This is a supervised run with the new ADMIXTURE 1.1, featuring project members from all over Turkey. What does "supervised" mean? It means that the origins of the reference samples have already been flagged by me, and the program then works to match the test samples to these references.
I didn't use a Turkish reference set on purpose, because I already knew that the test samples were Turks, and wanted to see what kind of near and far populations potentially contributed to the modern Anatolian gene pool. But I did include reference Uzbeks and Uygurs for comparison, and it's fascinating to note the high "Central-Eastern European" in these samples. These results were obtained with Hungarians and Romanians as proxies for that component, but other samples from the region, like Poles, work just as well.
Key: Red = Armenian + Georgian (Anatolian & Caucasus), Orange = Cypriot + Greek (Southeastern European), Light Green = North Kannadi + Sakilli + Selected Gujarati (South Asian), Green = Hungarian + Romanian (Central-Eastern European), Aqua = Han Chinese (East Asian), Blue = Iranian, Dark Blue = Mandenka + Bantu (Sub-Saharan African), Purple = Palestinian + Saudi Arabian (Arabian), Pink = Evenk + Nganassan + Yakut (Siberian). See spreadsheet for details.
Update: I'm getting a lot of comments in a forum discussion about the variable spread of some of these components in the test samples. It's really difficult to answer why one Turkish sample might show 0% membership in a cluster, while another more than 20%. But I just ran an MDS of various sets to see whether some of these patterns could be reproduced visually, and yes they can. Note that TR3, who comes out 100% red (Armenian + Georgian), clusters with Armenians and Georgians on these plots. On the other hand, TR10, shows no blue (Iranian) in the ADMIXTURE analysis, and backs that up with her behavior on the MDS plots, by pulling away form the Iranians towards the Uzbeks on one plot, and Pathans on another.
MDS 1&2
MDS 1&3
MDS 1&4
I only see one shade of green in this ADMIXTURE plot. And I have no color blindness as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteIf your labels are taken seriously, don't you think Turks have too much Central European (Hungarian + Romanian) admixture for their geographical position? There must be another explanation. Maybe the local Anatolian components (Greek, Armenian) are computationally (not actually) being eaten by ex-Anatolian components due to actual small scale ex-Anatolian admixture in Turks. Such misleading occurrences aren't rare in ADMIXTURE analyses.
ReplyDeleteI think not just the Hungarian + Romanian component but also the Iranian component and possibly also the Eastern Finnish and Pathan + Sindhi components erroneously appear much more than they should because of the distorting effect of the small Mongoloid components coming from the Turkic invaders in the processing of the data by ADMIXTURE. So parts of the Greek and Armenian components are probably erroneously eaten by ex-Anatolian components from the opposite ends (Europe and Iranic/Pakistani lands) of Anatolia in the processing of the data by ADMIXTURE.
ReplyDeleteThey're not components. They're just probabilities of these samples being mistaken for the reference sets I'm using.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the European and South Central Asian scores are too high at all, considering that there's heavy influence from the Balkans in Turkey. There have also been strong contacts between Anatolia and Persia, where South Central Asian influence can be very high in places.
What about the green color issue?
ReplyDeleteBTW, I wonder how other participants would show up if you did similar analyses on them.
ReplyDeleteI can see the three different greens, so maybe it's your monitor?
ReplyDeleteYou can check the spreadsheet for details.
As I expected, it is the monitor. I've increased the gamma and now I can distinguish the light green. Thanks for your advise.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Hungarian + Romanian scores are so relatively high because of non-Greek Balkan admixture in Anatolia/Turks or because that the reference Greeks due to their small numbers lack much of the variation in Greeks, also most of the reference Greeks are Cypriot Greeks I guess and Cypriot Greeks don't represent the Balkans or Balkan Greeks, as they are very different genetically. It could also be a combination of these factors.
ReplyDelete^ Quite a few of the Turks in this project are partly - and in one case that I'm aware of, fully - descended from the Balkans. I'm the last column and from Cyprus so I'd say mainland Greeks have had a significant effect or else I'd have much more yellow (some of my 'Cypriot' is probably included in the purple [Arabian], red [Anatolia/Caucasus] or even blue [Iranian]).
