How ethnically European (white) is Europe in 2024?

[qh777]

The idea that only northern or northwestern europeans were only considered white within the US is a lie that is pushed by promoters of Nordicist and Multiculturalist agendas to try to cleave Italians, Greeks and Slavs from the European heritage which they very clearly belong to.

Just to make things clear I do not hold those views Vitruvius.

Italians, Greeks, Jews and Slavs have always been considered white in the legal and census context of American immigration, regardless of the dissenting opinions of some WASPs carrying personalized nordicist tendancies. While Northern European immigration was certainly historically favored in the US it is incorrect to claim that Italians, Slavs and Greeks were not classified as whites on a legal level. All of these populations in the immigration census records were universally classified as white and during the first half of the 20th century and they were naturalizing at unprecedented rates. Perhaps some have forgotten, but US citizenship was restricted to whites and africans up until 1952 and several lawsuits were attempted by those immigrants who failed to fall into either category but desired naturalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozawa_v._United_States). As a personal anecdote I currently retain all of the immigration and naturalization records of all eight of my Italian great grandparents as well as those of my grandparents and every single document reads: "Race: White".

The idea that only northern or northwestern europeans were only considered white within the US is a lie that is pushed by promoters of Nordicist and Multiculturalist agendas to try to cleave Italians, Greeks and Slavs from the European heritage which they very clearly belong to. The repetition of this lie is really quite slanderous and offensive to those of us whose family history this does concern.

The legal classification doesn't fully account for social and cultural discrimination that these groups faced.

I'll add my own personal account for this. I have a step father and he's half German and half Italian. His father immigrated to the U.S. from I believe Naples. My stepdad's father initially lived in New York but moved to the midwest to get away from the discrimination.

 

[Vitruvius]

Just to make things clear I do not hold those views Vitruvius.

I'm aware you don't and I'm certainly not insinuating that you do. I'm simply making a point in that the fantasy idea that the US govt classified Italians/Irish/Poles as nonwhite is a verifiable lie that never happened and that this lie is only repeated out of extreme ignorance or willful slander.

I'll add my own personal account for this. I have a step father and he's half German and half Italian. His father immigrated to the U.S. from I believe Naples. My stepdad's father initially lived in New York but moved to the midwest to get away from the discrimination.

Yes, personalized discrimination did occur as it does in all facets of life for various reasons including pertaining to one's ethnic background. I don't debate this at all and I don't debate the notion that in many cases Italians and many others were unjustifiably treated poorly by those who held WASP tendencies of disdain for Southern European and Catholic backgrounds. That being said we have to separate the minority opinions of Nordicist extremists from the more common beliefs held by the greater population and also the govt policy which is historically on record. At the end of the day, most people, including those of English and German background saw and continue to see Italians, Irish and Poles as whites and fellow Europeans while still being intimately aware that they are not identical to these populations.

 

[norbert]

• Tanning ability is directly influenced by genetics. Genes like MC1R, SLC24A5, and others play significant roles in determining baseline skin tone and the capacity to produce melanin in response to UV exposure.
• The fact that a person can tan (and the depth of that tan) is a genetically mediated trait and therefore tied to ethnicity and ancestral heritage. Shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations explains why some Northern Europeans can tan to a tone resembling Near Easterners.
• If the Stimulus is there Northern Europeans can indefinitely maintain a darker tone

Tan is the result of exposure to ultraviolet light. It is a protective reaction of the skin. When a white person gets a tan, you can clearly see how unnatural it looks. The tan usually disappears within a couple of days. Besides, sun tanning is dangerous for most white people. I have a very pale skin tone and I have always avoided sun tanning because I'm at great risk of getting skin cancer.

Every person with a healthy set of eyes can see the difference between a darkened skin tone due to tanning and a brown-skinned person from the Middle East. Dermatology distinguishes between light- and dark-skinned people who get a tan. Light-skinned people get a sunburn (I will never forget the sunburn I suffered in 1996), dark-skinned people don't.

This has nothing to do with a "shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations." It's basic biology. North Africans and Middle Easterners are composed of completely different genetic components that are far more complex than we currently understand. Just because they harbour some Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry like Europeans, that doesn't mean that they are the same as Europeans.

I saw a documentary about Arab tourists in Austria yesterday. Their favourite destination is a small town called Zell am See. Long story short, not only are those people dark-skinned. Their facial features are completely different. Most of those Arabs come from the Gulf states where the Natufian component is dominant. Yes, they all belong in the West Eurasian meta-category but that's about it. Just like some WASP nordicists pursued their agenda back in the day, so do some on the other end of the spectrum by ignoring obvious differences between human populations. There is nothing wrong with those differences. We're all the same species. But let's not ignore some basic facts.

