PDA

View Full Version : Gagauz people



Bulat
05-01-2017, 09:43 AM
The DNA-genealogy of the Gagauzian surnames - 1. Dudoglo. J2b-Z1043 (str)

B. A. Muratov


According to Y-DNA data, about 60% of Gagauzes today have Autochthonous Balkan origin, these are haplogroups i2, R1a-Z283, E1b, J2b-Z1043, etc. Only 40% of Gagauzes have ethnically Turkic origin from Eurasian steppes. There lines are R1b-Z2103, G1, R1a-Z93, N1-P343 and these are descendants of Burdzhans, Pechenegs and Oghuz-Kipchaks.



http://suyun.info/userfiles/bulletin/2017-4/gagauzes_ydna_2008.png

Representatives of the surname Dudoglo belong to the subjet J2b-Z1043 (str), and have local origin of Balkan population of the region. In the 9th-13th centuries J2-Z1043 underwent the process of Turkization by the Burdzhans-Pechenegs and Oghuz-Kipchaks from Black Sea region.




http://suyun.info/userfiles/bulletin/2017-4/str_matches_7160y_j2b_z1043.png


The ethnic union and kinship ties of the local Balkan population with Burdzhans, Pechenegs and Oghuz-Kipchaks gave the Birth and Formation of the Gagauz people since the 9th century, and the Turkic language from the IX century and the Christian faith since the 13th century defined the national identity and originality of the Gagauzes among other peoples of the Balkans and the Black Sea region.

Full version of article (look at this url)
http://suyun.info/index.php?LANG=ENG&p=4_17042017_4_1

Onur Dincer
10-24-2017, 03:56 AM
The most comprehensive and detailed study so far on Gagauz Y-chromosomes is Varzari et al. 2009 (http://www.medgenetics.ru/UserFile/File/Varzar.pdf). It shows that Gagauz Y-chromosomes come predominantly from Balkan natives with maybe some small influence from historical Anatolian immigrants (not necessarily Turkic though) on some of their G and R1b haplogroups. Here are some important sections from that paper, beginning with the abstract:

"The Gagauzes are a small Turkish-speaking ethnic group living mostly in southern Moldova and northeastern Bulgaria. The origin of the Gagauzes is obscure. They may be descendants of the Turkic nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes, as suggested by the ‘‘Steppe’’ hypothesis, or have a complex Anatolian-steppe origin, as postulated by the ‘‘Seljuk’’ or ‘‘Anatolian’’ hypothesis. To distinguish these hypotheses, a sample of 89 Y-chromosomes representing two Gagauz populations from the Republic of Moldova was analyzed for 28 binary and seven STR polymorphisms. In the gene pool of the Gagauzes a total of 15 Y-haplogroups were identified, the most common being I-P37 (20.2%), R-M17 (19.1%), G-M201 (13.5%), R-M269 (12.4%), and E-M78 (11.1%). The present Gagauz populations were compared with other Balkan, Anatolian, and Central Asian populations by means of genetic distances, nonmetric multidimentional scaling and analyses of molecular variance. The analyses showed that Gagauzes belong to the Balkan populations, suggesting that the Gagauz language represents a case of language replacement in southeastern Europe. Interestingly, the detailed study of microsatellite haplotypes revealed some sharing between the Gagauz and Turkish lineages, providing some support of the hypothesis of the ‘‘Seljuk origin’’ of the Gagauzes. The faster evolving microsatellite loci showed that the two Gagauz samples investigated do not represent a homogeneous group. This finding matches the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the Gagauzes well, suggesting a crucial role of social factors in shaping the Gagauz Y-chromosome pool and possibly also of effects of genetic drift."

"Haplogroup frequencies in the Gagauz samples and in the pooled sample are reported in Table 2. A total of 23 of the 28 genotyped binary polymorphisms were informative and defined 15 distinct haplogroups. Two major haplogroups in Gagauz males are haplogroup I-P37 and haplogroup R-M17, comprising 20.2% and 19.1%, respectively, of all Gagauz Y-chromosomes. These were followed by haplogroups G-M201 (13.5%), R-M269 (12.4%), and E-M78 (11.2%). All of the remaining lineages were present at frequencies of less than 5% in the Gagauz paternal gene pool. No lineages representing distant areas (Central/East Asia or Africa) were found in the present study. The haplogroup distributions were similar in the two samples (exact test; P 5 0.1028) and were in agreement with those reported previously for the Gagauz population (Nasidze et al., 2007) or neighboring populations (Supp Info Table 1). Although Y-haplogoup distribution patterns in two Gagauz populations were not significantly different from each other and from those in other southeastern European populations (exact test; P > 0.05), we note a twofold higher frequency of the R-M17 haplogroup in the Etulia sample compared with samples from Kongaz and Comrat (Nasidze et al., 2007), as well as an increased frequency of the G-M201 haplogroup in the two studied samples compared with most Balkan populations, including the Gagauzes from Comrat. The Gagauzes in total are characterized by high haplogroup diversity, comparable with other groups from southeastern Europe (Supporting Information Table 1) that exceed diversity values from other European provinces whose gene pools are dominated by certain haplogroups."

"Haplotype diversities in the total sample of the Gagauzes (0.979) and in the sample from Kongaz (0.989) were among the values observed in the Balkan ethnic groups (Supporting Information Table 2). The diversity in the Gagauzes from Etulia was lower (0.965); however, this did not differ significantly from other Balkan populations (T-test; t value 5 21.429; df 5 13; P 5 0.177)."

"We used genetic distance analysis to compare the present data with those reported for Balkan, Anatolian, and Central Asian populations (Supporting Information Table 1). Pairwise FST comparisons based on the Y-haplogroup frequencies showed that the Gagauz samples were very similar to each other (P 5 0.26) and to other Balkan populations (Supporting Information Table 3). They were less similar to Turkish samples, and most distant to Central Asian groups. All pairwise differences between the Gagauz and the Turkic samples, including those from Anatolia, were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The MDS analysis based on the FST distance matrix summarizes these patterns (see Fig. 3). The samples from Anatolia and the Balkans fall into two contiguous clusters. The positions of the populations within these clusters correspond well with their assignments to specific regional groups. The populations from Central Asia exhibit the most considerable interpopulation variability, showing significant distances to Anatolian and Balkan groups (P < 0.05). Both Gagauz samples clearly cluster with the Balkan samples, thus showing a general similarity with geographically close populations."

"Fast mutating markers may be more suitable to study genetic differentiation between populations that are rather closely related genetically. We therefore also used STR haplotype frequencies and molecular differences between haplotypes for phylogenetic reconstructions within Balkans and Anatolia. Phylogenetic analysis was performed by pooling the data of the present study with those of Zaharova et al., (2001), Robino et al., (2002), Barbarii et al., (2003), Cinnioğlu et al., (2004), Robino et al., (2004), Bosch et al., (2006), Lauc et al., (2005), Pericic et al., (2005a), Spiroski et al., (2005) (Supporting Information Table 2). Eighteen of twenty-four compared samples were same as in the previous analysis based on the binary polymorphisms. This enables us to compare the results of the two analyses. Results of MDS based on RST genetic distances (Supporting Information Table 4) are shown in Figure 4. As in the case of the binary markers, the compared populations are grouping according to major geographic regions. Both Gagauz samples have close affinity to the Balkan ethnic groups; however, they exhibit substantial dissimilarities if compared with each other (P 5 0.04). In terms of genetic distances, the Gagauzes from Etulia show the highest affinity to the northern Greeks, Serbs and Romanians from Constanta and Ploiesti, and the lowest to the Turkish groups, whereas the Gagauzes from Kongaz show close affinity with the majority of the Balkan populations, including the Bulgarian Turks, as well as with the three Turkish groups from Anatolia. Remarkably, the affinity of the Gagauzes from Kongaz to the Turks is not higher than affinity of the latter to some non-Turkic ethnic groups from the Balkans."

"The pairwise FST and RST comparisons show that Gagauzes are similar to surrounding populations and distant to the Turkic ones. However, FST and RST analyses are known to be influenced by multiple-testing problems. To avoid these problems, AMOVA analyses were performed (Table 3). Within Anatolia the genetic variance attributable to differences among populations was not significantly different from zero for both data sets (P > 0.05), suggesting that Anatolian populations are highly homogeneous. In the Balkan region a high genetic homogeneity was revealed only for Y-haplogroups (P > 0.05), whereas for Y-STR haplotypes a significant heterogeneity was found (P < 0.001). Likewise, the analysis showed no significant differences in haplogroup and significant differences in haplotype compositions between the Gagauz populations. The highest level of population differentiation was observed in Central Asia, with 7.7% of the total Y-haplogroup variation being attributable to differences among populations. Previous genetic analyses based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA data also revealed substantial genetic diversity among Central Asian populations. Such findings seem to be strongly determined by the historical past of Central Asia, which in turn is largely influenced by its geographical location at the crossroads between major Eurasian subdivisions. The AMOVA for the Y chromosome showed significant differences in haplogroup and Y-STR haplotype composition (P < 0.001) between major geographic regions. No significant differences were found between Gagauz and non-Gagauz populations in the Balkans when considering both sets of markers (P > 0.05). In contrast, we observed striking genetic differences between Gagauz and Turkic-speaking groups from Central Asia and Anatolia (P < 0.05). Thus, this set of analyses, in agreement with phylogenetic analyses, shows that the Gagauz Y-pools belong to the Balkan pools of Y-chromosomes."