ReplyDeleteDo you know which parts of the Balkans they are descended from? And are they descended from Balkan Turks or other Balkan Muslims like Albanians, Bosniaks, etc? I also wonder the place of origin of the participant with 100% Armenian + Assyrian + Georgian score.
ReplyDeleteBalkan Turks rather than Balkan Muslims, I think. One is from Bulgaria/Macedonia, another is half from the Balkans (?) but somewhere more northerly than Bulgaria and another mentions Balkan ancestry on a page I have access to, but I'm not sure where from. These are the ones I know of with Balkan ancestry; I don't know about the rest. The three I've mentioned are the ones with the highest Hungarian + Romanian scores. I think the 100% Anatolia/Caucasus individual is from Northeast Turkey.
ReplyDeleteOnur, plz don't try and "out" project members here, by listing their nicks from 23andMe or wherever.
ReplyDeleteSorry, David. Is there a spreadsheed or something like that showing the place of origin and ethnic information of the project participants?
ReplyDeleteYes, here...
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1BesUZ4T0mTczn-H5kommfYfI57Rzbba4OuYK_2uQOxY/edit?hl=en#
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBasically, even if turks won’t admit that, they are artificial construct of different ethnic groups.
ReplyDeleteSo there can’t be a uniform turkish group yet. There are turkish-Turks from Central Asia; Armenians from the caucaus, Kurds; Greeks; „Galatians“; Arabs; Balkanslaws; Albanians; Gitans; Afroturks (Tr09).... Even there is a tiny minority of turks with polish roots (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonezköy)
Until very recent turks tended to mary within the broader family. Hence Armenians maried Armeniens (TR03;TR06) and should cluster with them, Kurds cluster with Kurds. On the other hand minorities like Albanians just mixed with others to mainstreem turks.
Concerning the light green, which is labeld finish, I would rather suggest its part of the central asian component somehow.
Armenians, Anatolian Greeks and Assyrians (to a lesser extent also Georgians and northern mainland Greeks, I don't know the situation in Cyprus well BTW) lost much of their genetic variation and diversity due to the significant shrinking of their population numbers under various Muslim rules (for the overwhelming majority of the duration of Muslim rules primarily due to conversions - forced or not and sometimes accompanying slavery - and subsequent assimilations into Muslim populations - whether it is Turks, Arabs, Kurds or any other Muslim population - and for rare moments due to massacres). So their current genetic variation and diversity may not tell us much about their pre-Muslim genetic variation and diversity.
ReplyDeletedeployyaspam, in Anatolia and the Balkans inter-ethnic admixture was almost totally one-way: from Christian ethnicities to Turks, who were all Muslim. Turks had no other chance but admixing with the locals as they were an invading population in a vast territory and their number was very small compared to the local populations (especially so as Turks were pastoralist nomads and the locals were very long-established agriculturists and city dwellers with a long imperial past). The locals, on the contrary, almost never had a chance to assimilate/convert Turks, as Turks were the rulers throughout all those centuries. That is why Turks are genetically so highly admixed with the locals (in fact, Turks are genetically much more Anatolian than anything else today), while Greeks and Armenians of today are almost totally unadmixed with Turks, as Greeks and Armenians who admixed with Turks were almost exclusively the ones who were assimilating into Turks.
ReplyDeleteAs for the light green (Finnish), all I can say at the most is that it should be partially related to Central Asian Turks, but I cannot make a judgement about it as a whole, at least for now (I must see more of such analyses).
As for the Afroturk thing, people with Negroid admixture are very rare among Turks, and Negroid-admixed Turks are usually not more than 1% Negroid. TR9 is genealogically of 1/16 Sub-Saharan African descent, such people are extremely rare among Turks. Also TR9 is a Cypriot Turk, not from Turkey.
ReplyDeletein Anatolia and the Balkans inter-ethnic admixture was almost totally one-way: from Christian ethnicities to Turks, who were all Muslim.