 

[qh777]

Tan is the result of exposure to ultraviolet light. It is a protective reaction of the skin. When a white person gets a tan, you can clearly see how unnatural it looks. The tan usually disappears within a couple of days. Besides, sun tanning is dangerous for most white people. I have a very pale skin tone and I have always avoided sun tanning because I'm at great risk of getting skin cancer.

Every person with a healthy set of eyes can see the difference between a darkened skin tone due to tanning and a brown-skinned person from the Middle East. Dermatology distinguishes between light- and dark-skinned people who get a tan. Light-skinned people get a sunburn (I will never forget the sunburn I suffered in 1996), dark-skinned people don't.

This has nothing to do with a "shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations." It's basic biology. North Africans and Middle Easterners are composed of completely different genetic components that are far more complex than we currently understand. Just because they harbour some Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry like Europeans, that doesn't mean that they are the same as Europeans.

I saw a documentary about Arab tourists in Austria yesterday. Their favourite destination is a small town called Zell am See. Long story short, not only are those people dark-skinned. Their facial features are completely different. Most of those Arabs come from the Gulf states where the Natufian component is dominant. Yes, they all belong in the West Eurasian meta-category but that's about it. Just like some WASP nordicists pursued their agenda back in the day, so do some on the other end of the spectrum by ignoring obvious differences between human populations. There is nothing wrong with those differences. We're all the same species. But let's not ignore some basic facts.

• The ability to tan is rooted in genetics, specifically the capacity of melanocytes in the skin to produce melanin in response to UV exposure.
• When a pale-skinned person achieves a tan as dark as someone from the Middle East, it is a real, observable state that reflects their genetic flexibility. This demonstrates that:
  • The potential for that darker tone is already encoded in their biology.
  • It isn’t a hypothetical—it’s a real state that can be achieved under the right environmental conditions.

I'm seeking to broaden to categorization. It arose from "shower thoughts" I've had reviewing the history and genetics of west Eurasia. Yes, our human eyes can discern regional differences within a broader group. Both the Arabs and the locals look different but zooming out they are closer to the locals genetically and looks than to SSAs and East Asians. I've changed perspectives. Even with my perspective one can still have a distinct European category but you must specify. And I believe Tomenable did in his original post. At this point I cannot associate the descriptor white with just Europeans. We just draw the line in different places. I too want to point out the variation and distinctness.

"This has nothing to do with a "shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations." It's basic biology. North Africans and Middle Easterners are composed of completely different genetic components that are far more complex than we currently understand. Just because they harbour some Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry like Europeans, that doesn't mean that they are the same as Europeans."

Neolithic Anatolians have some natufian or natufian like admixture; around 5-20% and some possibly higher. And Neolithic Anatolians & Natufians have a common ancestry with earlier groups in the region such as Dzudzuana and Basal Eurasians.

 

[norbert]

• The ability to tan is rooted in genetics, specifically the capacity of melanocytes in the skin to produce melanin in response to UV exposure.
• When a pale-skinned person achieves a tan as dark as someone from the Middle East, it is a real, observable state that reflects their genetic flexibility. This demonstrates that:
  • The potential for that darker tone is already encoded in their biology.
  • It isn’t a hypothetical—it’s a real state that can be achieved under the right environmental conditions.

I'm seeking to broaden to categorization. It arose from "shower thoughts" I've had reviewing the history and genetics of west Eurasia. Yes, our human eyes can discern regional differences within a broader group. Both the Arabs and the locals look different but zooming out they are closer to the locals genetically and looks than to SSAs and East Asians. I've changed perspectives. Even with my perspective one can still have a distinct European category but you must specify. And I believe Tomenable did in his original post. At this point I cannot associate the descriptor white with just Europeans. We just draw the line in different places. I too want to point out the variation and distinctness.

"This has nothing to do with a "shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations." It's basic biology. North Africans and Middle Easterners are composed of completely different genetic components that are far more complex than we currently understand. Just because they harbour some Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry like Europeans, that doesn't mean that they are the same as Europeans."

Neolithic Anatolians have some natufian or natufian like admixture; around 5-20% and some possibly higher. And Neolithic Anatolians & Natufians have a common ancestry with earlier groups in the region such as Dzudzuana and Basal Eurasians.