"The R-M17 chromosomes could penetrate into the gene pool of the Gagauzes from Central Asia, where in some Turkic populations they are present in a very high frequency (Karafet et al., 2002; Kharkov et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2001; Zerjal et al., 2002). To explore the genetic similarities of the R-M17 Gagauz chromosomes with those from Central Asia and the Balkans, a median network based on Y-chromosome STR haplotypes on the background of M17 was generated (see Fig. 5). In the median network, the Balkan and Asian haplotypes tend to cluster according to geography and most of the Gagauz haplotypes cluster with the Balkan haplotypes. In particular, we could not find any Y-haplotypes typical for Central Asia (that are absent on the Balkans) in the Gagauz gene pool. Pairwise RST comparisons for Y-STR haplotypes within haplogroup R-M17 further indicate that the Gagauz R-M17 chromosomes are closely related to the Balkan R-M17 chromosomes (0.0207; P > 0.05) than to those from Central Asia (0.3522; P < 0.001)."

"Of the five predominant Y-haplogroups present in the Gagauzes, haplogroups R-M269 and G-M201 are widespread in Anatolia (Cinnioğlu et al., 2004). A detailed microsatellite analysis of these haplogroups in Gagauz, Anatolian, and Balkan populations is presented in Figure 6. For haplogroup G-M201 two Gagauz haplotypes (ht9 and ht13) were found to be shared with Turkish haplotypes, but no haplotype sharing was found between the Gagauzes and the Balkans, implying that at least the two shared with the Turks’ G-M201 lineages penetrated into the Gagauzes from Anatolia. In the R-M269 network of haplotypes, of four haplotypes shared by the Gagauzes with other populations one Gagauz Y-STR haplotype (ht51) groups with an Anatolian haplotype, one (ht49) clusters with a Balkan haplotype, and the remaining two haplotypes (ht50 and ht54) could be of either Balkan or Anatolian origin. Besides the three haplotypes mentioned, one belonging to R-M269 (ht51) and two to G-M201 (ht9 and ht13), we did not succeed in finding other haplotypes specific to Anatolian Turks in the Gagauzes."

"A distinguishing feature of the population of Central Asia is its high genetic heterogeneity (Karafet et al., 2002; Zerjal et al., 2002). Haplogroups Q-M242, C-M130, O-M175 and R-M17, however, are present in every population in Central Asia. The first three of the haplogroups are specific to the Asian region, but very scarce in Europe. The Gagauzes differ greatly from Central Asian populations with respect to Y-haplogroup frequencies. Indeed, none of 89 Gagauz male chromosomes investigated belongs to the Asian cluster, i.e., to the haplogroups Q-M242, C-M130, and O-M175. Although the haplogroup R-M17 is widely present in the gene pool of Gagauzes, we could not find among the Gagauz R-M17 chromosomes those specific to Central Asian populations. On the contrary, the Gagauz R-M17 chromosomes demonstrate a much higher affinity and identity with R-M17 chromosomes from the Balkans than with the ones from Central Asia, suggesting the plausible European origin of the R-M17 chromosomes in the Gagauz paternal gene pool. Some significant differences between Y-haplogroup frequencies in Gagauzes and in Central Asian populations are mirrored in significant genetic distances between them. Thus, our Y data seems to reject the hypothesis that the Gagauzes are biological descendants of the Turkic nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppe."

"The haplogroup frequencies in the Gagauzes were also significantly different from those in Anatolian/Turkish populations, though to a lower degree than in Central Asian populations. The Anatolian populations have a high frequency of the Middle Eastern haplogroup J-12f2, whereas European haplogroups I-M170 and R-M17 are present here in much lower frequencies. The Gagauzes, on the contrary, have a low frequency of haplogroup J-12f2 and high or moderately high frequencies of I-M170 and R-M17. The frequencies of these haplogroups in the Gagauzes are very close to those in the Balkans. The Gagauzes also represent the Balkans with respect to the E-M78 to E-M123 ratios; haplogroup E-M78 occurs here much more often than E-M123 (Cruciani et al., 2004; Semino et al., 2004), whereas in Anatolia E-M78 and E-M123 occur at approximately equal frequencies (Cinnioğlu et al., 2004). Visual inspection revealed that the only Y-chromosome lineage that had frequencies in the Gagauzes closer to those in Turks than in the Balkans was G-M201. These frequencies were 0.171, 0.104 (our data) and 0.041 (Nasidze et al., 2007) in the Gagauz populations, 0–0.129 (average 0.055) in the rest of the Balkans and 0.039–0.200 (average 0.112) in Anatolia. This situation could indicate paternal gene flow mediated by the Turks, as suggested by the Seljuk hypothesis. Or, alternatively, genetic drift could be responsible for the increased G-M201 frequencies in two Gagauz samples. Analyses of diversity and median networks have demonstrated the plausibility of both assumptions. Indeed, the Gagauzes from Etulia with the highest G-M201 frequency are characterized by a relatively low level of STR haplotype diversity within G-M201 (D 5 0.810), indicating some effect of genetic drift. At the same time, some sharing between the Kongaz and Turkish G-M201 haplotypes in the absence of any sharing between the Gagauz and Balkan G-M201 haplotypes suggests a direct contribution of the Turks to the Gagauz paternal gene pool and, hence, lends some support to the theory of the Seljuk origin of the Gagauzes."

"Although some sharing between Gagauz and Turkish Y-haplotypes implies direct gene flow from Anatolia to the Gagauzes, its impact on the structure of the extant Gagauz gene pool was rather small. This conclusion is supported by three lines of evidence: (1) the Gagauzes represent the Balkans with respect to the Y-haplogroup frequencies; (2) genetic distance analyses based on stable and fast polymorphisms indicate a closer relationship of the Gagauzes to Balkan populations than to any Turkic group, and (3) in the MDS plots the Gagauz samples were not intermediate between the Balkan and Turkic samples, but occupied positions among the Balkan ones. These results are in agreement with previous investigations based on ‘‘classical’’ and DNA markers (Nasidze et al., 2007; Varsahr et al., 2001, 2003; Varzari et al., 2007). Altogether the genetic data indicate that the Gagauz language represents a case of language replacement in southeastern Europe. How has this replacement happened?"

"In our previous investigation of autosomal DNA markers in the Dniester-Carpathian region (Varzari et al., 2007), we suggested that in the case of the Gagauzes replacement could have occurred via the ‘‘elite dominance’’ model, which means that the original Turkic immigrant groups could be very small such that their genetic effect on the resident groups was negligible (Renfrew, 1987). This hypothesis is supported by numerous historical sources (Guboglo, 1967; Shabashov, 2002). Throughout the Middle Ages the Balkan peninsula was constantly subjected to Turkic invasions and conquests both from the southern Russian steppe and Anatolia. These tribes formed military (for example, that of the Avars, the Pechenegs, and the Cumans) and political (for example, that of the Bulgars and the Seljuks) unions, which also included the local Slavic and Romance populations besides the Turkic newcomers."

"In conclusion, our Y-chromosome analysis indicates a strong similarity between Gagauzes and Balkan populations. This finding could support the suggestion previously advanced on the basis of autosomal DNA markers, and the historical information that the Turkic language was imposed on the Balkans according to the elite-dominance model. According to this hypothesis, the Turkic newcomers were small in number such that their genes have been diluted by those of the autochthonous inhabitants. Interestingly, using microsatellite markers, we also discovered some traces of recent Anatolian lineages in the Gagauz paternal gene pool. This discovery matches the hypothesis of a Seljuk (Anatolian) origin of the Gagauz language, which, however, does not rule out a penetration of some Turkic linguistic elements from Eurasian steppes. Furthermore, we demonstrated that at the Balkan scale the Gagauzes are not a genetically homogeneous group. The observed genetic heterogeneity correlates well with the cultural and linguistic diversity among the Gagauzes and was presumably determined by the culturally and/or genetically heterogeneous environment on the Balkans. Genetic drift caused by cultural isolation and migration of Gagauzes from the Balkans to Bessarabia could also have facilitated the genetic differentiation among the Gagauz populations."