ReplyDeleteDisambiguation: Here I was only referring to the inter-ethnic admixture between Turks and other ethnicities in Anatolia and the Balkans and skipped inter-ethnic admixture that didn't involve Turks.
Turks had no other chance but admixing with the locals
ReplyDeleteThere were also assimilations of the locals into Turks without even admixing with Turks. Such assimilations without admixture mostly took a few generations.
Hey guys, I've just rehashed this post...
ReplyDeleteThere were also assimilations of the locals into Turks without even admixing with Turks. Such assimilations without admixture mostly took a few generations.
ReplyDeleteDisambiguation: Here I was referring to the assimilations of the Anatolian and Balkan natives into Turks without admixing with Turks on a group scale (family, extended family, village, district, etc.).
Hello onur,
ReplyDeleteyour arguments concerning one-directional gene flow is very valid and interesting. This could also be the key to the hungarian miracle. If we assume that arriving magyars were already admixed and in small numbers, it wouldn't take to long to diluate their blood to unrecognizable levels. Especially mtDNA should disappear soon.
For the high central european figure of the turks we should consider two things
(1) there was a significant slaw import ongoing already in byzantine/roman time. And given the situation in those times, these slaws could most easily only be caught in the north(west)
(2) Anatolia was certainly one of the source where agriculture spread over europe. So it could be anatolian genes bottlenecked into europe, now being labeled central european.
I wouldn't insult you with the afroturks. But its a matter of fact that there are about 200.000 afroturks. Also a matter of fact is that they are not admixing very much with "white" turks. One could blame racism.
As for the rehashed version, northern lands between the Balkans and Central Asia aren't represented, green (Hungarian + Romanian) alone doesn't tell much.
ReplyDeleteAlso I repeat what I said before: you should separate the mainland Greek and Cypriot Greek samples as they are very different genetically.
ReplyDeleteyour arguments concerning one-directional gene flow is very valid and interesting.
ReplyDeleteThese are not my arguments, but of eminent geneticists, historians, etc.
This could also be the key to the hungarian miracle. If we assume that arriving magyars were already admixed and in small numbers, it wouldn't take to long to diluate their blood to unrecognizable levels. Especially mtDNA should disappear soon.
I think the fundamental difference between the Turkish and Hungarian cases, leaving aside religion, is that the invading population was significantly more Mongoloid in the Turkish case than in the Hungarian case, so we see more Mongoloid admixture in Turks than in Hungarians.
For the high central european figure of the turks we should consider two things
(1) there was a significant slaw import ongoing already in byzantine/roman time. And given the situation in those times, these slaws could most easily only be caught in the north(west)
(2) Anatolia was certainly one of the source where agriculture spread over europe. So it could be anatolian genes bottlenecked into europe, now being labeled central european.
Or orange (Cypriot + Greek) may not be a good representative of the Greek genepool as it is mainly composed of Cypriots, and Cypriots - whether Greek or Turkish - are genetically very different from Greeks proper. Also read my previous comment:
"Armenians, Anatolian Greeks and Assyrians (to a lesser extent also Georgians and northern mainland Greeks, I don't know the situation in Cyprus well BTW) lost much of their genetic variation and diversity due to the significant shrinking of their population numbers under various Muslim rules (for the overwhelming majority of the duration of Muslim rules primarily due to conversions - forced or not and sometimes accompanying slavery - and subsequent assimilations into Muslim populations - whether it is Turks, Arabs, Kurds or any other Muslim population - and for rare moments due to massacres). So their current genetic variation and diversity may not tell us much about their pre-Muslim genetic variation and diversity."
The points I expressed above may also partly explain blue (Iranian) and even light green (South Asian) and purple (Palestinian + Saudi Arabian) in Turks.
I wouldn't insult you with the afroturks. But its a matter of fact that there are about 200.000 afroturks.
What is your source for that figure? I've never seen such a high (relatively speaking) figure for them. BTW, I didn't take your words as an insult.
Onur, I picked the Central-Euro like Hungarians and North Balkan-like Romanians for a reason...