You're quoting some basic biological facts that have nothing to do with shared ancestries. It's like explaining the immune system's reaction to an infection with the flu virus with the "shared genetic ancestry" of certain human populations, even though it's common to all humans and most animals.

MENA people are closer to Europeans than they are to SSAs or East Asians, of course. No one's denying that. We're talking about the rather abstract West Eurasian meta-population which is greatly diverse. The affinities you seem to emphasise go back tens of thousands of years ago. You're entering evolutionary biology and the history of early modern humans. The farther you go back, the closer people will be related to each other. Bear in mind that ANF and CHG split 25.000 years ago, just to name an example. ANF are certainly "closer" related to CHG and especially WHG than to the Natufians. Sharing Dzudzuana ancestry or any other ancestry dating back to the Middle or Upper Paleolithic is irrelevant for today's ethnicities. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians are also closer related to the Japanese than they are to SSAs or Europeans. But they are clearly very different from each other. SSA is also a very diverse category as you have the Bantu, various pygmy populations or the Khoisan.

And just because ANFs had some Natufian admixture in the southern border regions of Anatolia, doesn't mean it's relevant to Europeans. The ANF groups that spread in Europe where they formed the EEF through their fusion with WHGs, did not carry that component or in only small traces. Those traces do, however, exist in areas of Greece and Cyprus. But we have to consider another development as well: all those groups, merely designated by modern academia, were most likely very diverse themselves. I'm sure the EEFs in England were significantly different from those in Italy. New human population are not only the result of admixtures but distances in time and geography, genetic drift, different adaptation pressures and other factors. These developments take thousands, even tens of thousands of years.

So even if Middle Easterners were closely related to Europeans, which they're not, they would have diverged into very different populations because of the very environments they inhabit.

 

[torzio]

europeans are caucasians

white people are east-asians

 

[torzio]

have no idea what the person who created this thread refers to european white.....

 

[qh777]

You're quoting some basic biological facts that have nothing to do with shared ancestries.

Yes it does because it affects outward appearance.

MENA people are closer to Europeans than they are to SSAs or East Asians, of course. No one's denying that. We're talking about the rather abstract West Eurasian meta-population which is greatly diverse.

This is a difference on where one draws the line. The way I draw the line is Europeans have their own distinct category and Near easterners have their own. West Eurasian has more to do with shared genetics that just counting populations that reside in a geographic area. When you go in with a magnifying glass so to speak, we can see clear differences but not enough in my view.

And just because ANFs had some Natufian admixture in the southern border regions of Anatolia, doesn't mean it's relevant to Europeans. The ANF groups that spread in Europe where they formed the EEF through their fusion with WHGs, did not carry that component or in only small traces.

Closer to the levant the admix is higher yes but in the NW it's still present. By the late neolithic some individuals from Barcin had Natufian admixtures between 10-20% even possibly higher. Even the Anatolian Hunter-Gatherer from Pinarbasi is modeled with having 17% Natufian or Natufian like ancestry.

You're entering evolutionary biology and the history of early modern humans. The farther you go back, the closer people will be related to each other.

The earliest remains of anatomically modern humans were found in Jebel Irhoud Morocco around 300kya. Once humans left Africa differentiation took place relatively quicky. Differentiation between west Eurasians and east Eurasians took place around 40,000-50,000 years ago. Dzudzuana dates to 26kya which is much closer to us today than the early anatomically modern humans. Basal Eurasians appeared earlier than that. In the grand scheme of things, the neolithic Anatolians, Natufians, CHGs, EHGs are pretty close to us temporally .

In my view one cannot discredit the base fundamental ancestral components of Europeans and Near Easterners.

Papuans and Aboriginal Australians are also closer related to the Japanese than they are to SSAs or Europeans. But they are clearly very different from each other.

While Papuans and Aboriginal Australians share some genetic links with East Asians, the genetic distinctions are far greater than those within West Eurasia. Europeans and Near Easterners, by contrast, share a more continuous and recent genetic history.

 

[Tomenable]

Here is French data back from 2004:

And here 2011 estimates can be found:

Une estimation des populations d’origine étrangère en France en 2011

En France, rares ont été les occasions, et les tentatives, d’estimer la population d’origine étrangère. Peu de démographes s’y sont risqués, même si, très tôt, certains se sont rendus compte que la...

journals.openedition.org

 

[PhrygianTurk]

Even without any central/east Asian admixture, Turks would be closer to Kurds, Iranians, Armenians, Syrians, Assyrians. Some Turks are closer to Greeks or Bulgarians but the majority belongs to the Middle East ethnically.