The table from the paper showing the haplogroup counts, frequencies and Y-chromosome diversities of the studied Gagauz populations:

19422

The Y-chromosome-based multidimensional scaling (MDS) analyses from the paper:

19420

19421

Autosomal studies also give support to the elite dominance model with a very small elite population for the formation of the Gagauz people since they show that the Gagauz people are autosomally virtually indistinguishable from their non-Turkic-speaking neighbors, i.e., Bulgarians and Romanians:

19419 (from the Yunusbayev et al. 2015 paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068); arrows and notes added by me for clarification)

Afshar
10-24-2017, 06:23 AM
"A distinguishing feature of the population of Central Asia is its high genetic heterogeneity (Karafet et al., 2002; Zerjal et al., 2002). Haplogroups Q-M242, C-M130, O-M175 and R-M17, however, are present in every population in Central Asia. The first three of the haplogroups are specific to the Asian region, but very scarce in Europe. The Gagauzes differ greatly from Central Asian populations with respect to Y-haplogroup frequencies. Indeed, none of 89 Gagauz male chromosomes investigated belongs to the Asian cluster, i.e., to the haplogroups Q-M242, C-M130, and O-M175. Although the haplogroup R-M17 is widely present in the gene pool of Gagauzes, we could not find among the Gagauz R-M17 chromosomes those specific to Central Asian populations. On the contrary, the Gagauz R-M17 chromosomes demonstrate a much higher affinity and identity with R-M17 chromosomes from the Balkans than with the ones from Central Asia, suggesting the plausible European origin of the R-M17 chromosomes in the Gagauz paternal gene pool. Some significant differences between Y-haplogroup frequencies in Gagauzes and in Central Asian populations are mirrored in significant genetic distances between them. Thus, our Y data seems to reject the hypothesis that the Gagauzes are biological descendants of the Turkic nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppe."

So if I understand correctly, the author concludes this because they don't have these 3 haplogroups?
But I see the paper is from way back so its okay

Onur Dincer
10-24-2017, 02:20 PM
So if I understand correctly, the author concludes this because they don't have these 3 haplogroups?
But I see the paper is from way back so its okay

No, they did much more than that. You should read the whole paper. They not only compared the Y-DNA haplogroups of Gagauzes with those of other Balkan peoples, Turks from Turkey and Central Asians, but they also compared the Y-STR markers of Gagauzes with those of theirs and also did AMOVA analyses on them. The paper may be from 2009, but they did all they could do on Y-chromosomes for that year and their findings are still valid due to the utmost care they gave to their analyses. In addition to that, their findings are backed by the autosomal results as I showed above.

In light of these findings, we should also consider the scenario that the ancestors of the Gagauz people acquired their Turkic language from tneir Muslim Balkan Turkish neighbors via cultural interaction with them during the Ottoman times. Dobrudja (where Gagauzes come from) was a Muslim-majority region during much of the Ottoman times and Muslims in Dobrudja were Balkan Turkish-speaking, so Christians living there might have switched to Turkish via cultural interaction with their Muslim neighbors and over time might have formed the community which is now called the Gagauz people (like the case of the switch to Turkish by many Christians in Anatolia). This scenario is also plausible because the Gagauz language is essentially no different from the Dobrudja dialect of Balkan Turkish except some vocabulary coming from their Christian religion.

Thracian88
01-19-2018, 07:39 PM
I don't know somehow Gagauz's are my number one in MDLP-World and MDLP-22. Second in MDLP-16 and very close to my number one in K15 World. Also according to DNA tribe Gagauz's rank is my number 1.

lukaszM
01-20-2018, 02:35 PM
I don't know somehow Gagauz's are my number one in MDLP-World and MDLP-22. Second in MDLP-16 and very close to my number one in K15 World. Also according to DNA tribe Gagauz's rank is my number 1.

Because they use Gagauz dataset from Yunusbaev study. Those Gagauz are really strange considering fact they are Turkic. They don't have Siberian/ East-Asian admixture at all (and remember Turks in Turkey have, and Gagauz are steppe Turko-Tatars right?). Basically they are like Bulgarians or south Romanians.

Onur Dincer
01-20-2018, 05:20 PM
Because they use Gagauz dataset from Yunusbaev study. Those Gagauz are really strange considering fact they are Turkic. They don't have Siberian/ East-Asian admixture at all (and remember Turks in Turkey have, and Gagauz are steppe Turko-Tatars right?). Basically they are like Bulgarians or south Romanians.

Lukasz, have you ever seen a Gagauz genetic result with a clear indication of Turkic genetic ancestry?

vettor
01-20-2018, 05:52 PM
Lukasz, have you ever seen a Gagauz genetic result with a clear indication of Turkic genetic ancestry?

Their bardic story are 2
1- they originate from bulgars living on the bulgarian black sea coast and fled north on the ottoman invasions

2- they are "bulgars" from Altaic turkic lands who went to the balkans with the bulgars

JerryS.
01-20-2018, 06:43 PM
as a neophyte I have to ask, in its most over simplified form does Greek and Gagauz equal Bulgarian?

selectivememri
01-20-2018, 08:01 PM
in a few calculators i scored closer to gagauz than my own actual ethnicity, and was always curious what the connection was. thanks for posting this info, it makes more sense now!

Modernancientdna
01-20-2018, 09:08 PM
MDLP World

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_and_East_European 48.26
2 South_and_West_European 37.12
3 Caucaus_Parsia 8.14
4 Middle_East 4.53


Finished reading population data. 257 populations found.
12 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Ukrainian-West @ 0.714945
2 Ukrainian_V @ 1.715579
3 Ukrainian-Center @ 2.621473
4 Sorb @ 4.435297
5 Ukrainian-East @ 4.546976
6 Ukrainian @ 4.576385
7 Russian_cossack @ 5.343153
8 Slovakian @ 5.462048
9 Belarusian_V @ 5.601309
10 Russian_South @ 6.032763
11 Polish_V @ 6.314026
12 Latvian_V @ 6.612680
13 Croatian_V @ 6.715695
14 German @ 7.017372
15 Czech @ 7.489946
16 Russian_V @ 7.616338
17 German-North @ 8.099431
18 Swedish_V @ 8.131957
19 Polish @ 8.185590
20 Mordovian_V @ 8.380632

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Ukrainian-West +50% Ukrainian-West @ 0.714945


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Ukrainian-East +25% Bulgarian +25% Lithuanian @ 0.576190


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++
1 Estonian + Polish_V + Gagauz + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.395762
2 Latvian_V + Croatian_V + Ukrainian-East + Polish_V @ 0.426872
3 Polish + Gagauz + Lithuanian + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.449710
4 Latvian_V + Belarusian_V + Ukrainian-West + Ukrainian-West @ 0.485813
5 Latvian + Ukrainian-East + Gagauz + Sorb @ 0.488674
6 Latvian + Bulgarian + Ukrainian-Center + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.505928
7 Russian_Center + Lithuanian_V + Gagauz + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.507035
8 Latvian_V + Croatian_V + Polish + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.509232
9 Ukrainian-East + Bulgarian + Lithuanian + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.519917
10 Latvian_V + Croatian_V + Ukrainian + Polish_V @ 0.520154
11 Latvian_V + Bosnian + Ukrainian-East + Lithuanian_V @ 0.525225
12 Latvian + Ukrainian-East + Bulgarian + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.526314
13 Latvian_V + Hungarian + Ukrainian-East + Belarusian @ 0.527389
14 Latvian_V + Croatian_V + Belarusian_V + Ukrainian-East @ 0.530361
15 Latvian_V + Ukrainian-West + Ukrainian-West + Polish_V @ 0.531122
16 Latvian_V + Ukrainian-East + Belarusian + Croatian @ 0.534299
17 Latvian_V + Latvian + Ukrainian-East + Serbian @ 0.548458
18 Latvian + Polish_V + Gagauz + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.550586
19 Ukrainian-East + Polish_V + Gagauz + Lithuanian @ 0.561048
20 Russian + Lithuanian_V + Gagauz + Ukrainian-Center @ 0.572070

selectivememri
01-20-2018, 10:29 PM
heres my mdlp world-22

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North-East-European 37.56
2 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic 30.25
3 West-Asian 17.4
4 Near_East 11.2
5 Samoedic 1.14
6 North-European-Mesolithic 1
7 East-Siberean 0.8
8 Melanesian 0.33
9 North-Siberean 0.3
10 South-African 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Gagauz (derived) 2.34
2 Bulgarian (derived) 3.46
3 Macedonian (derived) 5.27
4 Romania (derived) 6.26
5 Montenegrin (derived) 7.22
6 Serbian (derived) 8.93
7 Ashkenazim_V (derived) 11.61
8 Italian_North (derived) 12.38
9 Greek_North (derived) 12.75
10 Swiss (derived) 12.8
11 Bosnian (derived) 12.95
12 Greek_South (derived) 12.98
13 German-South (derived) 13.94
14 Provancestralal (derived) 14.43
15 Croatian (derived) 15.08
16 Hungarian (derived) 15.77
17 Italian-North (derived) 16.27
18 Austrian (derived) 16.54
19 German_V (derived) 16.55
20 Greek_Center (derived) 16.97