ReplyDeletehttp://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2010/11/carpatho-balkan-origins-of-steppe-belt.html
These are not my arguments, but of eminent geneticists, historians, etc.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say "they" instead of "these".
Onur, I picked the Central-Euro like Hungarians and North Balkan-like Romanians for a reason...
ReplyDeletehttp://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2010/11/carpatho-balkan-origins-of-steppe-belt.html
David, the PDF link doesn't open, but I see nothing related to genetics in the parts of the paper you quoted in your blog.
BTW, invaders coming to Anatolia came to Anatolia directly and very rapidly from the Kazakh steppe zone, so they were probably significantly more Mongoloid than Uyghurs and Uzbeks are (Uyghurs and Uzbeks are both largely sedentary and significantly Central Asian Caucasoid-admixed).
ReplyDeleteBTW, invaders coming to Anatolia came to Anatolia directly and very rapidly from the Kazakh steppe zone
ReplyDeleteBy Kazakh steppe zone I mean the part in what is now Asian Kazakhstan.
onur, you are right about Uzbeks. They've known as heavily mixed with Tajiks who are Iranians. Uighurs to a lesser extent but also mixed with Iranians/Soghdians.
ReplyDeleteAre the Uygur/Uzbek - Turkish samples the ones with more red in them? Can those be better labelled?
ReplyDeleteCan you run an analysis for Romanians? How about Hungarians?
ReplyDeleteOnur you blatantly lie. Turks of Anatolia came from Iran not Kazakhstan. You are a liar because you can not even accept the genetic truth.
ReplyDeleteCheck this map out. Enough is enough you are literally raping history books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seljuk_Empire_locator_map.svg
Turks of Anatolia mostly came from Turkmenistan through Iran.
As such it is normal that we and Central Asian Turks share large Hungarian and Iranian segments as well as the Siberian and East Asian segments.
Your behavior is despicable.
I remember having read two figures for Afro Turks: 120.000 and 200.000. I do not remember where. Googling I found only http://dictionary.sensagent.com/afro-turks/en-en/ (50-150K) and Mustafa Olpak speaking about 2 Million, but thats certainly to high or putting into account 20-Generation admixture.
ReplyDeleteAvsarguzeli, the invading Turkics (including Seljuks themselves) first arrived what is now Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia in a single wave of rapid migration from what is now Kazakhstan in the 11th century in a period of not more than a few decades from what is now Kazakhstan and this is historically well attested in the sources of those times. I suggest you to read some history instead of showing a map of the Seljuk empire, which is post-Turkic migration to what is now Turkmenistan and so irrelevant to the issue of the place of origin of the Turkic invaders of Anatolia, and accusing me of lying.
ReplyDeleteAs for genetics, I suggest you to look at Fst, ASD and IBS scores between Turks and other ethnic groups, as, unlike ADMIXTURE and PCA/MDS analyses, they directly measure genetic distance and aren't open to interpretation, at least not so much. In them you will clearly see that Turks are genetically closer to all of European ethnicities except the much isolated Basques than they are to Uzbeks (I am not even mentioning Uyghurs as they are further apart from Turks). As for the Romanian + Hungarian score in Turks, as is clear from what mnd states, it is concentrated in Turks of Balkan origins, so it doesn't conform to your hypothesis, because, if your hypothesis was true, we would expect a distribution of it in Anatolian Turks similar to that of Balkan Turks, but, it seems, it is not the case. Iranian scores are hard to interpret at the moment, but as it can be seen in Turks with absolutely or almost no Mongoloid-admixed Turks, its connection to the Turkic invaders is disputed to a significant degree.
I remember having read two figures for Afro Turks: 120.000 and 200.000. I do not remember where. Googling I found only http://dictionary.sensagent.com/afro-turks/en-en/ (50-150K) and Mustafa Olpak speaking about 2 Million, but thats certainly to high or putting into account 20-Generation admixture.