Nonsense, only easterners maybe. The average turk is closest to southern greeks, caucasiand and Azerbaijanis

 

[PhrygianTurk]

Well, my main goal was to count ethnic groups and peoples who are native to the geographical continent of Europe, rather than "whites" (because the definition of "whites" is not entirely clear and some people include also some Non-European ethnic groups as "white"). Ancestors of Greeks, Russians and Finns have been living within the boundaries of Europe already for thousands of years, whereas Turks are generally native to Asia Minor rather than to Europe. I know that there are some exceptions to this rule, like for example Pontic Greeks and Balkan Turks, but still the Greek and Russian languages and ethnicities originated within Europe, while the Turkish language and ethnicity originated in Asia Minor (or even in Central Asia, depending on how we count the point of origin).

But yes, it is true that Turks generally have roughly the same ancestral components as Europeans.

I checked all of Global25 Turkish reference populations in my 10 Thousand Years Ago calculator:

10 Thousand Years Ago by Tomenable (Piotr Kapuscinski) - ExploreYourDNA Calculator

The goal of this calculator was to represent populations which existed in the world around 10,000 years ago (KYA).

www.exploreyourdna.com

Global25_PCA_modern_pop_averages_scaled.txt

drive.google.com

Target: Turkish_West_Macedonia
Distance: 2.4169% / 0.02416915 | R5P
46.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
38.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.0 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
3.8 Northern_Iran_10KYA
3.0 Levant_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Trabzon
Distance: 2.8810% / 0.02880986 | R5P
38.2 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
34.6 Caucasus_10KYA
12.6 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
12.4 Levant_10KYA
2.2 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya

Target: Turkish_Thessaly
Distance: 1.7587% / 0.01758711 | R5P
49.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
33.0 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.2 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
5.6 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
3.4 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Sivas
Distance: 2.4258% / 0.02425760 | R5P
40.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
22.4 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
18.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
11.0 Caucasus_10KYA
7.0 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Rumeli
Distance: 1.0449% / 0.01044884 | R5P
44.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
33.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
9.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
6.8 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
4.8 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA

Target: Turkish_North_Macedonia
Distance: 2.0353% / 0.02035301 | R5P
44.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
33.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
7.4 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
7.2 Northern_Iran_10KYA
6.8 Levant_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Nevsehir
Distance: 2.4076% / 0.02407627 | R5P
43.0 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
20.6 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
20.0 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
10.2 Caucasus_10KYA
6.2 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Lesbos
Distance: 2.0929% / 0.02092918 | R5P
37.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
28.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
14.4 Western_Iran_10KYA
9.8 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
9.2 Levant_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Konya
Distance: 2.0886% / 0.02088579 | R5P
44.2 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
20.0 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
19.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.4 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
7.6 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Kayseri
Distance: 2.1961% / 0.02196128 | R5P
44.0 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
21.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
17.6 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
10.4 Caucasus_10KYA
6.2 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Giresun
Distance: 1.9045% / 0.01904480 | R5P
37.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
18.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
16.0 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
14.0 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
13.8 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Erzurum
Distance: 2.4456% / 0.02445572 | R5P
30.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
24.0 Caucasus_10KYA
20.2 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
12.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
12.6 Levant_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Dodecanese
Distance: 2.0199% / 0.02019851 | R5P
35.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
25.0 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
17.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
14.0 Levant_10KYA
7.8 East_Asia(center)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Denizli
Distance: 1.4261% / 0.01426148 | R5P
40.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
24.4 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
17.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
11.8 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
5.6 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Deliorman
Distance: 1.2058% / 0.01205785 | R5P
42.8 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
35.0 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
7.8 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
5.6 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Crete
Distance: 1.4831% / 0.01483085 | R5P
47.6 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
26.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
12.8 Levant_10KYA
10.0 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
2.8 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Chitak
Distance: 2.5794% / 0.02579391 | R5P
46.0 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
34.6 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
6.0 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
4.6 East_Asia(north)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Canakkale_Europe
Distance: 1.8618% / 0.01861794 | R5P
44.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
25.2 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
18.0 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
6.8 South_Baltic_Coast_10KYA
5.6 East_Asia(center)_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Balikesir
Distance: 1.5792% / 0.01579163 | R5P
40.4 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
27.4 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
15.0 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
12.6 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
4.6 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Aydin
Distance: 1.8433% / 0.01843336 | R5P
41.6 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
23.2 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
16.4 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
12.0 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
6.8 Caucasus_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Antalya
Distance: 1.4871% / 0.01487109 | R5P
33.0 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
28.0 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
17.8 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA
13.6 East_Asia(north)_10KYA
7.6 Levant_10KYA

Target: Turkish_Ahiska
Distance: 2.6911% / 0.02691105 | R5P
41.4 Caucasus_10KYA
29.0 Anatolia_Greece_10KYA
12.6 Levant_10KYA
8.8 Steppe_Proto_Yamnaya
8.2 Zagros_Mountains_10KYA

The main differences are the Iranian, Caucasian and Levantine contributions that most Turks score.