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 73.2% Greek_North (derived) + 26.8% Russian_Center (derived) @ 1.11
2 66.9% Greek_North (derived) + 33.1% Ukrainian-West (derived) @ 1.11
3 67.7% Greek_North (derived) + 32.3% Ukrainian_V (derived) @ 1.12
4 60.4% Greek_East (derived) + 39.6% Ukrainian-Center (derived) @ 1.14
5 71.5% Greek_North (derived) + 28.5% Russian_South (derived) @ 1.16
6 68.5% Greek_North (derived) + 31.5% Ukrainian-Center (derived) @ 1.19
7 59.5% Greek_East (derived) + 40.5% Ukrainian_V (derived) @ 1.19
8 63.8% Greek_East (derived) + 36.2% Russian_South (derived) @ 1.2
9 71.2% Greek_North (derived) + 28.8% Russian_V (derived) @ 1.21
10 70.9% Greek_North (derived) + 29.1% Ukrainian-East (derived) @ 1.22
11 65.3% Greek_Center (derived) + 34.7% Russian_South (derived) @ 1.23
12 74.9% Greek_North (derived) + 25.1% Russian (derived) @ 1.23
13 71.4% Greek_North (derived) + 28.6% Polish_V (derived) @ 1.24
14 61.1% Greek_Center (derived) + 38.9% Ukrainian_V (derived) @ 1.25
15 92.2% Gagauz (derived) + 7.8% Tatar_Kryashen (derived) @ 1.25
16 71.2% Greek_North (derived) + 28.8% Russian_cossack (derived) @ 1.25
17 64.6% Greek_Center (derived) + 35.4% Ukrainian-East (derived) @ 1.26
18 92.9% Gagauz (derived) + 7.1% Tartar_Mishar (derived) @ 1.26
19 71.2% Greek_North (derived) + 28.8% Ukrainian (derived) @ 1.26
20 62% Greek_Center (derived) + 38% Ukrainian-Center (derived) @ 1.27


and oracle-4

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Italian-South_derived +50% Latvian_V_derived @ 2.175304


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Greek_North_derived +25% Greek_North_derived +25% Russian_derived @ 1.212575


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++
1 Gagauz_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_V_derived @ 1.082900
2 Gagauz_derived + Greek_East_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_V_derived @ 1.112940
3 Gagauz_derived + Greek_East_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_South_derived @ 1.169372
4 Gagauz_derived + Greek_North_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian_V_derived @ 1.185258
5 Greek_North_derived + Greek_North_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_derived @ 1.212575
6 Gagauz_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_South_derived @ 1.213988
7 Croatian_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_Cretan_derived + Ukrainian-Center_derived @ 1.229942
8 Gagauz_derived + Greek_North_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian-West_derived @ 1.258417
9 Gagauz_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian-East_derived @ 1.267102
10 Gagauz_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_East_derived + Russian_Center_derived @ 1.275050
11 Cypriot_derived + Kosovar_derived + Latvian_V_derived + Ukrainian-West_derived @ 1.279117
12 Gagauz_derived + Greek_North_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian-Center_derived @ 1.287344
13 Croatian_derived + Greek_Center_derived + Greek_Cretan_derived + Ukrainian_V_derived @ 1.292380
14 Bulgarian_derived + Gagauz_derived + Greek_Cretan_derived + Ukrainian_V_derived @ 1.293872
15 Gagauz_derived + Greek_East_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian-East_derived @ 1.293879
16 Greek_Cretan_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_South_derived + Serbian_derived @ 1.295658
17 Bosnian_derived + Greek_Cretan_derived + Greek_North_derived + Ukrainian-West_derived @ 1.296410
18 Gagauz_derived + Greek_East_derived + Greek_South_derived + Russian_South_derived @ 1.299708
19 North-East-European_ancestral + Balkarian_derived + Jew_Romania_derived + Sardinian_derived @ 1.300134
20 Gagauz_derived + Greek_East_derived + Greek_North_derived + Russian_Center_derived @ 1.307701

Thracian88
01-21-2018, 03:26 AM
Because they use Gagauz dataset from Yunusbaev study. Those Gagauz are really strange considering fact they are Turkic. They don't have Siberian/ East-Asian admixture at all (and remember Turks in Turkey have, and Gagauz are steppe Turko-Tatars right?). Basically they are like Bulgarians or south Romanians.

Wikipedia says; Finally, the phylogenetic analysis of Y-DNA situates Gagauzes most proximal to Macedonians, Serbs and other Balkan populations, resulting in a high genetic distance from the Turkish people and other Turkic peoples.[8] According to a more detailed autosomal analysis of thousands of SNPs, not just of the sex chromosome, Gagauzes are most proximal to Ethnic Macedonians, followed by Greek Macedonians apart from Thessaloniki, and others such as Bulgarians, Romanians and Montenegrins.[9]

So, I am not sure about them. I have East-Asian admixture but it is lower than Turks in Anatolia. (FTDNA <1%, highest gedmatch 4%, average Gedmatch 2-3%). I expect that if they are Turkic then they have to be closer to Balkan Turks.

JerryS.
01-21-2018, 03:50 AM
my MDLP K23b

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 82.4% Frisian ( ) + 17.6% Greek_Thessaloniki ( ) @ 1.89
2 82.1% Frisian ( ) + 17.9% Albanian_Tirana ( ) @ 1.89
3 79.7% Frisian ( ) + 20.3% Kosovar ( ) @ 1.93
4 82% Frisian ( ) + 18% Greek_Thessaly ( ) @ 1.94
5 85.9% Frisian ( ) + 14.1% Italian_South ( ) @ 1.99
6 85.5% Frisian ( ) + 14.5% Greek_Athens ( ) @ 1.99
7 83.8% Frisian ( ) + 16.2% Central_Greek ( ) @ 2
8 84.9% Frisian ( ) + 15.1% Sicilian_Center ( ) @ 2.04
9 79.2% Frisian ( ) + 20.8% Bulgarian ( ) @ 2.05
10 88.5% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 11.5% Georgian_Tbilisi ( ) @ 2.05
11 83.4% Frisian ( ) + 16.6% Ashkenazi ( ) @ 2.08
12 79.3% Frisian ( ) + 20.7% Greek_Northwest ( ) @ 2.08
13 88.8% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 11.2% Georgian_Laz ( ) @ 2.08
14 85.4% Frisian ( ) + 14.6% Greek ( ) @ 2.09
15 93.2% Belgian ( ) + 6.8% Georgian_Laz ( ) @ 2.1
16 84.5% Frisian ( ) + 15.5% Romanian_Jew ( ) @ 2.1
17 84.3% Frisian ( ) + 15.7% Gagauz ( ) @ 2.11
18 82.1% Frisian ( ) + 17.9% Greek_Peloponnesos ( ) @ 2.14
19 93% Belgian ( ) + 7% Georgian_Imereti ( ) @ 2.15
20 84.3% English_Kent_GBR ( ) + 15.7% Circassian ( ) @ 2.16

#17 lists Gagauz as my minor ethnicity.

lukaszM
01-21-2018, 11:53 AM
Lukasz, have you ever seen a Gagauz genetic result with a clear indication of Turkic genetic ancestry?


I uploaded those Yunusbaev's Gagauzes to gedmatch. At least in K36 they don't have any. Check by your self in others.

https://s10.postimg.org/tul1ho9op/Bez-nazwy-1.jpg

lukaszM
01-21-2018, 11:57 AM
Wikipedia says; Finally, the phylogenetic analysis of Y-DNA situates Gagauzes most proximal to Macedonians, Serbs and other Balkan populations, resulting in a high genetic distance from the Turkish people and other Turkic peoples.[8] According to a more detailed autosomal analysis of thousands of SNPs, not just of the sex chromosome, Gagauzes are most proximal to Ethnic Macedonians, followed by Greek Macedonians apart from Thessaloniki, and others such as Bulgarians, Romanians and Montenegrins.[9]

So, I am not sure about them. I have East-Asian admixture but it is lower than Turks in Anatolia. (FTDNA <1%, highest gedmatch 4%, average Gedmatch 2-3%). I expect that if they are Turkic then they have to be closer to Balkan Turks.

Yes, there are many times replacement for Macedonians. This is why I don't use them in my oracles.