ReplyDeleteThese numbers all (not just the clearly nonsensical 2 million figure) seem exaggerated to me. I have never seen in daily life a Turk with distinguishable African features and I live in Istanbul, where people from every corner of Turkey live.
Avsarguzeli, also note that the absorption of the natives of what is now Turkmenistan by the Turkic invaders was completed few centuries ago, as when Russians first came to what is now Turkmenistan, almost all of the population there was Turkic speaking (predominantly Turkmen), with almost no Iranian-speakers. So Turkmens of Turkmenistan must be highly admixed with the natives of what is now Turkmenistan, who, we know, were completely Iranian (mainly Persian/Tajik) speaking prior to the Seljuq migrations of the 11th century. But when the invading Turkics first came to what is now Turkmenistan from what is now Kazakhstan in the first half of the 11th century with the Seljuq migrations, and from there fastly moved to Anatolia and environs in the middle of the same century, they weren't admixed with the natives of what is now Turkmenistan and were most probably significantly more Mongoloid than the present-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan. The Turkic migration to what is now Turkmenistan from what is now Kazakhstan must have lasted for some time (maybe a few centuries, but not necessarily constant). As for Anatolia, the Turkic migrations mostly happened during the first 200 years (not constantly, but with interruptions) following the battle of Manzikert (11th century). Migrations after that was very probably in negligible quantities. In conclusion, modern Kazakhs are probably the best living genetic proxy for the Turkics coming to Anatolia beginning from the 11th century Seljuq migarations. Of course, a good number of ancient DNAs from the very first Turkics in Anstolis would be much more conclusive scientifically.
ReplyDeleteAn important factor in the Turkification + Islamization of Anatolia is the mass enslavements, which were very frequent in the centuries following the Seljuq migrations and greatly facilitated the Turkification + Islamization of Anatolian natives (not necessarily voluntarily, but many people voluntarily converted to Islam for freedom and equal rights with Muslims).
David, I've finished reading that PDF you mentioned in your other blog (I accessed it through Google search). As I expected, there is nothing in that paper that suggests Hungarians and Romanians are enough to genetically represent that vast territory, there is also no genetics and even no craniometry or biological anthropology in that paper.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the attitude of Avsarguzeli towards me is overreactive and pejorative. I see nothing in my writings that would deserve such a harsh reaction, and I have tried to be as objective and scientific as possible. This is a genetics blog open to free expression of different views, but I think this should be done in a civilized manner.
ReplyDeleteOnur you can't say anything against genetic evidence. Turks of Anatolia descend from their Central Asian Turkmen brethren at the minimum with 1/6 frequency (using only the Siberian component averages) or potentially more if one takes into account Hungarian and Iranian segments. Stop spreading your lies.
ReplyDeleteOnur you can't say anything against genetic evidence. Turks of Anatolia descend from their Central Asian Turkmen brethren at the minimum with 1/6 frequency (using only the Siberian component averages) or potentially more if one takes into account Hungarian and Iranian segments. Stop spreading your lies.
ReplyDeleteAvsarguzeli, you are writing as if it is clear how much Turks are descended from Central Asian Turkics. But it is far from clear. We don't have ancient DNA from the Turkic invaders. Until then, what we can do at most is doing some estimations/calculations based on modern populations and known historical facts, but these don't tell us any clear thing about the componental distribution of the invading Turkics, just give some idea about them. Therefore, it is absurd at this point you to accuse me of lying, the proportion you give is just your estimation and not a proven fact.
As for genetics, I suggest you to look at Fst, ASD and IBS scores between Turks and other ethnic groups, as, unlike ADMIXTURE and PCA/MDS analyses, they directly measure genetic distance and aren't open to interpretation, at least not so much. In them you will clearly see that Turks are genetically closer to all of European ethnicities except the much isolated Basques than they are to Uzbeks (I am not even mentioning Uyghurs as they are further apart from Turks).
ReplyDeleteAlso according to the same genetic scores, Armenians are the genetically closest population to Turks (so much so that as close as people from the same ethnic group).
According to the craniometric studies, there is a very high degree of genetic continuity in Anatolia at least since the Neolithic. Europeans show less (much less in many places) such genetic continuity according to the same studies.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have ancient DNA from the Turkic invaders. Until then, what we can do at most is doing some estimations/calculations based on modern populations and known historical facts
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, doing craniometric studies comparing ancient and modern populations like the ones I mentioned in my previous post.
Also according to the same genetic scores, Armenians are the genetically closest population to Turks (so much so that as close as people from the same ethnic group).
ReplyDeleteFollowed by the other geographical neighbors of Turks.
^Onur what you fail to understand is this:
ReplyDeleteDetailed analysis of non Asian segments of Turks and Armenians show that they are not as close as we thought they were. Look:
TR3: The Turk from Northeast of Turkey is 100% Anatolian.
I am TR1: I am only 35% Anatolian. The rest of me is from the Ukrainian-Crimean steppes, Iran-Horasan Turkoman lands and my carryover genes from Siberia and China.
An average Turk is only 34% Anatolian. We are 17% Hungarian and 15% Iranian. These are former Turkic lands. Moreover we are 3% Siberian and 2% Han Chinese.
For example Uyghurs and Uzbeks are on average 18% Siberian. If you insist on using Siberian percentages for admixture ratios we are 1/6 Uyghur-Uzbek. I keep saying let's get Turkomans from Turkmenistan, we will likely be up to 1/3 Turkoman.
What you need to understand is this: Armenians are our relatives but not more than Turkomans, Iranians, Hungarians are our relatives. The Turkish ethnogynesis precedes the Turkish Republic and it is evident per Davidski's analysis that the Turkish genome is distinctively different from those of Armenians and clearly shares significant Hungarian, Iranian, Siberian and East Asian chunks with the Uzbeks and Uyghurs. As Davidski himself would attest these Hungarian and Iranian segments maybe as Turkic as our Siberian and Eastern Asian genetic segments.
You should look at the data carefully and stop pushing your ideological agenda upon other people.
Avsarguzeli, your overly simplistic formula Armenian + Georgian = Anatolian is plainly false. Firstly, half of the Armenian + Georgian reference set is Georgian and Georgians are genetically much less close to Turks than Armenians are, so it isn't so surprising TR3, who is from a region very close to both Georgia and historical Armenia, to be 100% Armenian + Georgian while the other Turkish participants have much less of it, it would surely be in higher amounts in them if it was only composed of Armenians. Secondly, you neglect Greek + Greek Cypriot (which is composed of more Greek Cypriots than mainland Greeks), which is clearly native to Anatolia too, judging by its nonexistence in Uzbeks and Uyghurs and its significant (apparently more than in Balkan Turks) existence in Anatolian Turks. Thirdly, you attribute the Hungarian + Romanian and Iranian scores completely to Central Asian Turkic genetic influence, which is nonsensical, as: 1) Hungarian + Romanian is too high in Turks compared to the Mongoloid scores and reaches its highest amounts in full or partially Balkan Turks, and 2) some Eurogenes Turks with no or almost no Mongoloid admixture have Iranian in appreciable amounts, not to mention its too high amounts compared to the Mongoloid scores in most participants with Mongoloid admixture. Therefore, the only scores which you can completely attribute to Central Asian Turkic genetic influence with a high degree of confidence are Siberian and Han Chinese.
ReplyDeleteAs to who is more relative, Armenians are genetically much much closer to Turks than Hungarians and Turkmens are and Armenians are also closer to Turks than Iranians are (but you should have already known these from David's PCA/MDS analyses). I have the Fst distance scores of them in an Excel document containing all the HGDP, HapMap3, Behar and Xing populations, so I will copy them here. Unfortunately, I don't have Fst scores for Turkmens (I have only seen their genetic distance to Turks in PCA/MDS analyses), so I will use Uzbeks and Uyghurs instead to give you a rough idea about them.
Turks - Armenians: 0,0011
Turks - Iranians: 0,0020
Turks - Hungarians: 0,0078
Turks - Uzbeks: 0,0148
Turks - Uyghurs: 0,0234
BTW, for comparison with Hungarians: the Fst distance between Turks and Romanians is 0,0044.
Note that these Turks I give Fst scores of are the Behar Turks, and the Behar Turks are known to be particularly more Mongoloid-admixed than Turks in most other genetic databases. In this document Turks are genetically closest to Armenians and vice versa and the Fst distance between North Italians and Tuscans (Central Italians) is 0,0019, so above I wrote "Armenians are the genetically closest population to Turks (so much so that as close as people from the same ethnic group)" for a reason (this is especially true given the relative homogeneity of European populations).
As for your ideological agenda accusation, I never mix science with ideology and cannot accept your accusations. Instead of making such false and unfair accusations, you'd better stick to the topic (as I do). Also, I suggest you not to confuse ethnic identities (especially the modern ones) with genetics. BTW, are you the "Turkmen Adsiz" of Timucin's blog?
Onur,
ReplyDeleteYou have an ideological agenda. You post 10-15-20 posts against every 1 post I make here. You are obsessed with proving the non Turkishness of Turks
The results are clear as Davidski has shown them here.
We are quite different from Armenians and Assyrians. It is true that Turks of Turkey have:
1. Anatolian segments
2. Mediterranean segments
that are different for example from Uyghurs and Uzbeks.
But you are liar. You lie because you claim we came from Kazakhstan while Ottoman annals are full of Horasan and Iranian origins for the tribes of Seljuk and Ottoman.
You also insist on the difference of Turks from Central Asia while it has become clear due to Davidski's analysis that Turks, Uyghurs and Uzbeks share:
1. Hungarian
2. Iranian
3. Siberian
4. East Asian components.
The previous analyses conducted focus on the "Whiteness" or "Europeanness" of Turkish and Armenian genes.
Yet it is revealed here that while the Armenians are:
-over 65% Anatolian
-and the rest Semitic/Middle Eastern
Turks are
-only 35% Anatolian
-with close 0% Semitic/Middle Eastern genetic make-up
The more segments we use, the clearer the Turkish genetic makeup becomes.
Your previous analysis doesn't use the full extent of Admixture analysis capabilities.
You should stop spreading your lies. Also read all the analyses before making claims. Your claims do not make use of the most recent analysis conducted here.
Avsarguzeli, I am neither obsessed with anything nor have any ideological agenda, it is just that you cannot accept any result or conclusion beyond a preconceived limit for the native Anatolian segment of Turks in your mind, so try to show the native Anatolian segments as small as possible and even less than possible.
ReplyDeleteGreek + Greek Cypriot didn't come out of nowhere, it was already in Anatolia thousands of years earlier than there were any Turks in Anatolia. Anatolia doesn't just mean Armenians and Assyrians and there much more Greeks in Anatolia than there were Armenians and Assyrians in Byzantine times.
As for the Iranian and Hungarian + Romanian, I have already made my explanation, so won't repeat myself.
Regarding the source area of the Turkic invaders issue, there were no Turkics in what is now Turkmenistan and Iran apart from the very small and negligible in number Turkic slave soldier population (but they were also Turkic slave soldiers in Arab lands) before the 11th century Seljuq/Turkic migrations from what is now Kazakhstan. Turkics coming to Anatolia had to pass through Khorasan (it historically included SW Central Asia - including what is now Turkmenistan - in addition to what is now NE Iran) and Iran in order to arrive Anatolia, but that doesn't make them from what is now Iran or Turkmenistan. They came to Anatolia soon after they arrived what is now Turkmenistan and Iran and migrations to Anatolia mostly happened during the Seljuq times so there wasn't enough time for mixing with the locals of what is Turkmenistan and Iran when coming to Anatolia. But today's Turkmens of Turkmenistan have completely absorbed the natives there (who were Iranic-speaking) and it has been 1000 years since the Turkic arrival to what is now Turkmenistan. Therefore, I am not lying when saying "Turkic invaders came from what is now Kazakhstan", everyone with a little knowledge of Turkish history knows that. You should read some history.
Yet it is revealed here that while the Armenians are:
-over 65% Anatolian
-and the rest Semitic/Middle Eastern
Turks are
-only 35% Anatolian
-with close 0% Semitic/Middle Eastern genetic make-up
Those figures are just figments of your imagination and there is no genetic basis for them.
Your previous analysis doesn't use the full extent of Admixture analysis capabilities.
The analyses I mentioned are genetic distance measurement analyses, thus they give direct information regarding genetic distances, unlike ADMIXTURE analyses, which don't measure genetic distances and are much more open to interpretation.
there were much more Greeks in Anatolia than there were Armenians and Assyrians in Byzantine times.
ReplyDeleteOnur you are a disgusting liar. You say:
ReplyDelete"Those figures are just figments of your imagination and there is no genetic basis for them."
Well look at this spread sheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdDBtTU1rcnNFdnU3NkhGaG9zVmRFdkE&hl=en&authkey=CJzmtvQB#gid=0
Now go take the means, even a monkey can do that.
What do you get?
Turks components:
-Anatolian-Caucasus mean: 34%
-Mediterranean mean: 25%
-South Asian mean: 1%
-Hungarian mean: 17%
-Han Chinese mean: 2%
-Iranian mean: 15%
-African mean: 1%
-Arabian mean: 3%
-Siberian mean: 3%
Now Go here and analyze Assyrians (who are almost the same as Armenians, ask David):
Fine scale analysis of Eurogenes' South and West Asians (plus a few others)
http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/03/fine-scale-analysis-of-eurogenes-south.html
Assyrian-Armenian means:
-Anatolian: 61%
-Mediterranean: 2%
-South Asian: 4%
-Arabian (Jordan Saudi): 32%
-Rest: 1%
Now go learn to be a gentleman, stop cursing and be respectful.
Read before you speak.
Be scientific.
First let's look at this spread sheet:
ReplyDeletehttps://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...CJzmtvQB#gid=0
Turks components:
-Anatolian-Caucasus mean: 34%
-Mediterranean mean: 25%
-South Asian mean: 1%
-Hungarian mean: 17%
-Han Chinese mean: 2%
-Iranian mean: 15%
-African mean: 1%
-Arabian mean: 3%
-Siberian mean: 3%
Now let's go here and analyze Assyrians (who are almost the same as Armenians)
Fine scale analysis of Eurogenes' South and West Asians (plus a few others)
http://bga101.blogspot.com/2011/03/f...nes-south.html
Assyrian-Armenian means:
-Anatolian: 61%
-Mediterranean: 2%
-South Asian: 4%
-Arabian (Jordan Saudi): 32%
-Rest: 1%
It loos like there are significant genetic differences in where the "European" segments in Turks come from vs. where the "European" segments in Assyrians/Armenians come from.
Stop shouting "liar liar" everytime, it makes you look silly.
ReplyDeleteYou are basically comparing apples ands oranges. The two supervised ADMIXTURE analyses don't match each other, so you cannot make a healthy comparison with them. If you are looking for ADMIXTURE analyses with which you can really compare Turks and Armenians, for now you are limited to unsupervised ADMIXTURE analyses, and Zack and Dienekes have plenty of them in their respective project blogs. For MDS/PCA analyses comparing Turks and Armenians, David has plenty of them, and so does Dienekes. Fst distance values I have already given to you.
Now go learn to be a gentleman, stop cursing and be respectful.
Read before you speak.
Be scientific.
Normally it must be I who should give these advices, but I am instead choosing to stick to the topic, as the truth speaks for itself.
For MCLUST comparisons, Dienekes' blogs are the right address.
ReplyDeleteBTW, a diasporan Armenian who is the project leader of an Armenian genome project explicitly stated on the net how genetically very similar and close Turks and Armenians show up in their genetic tests and even mentioned Turks and Assyrians as the genetically closest populations to Armenians among the multitudinous tested populations according to the genetic test results, and they do very detailed genetic tests (they even find direct blood relationship as in Relative Finder and do various detailed chromosome tests) and use the latest technology.
ReplyDelete