Turks from Anatolia generally score at least >20% of Iranian, Caucasian and Levantine admixtures.

Yamnaya sample is not samara hence the zagros is higher

 

[PhrygianTurk]

BTW I was in Istanbul and it doesn't look like a European city at all.

I could feel strong "Middle Eastern vibes" when I was in that city.

Istanbul is an insanely mixed city and obviously incorporates a lot from the oriental ottomans so makes sense

 

[PhrygianTurk]

I apologize in advance I'm nitpicking here. And thank you for sharing the interesting chart.
I feel like saying significant admix is a bit of an incorrect descriptor. Saying significant can mean different amounts to different readers. I'm probably guilty of using the descriptor myself so I'm also criticizing myself. It could mean 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% etc. to various people. And I'm also adamantly opposed to the one drop rule which could be applied to many scenarios.

Seems to be 5-20% admix from Central Asia

1. Lazaridis et al. (2016) - Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
   This study used ancient and modern DNA to analyze the genetic continuity and admixture in populations of the Near East and Anatolia. It highlights that modern Anatolians (including Turks) have a high proportion of ancestry from Neolithic farmers and a smaller contribution from later migrations, including Central Asian Turkic migrations.
   
   Key Findings: Central Asian contributions to modern Turks are relatively modest compared to the overwhelming contribution from pre-existing Anatolian populations.
   
   Source
2. Hodoğlugil & Mahley (2012) - Turkish population structure and genetic ancestry
   This study analyzed Turkish genetic structure and compared it to neighboring populations. Using mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome markers, and autosomal DNA, the study identified Central Asian Turkic admixture in modern Turkish individuals as averaging around 10-15%, with significant regional variation.
   
   Key Findings: The Central Asian admixture is higher in Eastern Anatolia and lower in Western Anatolia.
   
   Source
3. Cinnioğlu et al. (2004) - Y-chromosome analysis of the Turkish population
   This landmark study used Y-chromosome haplogroups to analyze paternal ancestry. The study found that only a small percentage of Y-chromosome lineages in modern Turks (~9-15%) originate from Central Asia, with the majority belonging to haplogroups common in the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus.
   
   Key Findings: The Central Asian contribution is minor compared to local and regional influences.
   
   Source
4. Xu et al. (2008) - Genetic evidence supports the contribution of Central Asian Turkic populations to Anatolia
   This study used genetic markers like STR (short tandem repeats) and SNPs to quantify Central Asian contributions to Anatolian populations. It estimated 6-15% Central Asian ancestry, depending on the population and region.
   
   Key Findings: The admixture reflects both historical migrations and linguistic shifts rather than a large-scale demographic replacement.
   
   Source
5. Karatay et al. (2021) - Genome-wide studies on Turkish populations
   Using genome-wide SNP data, this study confirmed that Central Asian Turkic ancestry is 10-20% in modern Turks, depending on the population. It highlights that modern Turks are a genetic mosaic of Central Asian, Anatolian, Caucasian, and European components.
   
   Key Findings: Most modern Turks descend primarily from pre-Turkic Anatolian populations, with admixture events involving Turkic speakers from Central Asia.
   
   DOI
6. Dienekes’ Genetic Blog (2010) - Analysis of Turkish genetic composition
   Dienekes Pontikos analyzed autosomal datasets, including ADMIXTURE runs, highlighting that Central Asian ancestry in Turks averages around 10-15%, consistent with other studies.
   
   Archived Blog Post

Summary of Sources:​

These studies consistently show that:

• The Central Asian Turkic contribution to modern Turks is typically in the 5-20% range.
• The majority of Turkish ancestry comes from indigenous Anatolian populations, Near Easterners, and European-related groups.

True however its the reverse the west has the most turkic due seljuks settling there. Half of medieval turkic however is indo european sintashta derived so "real" turkic is rather 10%.