So maybe there are some SW Bulgarians / Macedonians resettled by Ottomans to Besarabia. But for what reason they have their own Turkic language? And in the same time there are orthodox Christians? It is a real mystery.

Thracian88
01-21-2018, 06:59 PM
Yes, there are many times replacement for Macedonians. This is why I don't use them in my oracles.

So maybe there are some SW Bulgarians / Macedonians resettled by Ottomans to Besarabia. But for what reason they have their own Turkic language? And in the same time there are orthodox Christians? It is a real mystery.

I think there are two scenarios.

Scenario I

They were Turkifield Balkan natives and resettled to Besarabia. But that scenario doesn't explain their religion.

Scenario II

They were a Turkic tribe and mixed with natives. As far as I know some Turkic tribes such as Huns, Bulgars etc... arrived Europe a few centuries before the Ottomans. It could explain why they speak a Turkic language and also the religion. I know that their language is little bit different than Oghuz Turkish.

eolien
01-21-2018, 10:18 PM
Their bardic story are 2
1- they originate from bulgars living on the bulgarian black sea coast and fled north on the ottoman invasions

2- they are "bulgars" from Altaic turkic lands who went to the balkans with the bulgars

The migration to the "North" if you mean Besarabia is very recent. I am surprised nobody here is aware of it. The most prominent theory was associating Gagauz with Seljukide sultan Keykavus and a migration from Anatolia in the 13th century.

Onur Dincer
01-21-2018, 11:11 PM
I think there are two scenarios.

Scenario I

They were Turkifield Balkan natives and resettled to Besarabia. But that scenario doesn't explain their religion.

It explains their religion pretty well if they switched to Turkish during the Ottoman times or during the late Rum Seljuk times (assuming that the Seljuk migration theory is correct). Their Turkic language is the Balkan variant of the Ottoman Turkish language, the language what is nowadays called Balkan Turkish, they specifically speak its Dobrudja dialect as Gagauz people lived in Dobrudja before being resettled in Bessarabia during the 19th century. In fact, as a Balkan Turk you should understand the language of Gagauz people pretty well.

lukaszM
01-21-2018, 11:21 PM
It explains their religion pretty well if they switched to Turkish during the Ottoman times or during the late Rum Seljuk times (assuming that the Seljuk migration theory is correct). Their Turkic language is the Balkan variant of the Ottoman Turkish language, the language what is nowadays called Balkan Turkish, they specifically speak its Dobrudja dialect as Gagauz people lived in Dobrudja before being resettled in Bessarabia during the 19th century. In fact, as a Balkan Turk you should understand the language of Gagauz people pretty well.

Yes, I checked. Their language is in one family with modern Turkic and extinct Osman language ( I thought before it was similar to Crimean Tatar). So it could be simply Balkan dialect of Osman or Turkic. But Orthodoxy...

selectivememri
01-21-2018, 11:34 PM
well, serbs, bulgarians, greeks and macedonians are all orthodox, so that makes sense to me, the turkic language is the real question mark to me, it's kind of like reverse torbesi

Thracian88
01-21-2018, 11:46 PM
It explains their religion pretty well if they switched to Turkish during the Ottoman times or during the late Rum Seljuk times (assuming that the Seljuk migration theory is correct). Their Turkic language is the Balkan variant of the Ottoman Turkish language, the language what is nowadays called Balkan Turkish, they specifically speak its Dobrudja dialect as Gagauz people lived in Dobrudja before being resettled in Bessarabia during the 19th century. In fact, as a Balkan Turk you should understand the language of Gagauz people pretty well.

Actually it doesn't because Ottomans converted natives to Muslims. So, I believe they were mixed with natives before the Ottomans. I agree with you rest of your words. Their dialect is so similar with Balkan Turks, especially with Gajals. Some theories says Gajals and Gagauzs are same people, however Gajals are not Orthodox.

Onur Dincer
01-22-2018, 12:38 AM
Actually it doesn't because Ottomans converted natives to Muslims. So, I believe they were mixed with natives before the Ottomans. I agree with you rest of your words. Their dialect is so similar with Balkan Turks, especially with Gajals. Some theories says Gajals and Gagauzs are same people, however Gajals are not Orthodox.

There were many Christians who switched to the Turkish language even without converting to Islam during the Ottoman times. For instance, a big proportion of Christians who did not convert to Islam were like that in Anatolia and Crimea. Dobrudja, where Gagauz are originally from, may have been like Anatolia and Crimea in that respect.

Afshar
01-22-2018, 08:06 AM
My guess is they were probably formed from remnant pechenegs and some oghuz+bulgar tribes. Them being orthodox just means they were already there before the ottomans conquered Balkan areas.

Sangarius
01-22-2018, 11:15 AM
I uploaded those Yunusbaev's Gagauzes to gedmatch. At least in K36 they don't have any. Check by your self in others.

https://s10.postimg.org/tul1ho9op/Bez-nazwy-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading them. Regarding the K36, calculators with high K aren't really good at ascertaining minor admixtures, as each component is itself a composite of multiple admixture events. From experience I know that for example the North_Caucasus component absorbs quite a bit of East-Eurasian admixture. So much that even I only score ~2% East-Eurasian, when in fact I have about 7%.

For comparison I ran the kits in Dodecad K12b. The K12b, too, hides East-Eurasian admixture in various West-Eurasian components, but not as much. For example, I score about 5% East-Eurasian with this calculator.

https://abload.de/img/gaugazk12bdas01.png

lukaszM
01-22-2018, 12:44 PM
Thanks for uploading them. Regarding the K36, calculators with high K aren't really good at ascertaining minor admixtures, as each component is itself a composite of multiple admixture events. From experience I know that for example the North_Caucasus component absorbs quite a bit of East-Eurasian admixture. So much that even I only score ~2% East-Eurasian, when in fact I have about 7%.

For comparison I ran the kits in Dodecad K12b. The K12b, too, hides East-Eurasian admixture in various West-Eurasian components, but not as much. For example, I score about 5% East-Eurasian with this calculator.

https://abload.de/img/gaugazk12bdas01.png

Ok, it is still too low to consider them Pecheng / Kuman remnants. For me it would be most interesting theory also, but autosomes say no. Maybe they have about 5-10% Pecheng or similar steppe ancestry. Rest is not even Turk but Macedonian /Bulgarian-like

eastara
01-22-2018, 12:52 PM
It is a known fact the Gagauz in Moldova moved there from Varna region in Bulgaria with the population exchange agreement between Russian and Ottoman empires in late 18th - early 19 c. During that time also ethnic Bulgarians and even orthodox Albanians also settled there. The Turks got some Crimean Tartars in return, and later Cherkess from the Caucasus. However the Gagauz seem to be new settlers in Varna region - Ottoman archives form 17 c. tell that only Muslim lived in that area. Probably the Bulgarian and Gagauz, who migrated to Bessarabia from there, lived in current Greece, South Albania and Macedonia and moved to Varna after the big plague epidemics at the end of 17c. after which the Muslims diminished considerably. The Gagauz are in fact local Bulgarians (but not excluding Vlach and Albanians) who linguistically, but not religiously Turkified.

lukaszM
01-22-2018, 12:56 PM
It is a known fact the Gagauz in Moldova moved there from Varna region in Bulgaria with the population exchange agreement between Russian and Ottoman empires in late 18th - early 19 c. During that time also ethnic Bulgarians and even orthodox Albanians also settled there. The Turks got some Crimean Tartars in return, and later Cherkess from the Caucasus. However the Gagauz seem to be new settlers in Varna region - Ottoman archives form 17 c. tell that only Muslim lived in that area. Probably the Bulgarian and Gagauz, who migrated to Bessarabia from there, lived in current Greece, South Albania and Macedonia and moved to Varna after the big plague epidemics at the end of 17c. after which the Muslims diminished considerably. The Gagauz are in fact local Bulgarians (but not excluding Vlach and Albanians) who linguistically, but not religiously Turkified.

This is interesting what you say about Vlach, because in oracles were Gagauzes are included, some Romanians which I checked have Gagauz at the tops.

Afshar
01-22-2018, 01:06 PM
Their culture also contains Turkic elements, changing language does not take these along.

basmaci
01-22-2018, 01:08 PM
Gagavuz has nothing to do with Ottomans, neither their dialect is same with Balkan Turkish. They are an seperate Turkic group of their own, Oghuz Speaker with Gagavuz Dialect.

basmaci
01-22-2018, 01:11 PM
There were many Christians who switched to the Turkish language even without converting to Islam during the Ottoman times. For instance, a big proportion of Christians who did not convert to Islam were like that in Anatolia and Crimea. Dobrudja, where Gagauz are originally from, may have been like Anatolia and Crimea in that respect.
Their is no such thing. are you making online stuff ?

Thracian88
01-22-2018, 01:20 PM
There were many Christians who switched to the Turkish language even without converting to Islam during the Ottoman times. For instance, a big proportion of Christians who did not convert to Islam were like that in Anatolia and Crimea. Dobrudja, where Gagauz are originally from, may have been like Anatolia and Crimea in that respect.

I am not sure about it. Because Ottomans kidnapped natives children and converted them to Islam. They could be related with Avars btw.

Thracian88
01-22-2018, 01:31 PM
Thanks for uploading them. Regarding the K36, calculators with high K aren't really good at ascertaining minor admixtures, as each component is itself a composite of multiple admixture events. From experience I know that for example the North_Caucasus component absorbs quite a bit of East-Eurasian admixture. So much that even I only score ~2% East-Eurasian, when in fact I have about 7%.

For comparison I ran the kits in Dodecad K12b. The K12b, too, hides East-Eurasian admixture in various West-Eurasian components, but not as much. For example, I score about 5% East-Eurasian with this calculator.

https://abload.de/img/gaugazk12bdas01.png

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Med 25.85
2 North_European 25.82
3 Caucasus 23.86
4 Gedrosia 13.26
5 Southwest_Asian 9.1
6 Siberian 1.59
7 South_Asian 0.53

I and Gagauz's have similar East Asian scores. I also believe that South Asian component is important for Turks. So, they also have South Asian admixture. Their scores are similar with Balkan Turks.

basmaci
01-22-2018, 01:35 PM
I am not sure about it. Because Ottomans kidnapped natives children and converted them to Islam. They could be related with Avars btw.
they were the "Rulers" of the area. they didn't need to "kidnapp" some one. they have "taken" them as taxes. Other then, Christians were free from military together with Arabs, while Muslim Turks were compulsory to join the Army, and had to fought in any corner of the imperium, that because the Christian citizens of Ottomans were the rich class. because they had the opportunity for trade and etc

Thracian88
01-22-2018, 01:41 PM
they were the "Rulers" of the area. they didn't need to "kidnapp" some one. they have "taken" them as taxes. Other then, Christians were free from military together with Arabs, while Muslim Turks were compulsory to join the Army, and had to fought in any corner of the imperium, that because the Christian citizens of Ottomans were the rich class. because they had the opportunity for trade and etc

Well you are right. My bad.

vettor
01-22-2018, 04:38 PM
The migration to the "North" if you mean Besarabia is very recent. I am surprised nobody here is aware of it. The most prominent theory was associating Gagauz with Seljukide sultan Keykavus and a migration from Anatolia in the 13th century.

This is their main story

http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/caucasus/gagauz.html

the other , they are a sub branch of central asian Bulgars and Cumans

There is no evidence they had any anatolian link....all links head to the north Caucasus and central asian areas

Modernancientdna
01-22-2018, 05:21 PM
@eastara explanation is only logical, but interesting topic to read opinions ofcourse

eastara
01-23-2018, 06:02 AM
Gagavuz has nothing to do with Ottomans, neither their dialect is same with Balkan Turkish. They are an seperate Turkic group of their own, Oghuz Speaker with Gagavuz Dialect.

Some linguists think differently - that the Gagauz speak old fashioned Ottoman Turkish, which is quite different than modern Turkish and assignment to some kind of Oghuz dialect is not correct. This happens with all people who separated from the original language, but preserved it among different speakers - it is frozen in time or moved to other direction, than the original.

eastara
01-23-2018, 06:38 AM
I have some 23andMe results for Gagauz people - here is one full blood Gagauz from Kongaz, Moldova. The Gagauz from Kongaz consider themselves Bulgarians (as some belong to the Greek Orthodox church and think themselves Greek). They have come from the region of Varna in 1812.

Ancestry Composition

98.1% European

Southern European
58.7% Balkan
10.3% Italian
16.9% Broadly Southern European
3.8% Eastern European

Northern ECountries of Ancuropean
0.7% Broadly Northern European
7.6% Broadly European

1.6% Middle Eastern & North African
1.4% Middle Eastern
0.1% Broadly Middle Eastern & North African

0.1% East Asian & Native American
East Asian
0.1% Mongolian
< 0.1% Broadly East Asian
< 0.1% Native American
< 0.1% Broadly East Asian & Native American
0.2% Unassigned
100%

Countries of Ancestry (with at least 2 from the same country)
Greece - 3.0-4.8%
Poland - 2.9-5.5%
Romania - 2.4-4.2%
Italy - 1.9-4.2%
Bulgaria 1.9-3.0%
Albania 1.9-2.2%
Germany 1.6-4.3%
Croatia 1.3-2.3%
Russia 1.2-4.0%
Ukraine 1.0-4.0%
Bosna and Хerzegovina 0.8-1.4%

For comparison these are my own ( I am Bulgarian)

98.0% European

Southern European
64.6% Balkan
2.4% Italian
13.4% Broadly Southern European
8.6% Eastern European

Northern European
2.5% Broadly Northern European
0.1% Ashkenazi
6.4% Broadly European

0.7% Middle Eastern & North African
0.7% Middle Eastern
< 0.1% Broadly Middle Eastern & North African

0.2% East Asian & Native American
East Asian
0.1% Yakut
0.1% Japanese
< 0.1% Broadly East Asian

1.1% Unassigned
100%

Countries of Ancestry
Bulgaria 4.1-5.6%
Romania 2.7-4.1%
Poland 2.2-4.2%
Greece 1.6-3.5%
Croatia 1.6-2.9%
Italy 1.5-3.4%
Ukraine 1.3-3.6%
Germany 1.1-3.3%
Russia 1.1-2.9%
Bosna and Herzegovina -0.8-1.9%

It is obvious the Gagauz stand even more South than the average Bulgarian, have no more East Asian than us and in no way resemble Bulgarian Turks, Tatars, etc. The fact that they have so many Greek relatives while living far away from Greece for so long confirms my theory they originally came from Epirus, South Albania or thereabouts(which until 200-300 years ago was mostly Slav and Vlach/Aromanian territory)

Sangarius
01-23-2018, 11:47 AM
Ok, it is still too low to consider them Pecheng / Kuman remnants. For me it would be most interesting theory also, but autosomes say no. Maybe they have about 5-10% Pecheng or similar steppe ancestry. Rest is not even Turk but Macedonian /Bulgarian-like

Of course the admixture is expected to be quite diluted by now, but I think this counts as signal of it. And why would the rest be like Anatolian Turkish anyway?


# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Med 25.85
2 North_European 25.82
3 Caucasus 23.86
4 Gedrosia 13.26
5 Southwest_Asian 9.1
6 Siberian 1.59
7 South_Asian 0.53

I and Gagauz's have similar East Asian scores. I also believe that South Asian component is important for Turks. So, they also have South Asian admixture. Their scores are similar with Balkan Turks.

The South_Asian component in the K12b is actually a proxy for Iran Neolithic admixture. From my experience with Turkish results, it definitely looks like a further diagnostic marker of Turkic admixture (if accompanied by East-Eurasian admixture).


Some linguists think differently - that the Gagauz speak old fashioned Ottoman Turkish, which is quite different than modern Turkish and assignment to some kind of Oghuz dialect is not correct. This happens with all people who separated from the original language, but preserved it among different speakers - it is frozen in time or moved to other direction, than the original.

Who are those linguists? Ottoman Turkish (https://web.sas.upenn.edu/turkish-studies/classes/ottoman-turkish/) wasn't really a spoken language, but a written language used for bureaucracy and art, not used by the common people. Gagauz Turkish definitely is a language of the Oghuz Turkish branch. Even I, someone who didn't grow up in Turkey and does not speek Turkish very proficiently, can understand spoken Gagauz Turkish. Sounds rather slavic influenced to me, though.


I have some 23andMe results for Gagauz people - here is one full blood Gagauz from Kongaz, Moldova. The Gagauz from Kongaz consider themselves Bulgarians (as some belong to the Greek Orthodox church and think themselves Greek). They have come from the region of Varna in 1812.

[...]

It is obvious the Gagauz stand even more South than the average Bulgarian, have no more East Asian than us and in no way resemble Bulgarian Turks, Tatars, etc. The fact that they have so many Greek relatives while living far away from Greece for so long confirms my theory they originally came from Epirus, South Albania or thereabouts(which until 200-300 years ago was mostly Slav and Vlach/Aromanian territory)

What is the 23andMe ancestry composition of one Gagauz individual supposed to prove? According to 23andMe (V3) I'm 0,4% East-Asian.

eastara
01-23-2018, 10:41 PM
Many Turks have no East Asian, but if of Balkan origin, going back a little will find, Albanian, Boshniak or Pomak background. Same with Anatolian Turks with 100% Middle East.
Gagauz people are genetically not initially with any Turkic or Anatolian origin, and this is proven by other studies.
Regarding the Gagauz language, this is, of course not the official Ottoman as it was mostly Persian written in Arabic alphabet. What exactly the Turks on the Balkans spoke in 18 c, is unknown as it was never written down.
After the changes in Russia some of their linguists challenge the previous Gagauz assignment. This was impossible before, as the official science was given some political conceptions, which it was supposed to find "proof" about.

Onur Dincer
01-24-2018, 01:58 AM
Gagavuz has nothing to do with Ottomans, neither their dialect is same with Balkan Turkish. They are an seperate Turkic group of their own, Oghuz Speaker with Gagavuz Dialect.

Are you a Balkan Turk? How sure are you about the Gagauz language? Any Balkan Turk who knows Balkan Turkish can understand the Gagauz language easily. Just because it was standardized does not mean it is outside the variety of the Balkan Turkish dialects. Also, by Ottoman Turkish I mean all forms of the Turkish language spoken and/or written during the Ottoman Empire, not just the official written language of the Ottoman Empire, which was more of an artificial language and not a spoken language.

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

Onur Dincer
01-24-2018, 02:12 AM
Their is no such thing. are you making online stuff ?

It is a fact that many Christians switched to the Turkish language under Turkish rule even without converting to Islam and it is confirmed by genetics. In our Anatolia-Balkans-Caucaus DNA Project there are Greeks and Armenians who are wholly or partially descended from such individuals and none of them show any sign of Turkic ancestry in their genetic results and they show no difference from the Grecophone or Armenophone Christians of their respective regions in terms of genetics.

Onur Dincer
01-24-2018, 02:39 AM
they were the "Rulers" of the area. they didn't need to "kidnapp" some one. they have "taken" them as taxes. Other then, Christians were free from military together with Arabs, while Muslim Turks were compulsory to join the Army, and had to fought in any corner of the imperium, that because the Christian citizens of Ottomans were the rich class. because they had the opportunity for trade and etc

Universal military conscription for all able-bodied male citizens or for all able-bodied male members of a specific ethnic or religious group among citizens is a late 18th century French invention and it reached the Ottoman Empire only during the middle of the 19th century with the Ottoman military reforms induced by westernization and not just for Turks but for all Muslim groups of the empire. Before that, Muslims of Anatolia, the Balkans and Crimea were recruited into the Ottoman army according to the needs of the empire and only a limited proportion of them were ever recruited.

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

eolien
01-24-2018, 11:18 AM
Universal military conscription for all able-bodied male citizens or for all able-bodied male members of a specific ethnic or religious group among citizens is a late 18th century French invention and it reached the Ottoman Empire only during the middle of the 19th century with the Ottoman military reforms induced by westernization and not just for Turks but for all Muslim groups of the empire. Before that, Muslims of Anatolia, the Balkans and Crimea were recruited into the Ottoman army according to the needs of the empire and only a limited proportion of them were ever recruited.

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

yes this was one of the points that I wanted to emphasize because it is such a non-sense. The influence is prussian army though. If fact even when the obligatory conscription started by law in mid-1800s there was a lottery system, intending to recruit around 20 out of potential 150 youths (on paper). But you could give (sell) your right to someone else and some regions (including istanbul fo example) and some classes (the religious classes) were never recruited in this system. The ottoman state was never in a position to enforce such a system in any case because outside some provinces the bureaucracy was very weak or non-existent. We should really stop (be)living in this high-school level of history.

the second point is the language shift. This is not so easy to prove. For example there is the case of Armeno-Kipchak community : Until now there is no consensus whether they were Armenians taking the Kipchak language or Kipchak groups converting to the Armenian religion. I even don't want to open the discsussion about the Karamanli case. In these cases we have no other option except genetics. For Dobruca/Deliorman in general, we can already observe the high conversion rate to Islam from Ottoman official records.

Onur Dincer
01-24-2018, 08:29 PM
Eolien, since you brought up the issue, let me get into the genetic results of Turkophone (I use the term Turcophone to mean Turkish speaker by mother tongue) central Anatolian Greeks, also called Karamanli. I am an admin of a non-profit genetic project on the Anatolian, Balkan and Caucasian regions for the genetic testing company FTDNA, so I have seen a number of Anatolian Greek genetic results, including those of the Karamanli community. Now I am going to share the autosomal genetic results of two Greek citizens one of whom is fully and the other one is 3/4 descended from the Karamanli community (the rest of the ancestry of the one 3/4 descended from the Karamanli community is from Grecophone Anatolian Greeks), and then I am going to share the autosomal genetic results of a Greek citizen who is fully descended from Grecophone Anatolian Greeks, and finally I am going to share the average of the autosomal genetic results of 19 Turks from various parts of central Anatolia. The Anatolian Greeks whose results I am going to share, whether they are Karamanli or Grecophone, are fully descended from central Anatolia by known origins. The results are based on a calculator, i.e., a percentile slice autosomal analysis, from the website GEDmatch, which makes detailed analyses on the autosomal raw data of people who took autosomal tests, and their confidence level is high.

First I share the full Karamanli result:

North_Atlantic 9.38
Baltic 2.44
West_Med 18.35
West_Asian 25.41
East_Med 35.08
Red_Sea 5.69
South_Asian 2.63
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 0.19
Oceanian 0.83
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

The 3/4 Karamanli, 1/4 Grecophone Anatolian Greek result:

North_Atlantic 6.85
Baltic 4.46
West_Med 17.33
West_Asian 26.07
East_Med 38.50
Red_Sea 4.13
South_Asian 0.96
East_Asian -
Siberian 0.72
Amerindian 0.12
Oceanian 0.84
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

The full Grecophone Anatolian Greek result:

North_Atlantic 6.38
Baltic 5.19
West_Med 20.98
West_Asian 27.45
East_Med 33.32
Red_Sea 5.72
South_Asian 0.08
East_Asian 0.14
Siberian 0.39
Amerindian -
Oceanian 0.36
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

The average result of the 19 central Anatolian Turks:

North_Atlantic 7.12
Baltic 4.32
West_Med 12.01
West_Asian 30.83
East_Med 28.97
Red_Sea 5.46
South_Asian 4.05
East_Asian 2.41
Siberian 3.63
Amerindian 0.28
Oceanian 0.56
Northeast_African 0.34
Sub-Saharan 0.01

As can be seen from the results, the results of all the three central Anatolian Greeks, whether they are Karamanli or not, resemble each other very much, and in all the three cases the sum of the East Eurasian components is below 1% so at the noise level. In the average of the central Anatolian Turks the sum of the East Eurasian components is around 6% and the Mediterranean components appear to be lower than those of the central Anatolian Greeks. The East Eurasian components in Anatolia are above the noise level only in the case of people who have Turkic admixture. While generically Anatolian Turks generally are a variable mixture of Anatolian natives (Greek and/or Armenian) with Oghuz/Turcomans coming from Central Asia, Anatolian Greeks and Armenians genetically do not show any Oghuz/Turcoman admixture. Of course, we do not know the genetics of Oghuz/Turcomans who arrived in Anatolia due to the lack of ancient DNA tests for them, but we can definitely say that they had some levels of East Eurasian ancestry based on the varying amounts of East Eurasian ancestry in all the extant Central Asian Turkic peoples. Judging by these individual results, Turcophone Anatolian Greeks, who are also called Karamanli, are fully descended from Anatolian Greeks who switched to the Turkish language and do not show any Turkic admixture. I do not say this, of course, to justify their being sent to Greece via the Population Exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey), I am merely objectively presenting what the genetic tests have revealed to us.

I have also seen many autosomal genetic results of Turcophone Greeks of Georgia, also called Urum, who are ultimately from the region around Erzurum and Kars. They do not show any Turkic admixture either and are genetically no different from the Grecophone Greek communities of their respective region.

As for Armenians, we know from history that large numbers of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were Turcophone, yet we do not see any Turkic admixture among modern-day Armenian descendants of those communities either.

Theodore Gavras
01-24-2018, 09:44 PM
Having read this thread, I asked myself "is this Anthrogenica?" I do not understand how people can still try to prove the opposite while there are so many academic and individual results about the Gagauz, Armenians, Cappadocian Greeks and the other mentioned peoples on the Internet. Wake up guys, we live in the 21st century.

selectivememri
01-24-2018, 10:13 PM
i admit i haven't delved into many academic papers on the subject, but the wikipedia (sorry!) seems to allow for many theories on the history and origins of gagauz people and why they seem to share such a close link to the balkans. i dont think i see people being disrespectful or offering certainties. if you have some stone cold facts, please, by all means, share them with us.

