing Greeks from 3 different regions of Greece with Turks clearly demonstrate, yes, that is absolutely rubbish. Greeks are nowadays more shifted to affinities with Northern Europeans (mostly Slavs, not Swedes anyway), but that was just a matter of relative, not absolute, numbers, since ancient Greeks certainly had a quite minor Northern European contribution.
 
Razib's analysis is good (though I still don't think he should have pooled Cypriot and Cappadocian Greeks together, even though they're relatively close) and this is a nice augmentation to it:

https://oghuzturksdna.blogspot.gr/2018/02/the-genetic-structure-of-anatolia-from_21.html

I am 100% Cappadocian Greek and can confirm the values that this guy on the link used for Cappadocian Greeks, I score very close to this.

The fact that the first study clusters Cappadocians and Cypriots thought, I don't find it that wrong, since we tend to score similar. My first population reference is always Cypriots, when Greek subclusters are not included. If yes then Cretans pop up first for some reason.

I generally agree to what you say here guys about the whole Anatolian, Greek, Armenian, Turkish thing. Indeed the Turks have absorbed a lot of this ancestry but still we can't say accurately how much Turkic they are, relying only on their East Asian numbers.
Seems that their profile had been seriously different from their Uhrheimat source population, when they finally reached Anatolia, because of the long stay in Central Asia and Persia.

Sent from my Robin using Tapatalk
 
Razib Khan has been running an analysis on their data sets versus Greeks and Armenians.

He concludes they're about equidistant between Anatolian Greeks and Armenians. Is that right?

Here are some additional specific literary historical testimonies and sources which certify us of the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual character of Cyprus through the centuries.

0) The Jews lived well in Cyprus during the Roman rule. During this period, Christianity was preached in Cyprus among the Jews at an early date, St Paul being the first, and Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, the second. They attempted to convert the Jews to Christianity under the ideas of Jesus. Under the leadership of Artemion, the Cypriot Jews participated in the great rebellion against the Romans ruled by Trajan in 117 AD. and they are reported by Dio Cassius to have massacred 240,000 Greeks.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4825-cyprus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...Jews_in_Cyprus

1) In 578 AD, 10000 Armenians moved to Cyprus for colonization purposes, given that the island was almost deserted at this time. ("History of the Greek nation," ed "Publishing Athens", Vol. H, pp. 183-4).

"Thus", says Evagrius, "land, which had been previously untilled, was everywhere restored to cultivation. Numerous armies also were raised from among them that fought resolutely and courageously against the other nations. At the same time every household was completely furnished with domestics, on account of the easy rate at which slaves were procured". (Quote from P. Charanis)

2) A History of Cyprus, Volume 1 By George Hill. Page 261: "...certainly there was a coast-guard of Albanians in Cyprus under Venetian rule.." --> In the footnote of the same page, we read the following: "The Albanians formed a race apart, until they disappeared in the sixteenth century".

3) More Armenians arrived during the reign of Armenian-descended Emperor Heraclius (610-641). Source: The Armenians of Cyprus book, page 10.

Link:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=6jH...Cyprus&f=false

Page 11 of the same book: "Emperor John II Comnenus moved the entire population of the Armenian city of Tell Hamdun to Cyprus. When Isaac Comnenus was self-declared 'Emperor of Cyprus' in 1185 and married the daughter of the Armenian prince Thoros II, he brought with him Armenian nobles and warriors...".

Futhermore, on page 12 of this book we read: "...about 30000 Armenian refugees found shelter in Cyprus.." and "A new wave of Armenians arrived in 1335 and 1346 to escape the Mamluk attack." Additionally, on the same page 12: "In 1403, 30000 Armenians fled to Cyprus, while in 1421 the entire population of the Sehoun region was transferred here. In 1441 the authorities of Famagusta encouraged Armenians and Syrians from Cilicia and Syria to settle here."

Still on page 12: "Armenian was one of the eleven official languages of the Kingdom of Cyprus, and one of the five official languages during the Venetian Era."

Moving to page 13: "...about 40000 Ottoman Armenian craftsmen were recruited .. , and many of the ones who survived settled in Cyprus".

4) Turkish Cypriots were the majority of the population between 1777 and 1800. In terms of numbers, in 1777 there were only 37000 Greeks and 47000 Turks. In 1800, there were 30524 Greeks and 67000 Turks.

5) - "Martin Kruzius, (1526-1607), an author who was well familiar with Greek, states that the following 5 languages were spoken in Cyprus: Greek, Chaldean, Armenian, Albanian and Italian. Another writer, who lived in 1537-1590, Stephen Lusignan, says that the following 12 languages were spoken in Cyprus, during his day: Latin, Italian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Jacobine, Maronine, Assyrian, Indian, Georgian, Albanian and Arabian. (See "Description de toute l'isle de Cypre et des roys ..."

 
As all other genetic studies and also Razib Khan's analyses comparing Greeks from 3 different regions of Greece with Turks clearly demonstrate, yes, that is absolutely rubbish. Greeks are nowadays more shifted to affinities with Northern Europeans (mostly Slavs, not Swedes anyway),.

Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs

They never did and they still don't have nowadays.

They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.
 
Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs

They never did and they still don't have nowadays.

They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.

I said they are SHIFTED TO AFFINITIES WITH NORTHERN EUROPEANS, not that they are CLOSER to Northern Europeans (e.g. if a people was 5% like Northern Europeans in the past, and now their affinity with them is 15%, they were shiftd toward a closer affinity with them, even though it's still minor). That's what the data demonstrate, there was an increasing influence of Northern European admixture onto the Greek population, especially the mainlanders as opposed to the Greek islanders. And, yes, that Northern European admixture is historically and genetically most clearly related to the Eastern European population that are now mostly Slavic-speaking. Saying that "they are much closer to other Southern European and Southeast European countries" is as true as it is honestly quite irrelevant on this matter, because that fact doesn't negate that the increased Northern European affinity of Modern Greeks, as opposed to the Mycenaean and Minoan Greeks whose DNA were analyzed until now, is still relatively minor, but what can be found is mostly related to Eastern Europe, mostly inhabited by Slavs, and that fits nicely with the very well documented (and still very visible in the Balkans) impact of Slavic and (northern) Turkic migrations during the Middle Ages. You don't need to believe me, you can search in many other topics on this very forum and also in genomic studies. ;)
 
Greeks don't have much affinities with Slavs

They never did and they still don't have nowadays.

They are much closer to other Southern European and South East European countries than to any Eastern European country.
Also I would say Greeks have a close genetic and cultural affinity with Levant. Their music, food, etc...
 
I would agree that any more Northern/Western affinity would most likely be due to modern introgressions. The Balkan tribes consisted of some Alpine Celtic peoples (bringing others with them of course) who have since mixed into the rest of the Balkan population. We should expect some intermarriage there back down into the Medieval Northern Greeks and Byzantines. Also the Byzantines and Northern Greek cultural sphere had interactions with Romans, Germanic, Frankish, Rus, Norse, Khazar, Turkic, Balkan, Thrassian, Danubian, pre-Slavic, Gothic, Vandal et al tribes. If we removed all those additional elements, and then Turkic, et al Middle Eastern from Western Anatolia, we’d find a pretty solid case for a fairly simple original population spectrum.
 
The PCA is not that clear but Treemix and F3 statistic yes.

Inviato dal mio SM-G531F utilizzando Tapatalk
 

This thread has been viewed 75896 times.

Back
Top