 

[PhrygianTurk]

^^^
OK. But this map shows East Eurasian and not Central Asian. Central Asian admixture is higher because Central Asians are only partially East Eurasian, and when Turks invaded Anatolia it is highly unlikely that they were still fully East Eurasian at that time.

Yes half of medieval turkic is indo european (sintashta) derived. Seljuk facial reconstructions clearly show that

 

[PhrygianTurk]

Many Europeans have East Asian admixture. If Turks aren't white because of that then the Finns and Russians aren't either.

View attachment 17059

Besides the Turks have essentially the same ancestral components as other Europeans. All Europeans have Neolithic Anatolian Farmer ancestry. Greece South Italian and South Spaniards have about the same as modern Turks, and Sicilians and Maltese even have higher percentages than Turks as the Neolithic Anatolian admixture has been diluted more in Turkey over time.

In the Bronze Age the Indo-Europeans from the Pontic steppe first invaded Anatolia (the ancestors of the Hittites, Trojans, Lydians and Lycians). In the Late Bronze Age the Phrygians invaded Anatolia from the Balkans. During the Iron Age most of coastal Anatolia was settled by the Greeks. Then came the Galatians who settled around modern Ankara. The Romans obviously left some genetic traces too. It's pretty obvious on this map.

View attachment 17061

During the late Roman Empire the Goths settled in the Balkans and Anatolia.

During Byzantine and Ottoman times Slavs from southeast Europe also settled in Anatolia as this map shows.

View attachment 17060

Yea turks have been mixing with indo europeans ever since central asia

 

[PhrygianTurk]

With all due respect, Maciamo, your maps are heavily outdated and inaccurate. I have seen all kinds of "admixture" maps over the last few years and they all differ tremendously. This tells me that these calculator games should be dismissed as amateurish curiosities.

Another example is this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_admixture_frequencies_by_country.shtml

According to this, the Germans are 100% West Eurasian, yet they harbour up to 1% East Eurasian admixture on your map. The Italians, who have almost none of this admixture according to your map, are shown to be 98.1 West Eurasian.

I think the numbers are heavily inflated, also in the case of the Russians unless you interpret them as a nation like the Americans, not an ethnic group. But even in that case, they'd be over 90% West Eurasian. Besides, what your maps shows as East Eurasian is basically Uralic and that component itself was predominantly West Eurasian.

As for the Turks, I had friends among them since school, I had them as coworkers, I see them almost every day and while some look white, the absolute majority doesn't. You can clearly see that those people are not from Europe and no admixture ratio chart is going to convince me otherwise.

With all due respect, Maciamo, your maps are heavily outdated and inaccurate. I have seen all kinds of "admixture" maps over the last few years and they all differ tremendously. This tells me that these calculator games should be dismissed as amateurish curiosities.

Another example is this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_admixture_frequencies_by_country.shtml

According to this, the Germans are 100% West Eurasian, yet they harbour up to 1% East Eurasian admixture on your map. The Italians, who have almost none of this admixture according to your map, are shown to be 98.1 West Eurasian.

I think the numbers are heavily inflated, also in the case of the Russians unless you interpret them as a nation like the Americans, not an ethnic group. But even in that case, they'd be over 90% West Eurasian. Besides, what your maps shows as East Eurasian is basically Uralic and that component itself was predominantly West Eurasian.

As for the Turks, I had friends among them since school, I had them as coworkers, I see them almost every day and while some look white, the absolute majority doesn't. You can clearly see that those people are not from Europe and no admixture ratio chart is going to convince me otherwise.

Diaspora turks are from the east and phenotypically and genetically different.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1864338644204450019

 

[Tomenable]

Why are Greeks white but not Turks?

I made a PCA using all of European and West Asian populations from my private Eurogenes K36 spreadsheet.

Blue dots are European populations (regions within countries) and red dots are West Asian populations.

Red triangles are Turkish populations (regional averages) and black dots are Armenian populations:

Black squares are Georgian populations (averages for various regions within Georgia):

Green dots are Greek populations (various regions of Greece, Cypriots and Mariupol Greeks from Ukraine):

As you can see there is perhaps some overlap but mostly Greeks are different than Turks.

It can be said that Greeks from Greek islands and Cypriots form a bridge between Europe and West Asia.

 

[Tomenable]

Without Greeks there would be a clear empty space separating Europe from West Asia on this PCA.

 

[Tomenable]

And this is what happens after I remove Northern Europe and add North Africa (orange dots) to the PCA:

The only European (blue) dot plotting with North Africans are the Guanche people of Canary Islands: