-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Turks are Anatolians under the hood?
- Thread starter Angela
- Start date
APO276
Regular Member
How diverse it was?
The second thing you say makes no sense. The term is a modern geographic term and we can use it just like we use other modern geographic terms.
The 'locals' never identified as Anatolians.
Great summary by a Turkish blogger: http://www.haplogruplar.com/the-gen...a-from-the-neolithic-to-the-oghuz-migrations/
Cappadocian Greeks can be modelled as Anatolia_BA + Iran_Neo + Minor Steppe.
Modern Turks can be modelled as Cappadocian Greeks mixed with a population that consists of Steppe + Iran_Neo + Siberian + East Asian + South Asian. This mix is typical of contemporary Central Asians.
Cappadocian Greeks can be modelled as Anatolia_BA + Iran_Neo + Minor Steppe.
Modern Turks can be modelled as Cappadocian Greeks mixed with a population that consists of Steppe + Iran_Neo + Siberian + East Asian + South Asian. This mix is typical of contemporary Central Asians.
Angela
Veteran member
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 12,345
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Angela
Veteran member
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 12,345
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
That does make a lot of sense. Looked at in this way, the "Ottoman Turk" gene flow is higher than looking just at Han or Siberian would indicate, so, indeed, more than 10%.
Yes, it's obvious when you look at the South Asian component that probably has but a weak relationship to the Turkic ethnogesis in the eastern steppe, and didn't exist in Anatolia before the arrival of the Turks. It must have been picked up in Central Asia. Assuming contemporary Turkmens are representative of those immigrants, I'd say the impact could be as high as 30%.
matadworf
Regular Member
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.
You're right. Modern mainland Greeks cluster with Balkanites on every calculator I've seen including Bulgarians, Romanians, Kossovars, and Serbs. There is also a genetic connection to Central/Southern Italy (comparative I would guess).You rarely see either an Aegean Islander in a mainlander's top 20 let alone a Cypriot, Anatolian Greek or Turk.
Last edited:
cybernautic
Ortho Alpha
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Greek
Are you serious?
I have never seen Mainland Greeks clustering with Serbs and Romanians not in a single calculator
Nope ,they cluster with South Balkan and Central to South Italians.
Mainland Greeks with the possible exception of some outliers in the North are closer to Central/South Italians than to
Serbs and Romanians.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 813
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
This is a good analysis but IMO with a fatal flaw: the argument presented by Razib Khan rests on the assumption that the Turkic immigration could have been massive, but didn't change the genetic pool of Anatolia as much as some, especially in Turkey itself, would've believed, so the comparison is just between Medieval Anatolia around 1100 AD and Post-Turkish Anatolia in the contemporary era. The argument isn't that those "Anatolians" who would've become "Turkified Anatolians" were entirely indigenous, living there without much change since thousands of years before.
There was certainly a lot of genetic shift in Anatolia between the Bronze Age and the Medieval Era, though I wouldn't say it affected the majority of the local ancestry, but there were also some 2,500 years for that genetic shift to happen, and I find it very doubtful that virtually nothing happened in Anatolia, in terms of admixture, until the Turks arrived so much later, and Anatolia_Bronze Age would therefore be a good fit for how the genetics of Anatolians were like in the beginning of the 12th century, before the bulk of the Turkic immigration.
Dianatomia
Regular Member
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 174
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Greek
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2a
Well, we could safely assume that a lot happened between the Bronze Age and 1100 A.D. Yet, I find it remarkable that the Cypriots would still cluster very close to the Bronze Age Anatolians. One might say, Cyprus, being an island was probably better isolated from migrations within Anatolia. The same is true, after all, for other Greek islanders. Yet, also people like Albanians are quite close to Bronze Age Anatolians. So in this regard, we have to assume that until 1100 A.D. there has been a larger genetic shift in Anatolia than there has been in the Balkans. Perhaps, but still, I find that hard to believe.
Instead, I think this may indeed have something to do with the fact that Anatolia was heterogenous and that these Bronze Age specimens are from Western Anatolians as Boreas stated. Makes sense, if Western Anatolia was somewhat Mycenaean-like during the Bronze Age, and the Cypriots were perhaps colonized by Anatolian like peoples and Mycenaeans, then the similarity makes sense. The Central and Eastern Anatolians had more Caucasus input. Turks brought even more of that. So, the difference between Western Bronze Age Anatolians and modern Turks is considerable.
That said, in this line of thought Western Turks should be Western Anatolians + some Turkish admixture. They should therefore cluster closer to the Bronze Age Western Anatolians. I.e. closer to modern Cypriots. I don't know whether this is true.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 813
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
IMO quite a lot of change could've happened - at least theoretically, we still have to prove or disprove this with ancient DNA samples - after many post-Bronze Age but pre-Turkic invasions and long periods of dominance by Hurrian, Urartian, Assyrian, Persian, Armenian and other peoples, who most probably had more CHG and Iranian_Chalcolithic-related admixture than Bronze Age Western Anatolians, and also some peoples that must've increased the steppe-derived admixture in Anatolians even before Turks from Central Asia, like Cimmerians. As you say, I also think it is possible that Western Anatolia simply got more influenced by Eastern Anatolia/Armenian Highlands - and in fact this pattern seems to be confirmed by several east-to-west historic movements of peoples e.g. Urartians, Armenians, Kurds). The unification of many Middle Eastern territories under one polity in the Achaemenid, Seleucid, Roman and other empires should've also facilitated more genetic exchange with peoples who weren't very like Bronze Age Anatolians. In my opinion, the impact from the Turkic migration wasn't minor at all, most probably between 25% and 30% of the local genetic makeup, but also not that transformative so that all changes since the Bronze Age could be attributed to them.
Dianatomia
Regular Member
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 174
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Greek
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2a
I have said they are quite close, far closer than Turks. I didn't say they cluster with Western Anatolians. Albanians typically are very close to central Greeks. In the PCA I posted, most Greeks are from Thessaloniki. Which I don't understand. Why would you compare Mycenaean DNA specimens from Bronze Age Pelopponese and Crete to modern Greeks from Macedonia? At the very least you can compare it to the people living in those localities.
You could be right. That is significant admixture though.
Angela
Veteran member
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 12,345
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I've never understood that either. Makes no sense.
MOESAN
Elite member
- Messages
- 6,372
- Reaction score
- 1,613
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Brittany
- Ethnic group
- more celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b - L21/S145*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3c
I agree - BTW the same sort of reasoning could apply to late moves of IEans in Southern parts of Europe (maliciously I think to the so debated Mycenian question) and to gradual transmission of languages
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 813
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
Absolutely. Turkic impact must've been around 25-30%, the East Asian component is just the most distinctive, alien marker that allows us to clearly identify the arrival of Turkic peoples in a region that was something like 99.9% West Eurasian before. In the same way, especially in heavily populated regions further away from the core geographic and ecological zone of Indo-European tribes, I think we can safely bet that the REAL demographic impact of their migrations was at least 2x or even 3x as much as the post-immigration proportion of Steppe_EMBA or Steppe_MLBA would indicate, because the rest of their admixtures would've been too close to those that characterized the peoples they conquered. In the case of Mycenaeans, for example, a ~10-15% steppe in ancient Greeks would probably have meant a ~25-35% actual genetic impact, at least if they had lived for many generations (I think that's the most likely hypothesis) in the Balkans, and didn't just pass through it directly from the steppes (and by that time, transitioning between LPIE and Proto-Greek, even the - western, especially - steppe would've received much more EEF than centuries earlier).
LeBrok
Elite member
- Messages
- 10,249
- Reaction score
- 1,621
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Calgary
- Ethnic group
- Citizen of the world
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z2109
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1c
No way, I don't see it in numbers. 10-15% the most, if original Turkic tribe had similar admixture characteristic to Mongolians.
Again, the numbers point to 10-15%. If you go with 30, that would mean that about 15% of invaders never mixed in and died off or moved out. To my understanding, as soon as the new combined trieb starts speaking the same language, cultural barriers are gone, everybody feels like member of the same tribe and equal, and they all mix together without hesitation. This way, all the invaders are mixed into locals.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 813
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
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.
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.
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%.
That, of course, means that I assume that those Turks were in fact "just" ~50% East/Northeast Asian(more or less like modern Uyghurs and Uzbeks), a mixture of Turks with the former Iranic peoples of Central Asia, and of course many of them came not just sraight from Central Asia, but actually from heavily Iranian (in the Middle Ages) Northern Iran & Azerbaijan, further mixing with West Eurasians there.
Tutkun Arnaut
Banned
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a2a(m223)(L801)
Someone I know, speaking for a certain TV station as an expert on Turkey, was arguing that Turks themselves do not see each other as equal. He was saying that Anatolian Turks, or dark skinned Turks to use his words, see themselves as legitimate Turks. And then there are white Turks, with Balkan and other European Turks, who are the political and business elite are seen as intruders by Anatolian's. Turks have known this divide and for long have suppressed anyone who has tried to bring into open the division reality. He was saying that division runs deep and I was surprised to hear that. The white population of Turkey is quite large. According to some estimates Albanian population of Turkey surpasses 6 million (at least one parent). But the largest number should be Turkified Greeks and Armenians. Also Bosniak's, Serbs, Georgians, reside in large numbers. The person I am referring to had studied Theology so I don't know how accurate his data are. I don't quite get the purpose of this thread but Present day Turkey is ethnically quite complicated. It has been part of Ancient Greece, Rome, Ottomans and is at the crossroads of all hominids movements.