Theodore Gavras
01-24-2018, 10:26 PM
i admit i haven't delved into many academic papers on the subject, but the wikipedia (sorry!) seems to allow for many theories on the history and origins of gagauz people and why they seem to share such a close link to the balkans. i dont think i see people being disrespectful or offering certainties. if you have some stone cold facts, please, by all means, share them with us.

If you check out the 2nd page of this thread you can see the Gagauz autosomal results posted by LukaszM. If there is something you do not understand, you can always ask us, but the results look very clear. I sincerely did not understand what you did not understand. You can reach the results of whatever people you wish from the spreadsheets on GEDmatch.


I uploaded those Yunusbaev's Gagauzes to gedmatch. At least in K36 they don't have any. Check by your self in others.

https://s10.postimg.org/tul1ho9op/Bez-nazwy-1.jpg

Alkaevli
01-25-2018, 12:00 AM
What exactly the Turks on the Balkans spoke in 18 c, is unknown as it was never written down.

Are you even serious?

Onur Dincer
01-25-2018, 01:59 AM
Are you even serious?

I guess eastara also meant the dialectal differences rather than just different languages. It is a fact that spoken Balkan Turkish was not written down during the 18th century. Though we can say the same thing for most of the dialects of spoken Ottoman Turkish.

eolien
01-25-2018, 09:08 AM
I guess eastara also meant the dialectal differences rather than just different languages. It is a fact that spoken Balkan Turkish was not written down during the 18th century. Though we can say the same thing for most of the dialects of spoken Ottoman Turkish.

I will share with you guys a book that i assume you are not aware of. It can be fun to read both for content and dialect. It is concluded to be a Balkan dialect.

G. Hazai, Das Osmanish-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert (Untersuchungen an den Transcriptiontexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsany), mouton 1973. (It is difficult to find the original book of Harsany from 1672). Despite its title ther book was considered to be written in somehow daily turkish. BTW, the turkish of Turkey has many Kipchak elements in it and we should not forget that the more pure Turkic groups including the Ghuzz alwazs came from the north of black sea. People seem to get annoyed by the language shift model but just see the recent study on Bashkirts and Chuvash (I cannot recall the details now)

Onur Dincer
01-25-2018, 11:00 AM
I will share with you guys a book that i assume you are not aware of. It can be fun to read both for content and dialect. It is concluded to be a Balkan dialect.

G. Hazai, Das Osmanish-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert (Untersuchungen an den Transcriptiontexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsany), mouton 1973. (It is difficult to find the original book of Harsany from 1672). Despite its title ther book was considered to be written in somehow daily turkish. BTW, the turkish of Turkey has many Kipchak elements in it and we should not forget that the more pure Turkic groups including the Ghuzz alwazs came from the north of black sea. People seem to get annoyed by the language shift model but just see the recent study on Bashkirts and Chuvash (I cannot recall the details now)

We were talking specifically about the 18th century, but thank you for the book reference anyway.

Oghuz and Kipchak peoples were neighbors in Central Asia for centuries, so lots of linguistic interaction surely happened between them, not to mention their common Common (Shaz) Turkic origins. As for the Oghuz migrations, they seem to have occurred mostly through the south of the Caspian and Black seas with the Seljuk era migrations rather than through the north of them.

Chuvash and Bashkir peoples (we can also add Volga Tatars) indeed seem to be largely descended from the local Finno-Ugric and Indo-European elements from their genetics.

Alkaevli
01-25-2018, 05:05 PM
BTW, the turkish of Turkey has many Kipchak elements in it and we should not forget that the more pure Turkic groups including the Ghuzz alwazs came from the north of black sea.

The migration of Oghuz Turks from the east of the Caspian Sea (through the Iranian Plateau) that lasted for centuries is almost the exclusive source of the Central Asian admixture that is present in modern Turks of Turkey.

The Eastern Roman Empire relocated some Turkic mercenary bands (i.e. Uz, Pechenegs, Cumans) from the Balkans to Asia Minor but they were few in number (mercenary bands barely contribute to a region's genepool). Most of those Turkic mercenaries were eventually Hellenized and their descendants were called Tourkopouloi (sons of Turks).

Osprey Military, Men-at-Arms Series, Byzantine Armies (1118-1461)
https://i.hizliresim.com/lO9Nrb.png (https://hizliresim.com/lO9Nrb)

After the Mongol invasion, Cuman-Kipchaks merged with Mongolian tribes and these Turko-Mongol confederations later gave rise to new ethnicities (i.e. Nogai, Crimean Tatar, Kazakh).

According to the data provided by the cadastral records of the Ottoman Empire there were ~6.000 nomadic Kipchak families (approximately 30.000 people) in Asia Minor during the 16th century, they were like an island in a sea of Turkmen tribes.



People seem to get annoyed by the language shift model but just see the recent study on Bashkirts and Chuvash (I cannot recall the details now)

Language shift model: a population shifts to speaking a different language with little-to-no change in gene pool.

Apparently even Bashkirs have become victims of the phenomenon of explaining the ethnogenesis of Turkic-speaking ethnicities with language shift model. Yes, it is annoying. I have never seen anyone explaining the ethnogenesis of any Indo-European speaking population with the language shift model despite the fact that modern Indo-European speakers are extremely heterogeneous (genetically speaking). I can understand suggesting this model for Gagauz people. But for Bashkirs, seriously? Their culture is one of the best preserved Turkic cultures, not to mention their DNA results. It becomes more and more obvious that Turkic peoples emerged as a result of the interaction between West Eurasian and East Eurasian ancestral populations in the steppe, so some of their Y-DNA lineages must have been West/North Eurasian in origin.

I dare say, Bashkirs have more proto-Turkic ancestry than most IE-speakers have PIE ancestry (even if you choose to attribute all of their West Eurasian admixture to assimilated non-Turkic populations).


I guess eastara also meant the dialectal differences rather than just different languages. It is a fact that spoken Balkan Turkish was not written down during the 18th century. Though we can say the same thing for most of the dialects of spoken Ottoman Turkish.
"What exactly the Turks on the Balkans spoke in 18 c, is unknown as it was never written down."

Of course it is known, they spoke the dialects of Balkan Turkish (which they still speak), Ottoman Turkish was not used by the common people.


Chuvash and Bashkir peoples (we can also add Volga Tatars) indeed seem to be largely descended from the local Finno-Ugric and Indo-European elements from their genetics.
Onur, what do you think about Yakuts? There is a very small difference between Yakuts and their non-Turkic neighbours (and ironically, it's the West Eurasian admixture in Yakuts), not to mention the fact that their language is one of the most distinct Turkic languages due its non-Turkic elements. Interestingly, Yakuts have never been questioned by those who are eager to explain the ethnogenesis of Turkic ethnicities with the language shift model, maybe because they are over 90% East Eurasian, which automatically makes them "the purest Turkic people" in the eyes of many.
https://i.hizliresim.com/vjRAqD.png (https://hizliresim.com/vjRAqD)

Onur Dincer
01-25-2018, 08:59 PM
I dare say, Bashkirs have more proto-Turkic ancestry than most IE-speakers have PIE ancestry (even if you choose to attribute all of their West Eurasian admixture to assimilated non-Turkic populations).

I have never claimed that Bashkirs have exclusively or almost exclusively non-Turkic ancestry from the Turkicized locals, and I do not know eolien's views on this issue in detail. Bashkirs are genetically a multi-layered amalgamation of Finno-Ugric, Indo-European and Turkic genetic elements as is made clear by these two important genetic papers:

https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdfExtended/S0002-9297(16)30160-4

Oh, and non-Turkic contributions in Bashkirs are not exclusively related to their West Eurasian ancestry since Finno-Ugrics already had East Eurasian ancestry before any Turkic people arrived in their regions.


"What exactly the Turks on the Balkans spoke in 18 c, is unknown as it was never written down."

Of course it is known, they spoke the dialects of Balkan Turkish (which they still speak), Ottoman Turkish was not used by the common people.

I said "spoken Ottoman Turkish", so it is clear from the context that by "Ottoman Turkish" I meant any form of the Oghuz Turkic-descended Turkish language spoken in the Ottoman Empire as explained in this Wikipedia article:

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

"In a social and pragmatic sense, there were (at least) three variants of Ottoman Turkish:

Fasih Türkçe (Eloquent Turkish): the language of poetry and administration, Ottoman Turkish in its strict sense;
Orta Türkçe (Middle Turkish): the language of higher classes and trade;
Kaba Türkçe (Rough Turkish): the language of lower classes."


Onur, what do you think about Yakuts? There is a very small difference between Yakuts and their non-Turkic neighbours (and ironically, it's the West Eurasian admixture in Yakuts), not to mention the fact that their language is one of the most distinct Turkic languages due its non-Turkic elements. Interestingly, Yakuts have never been questioned by those who are eager to explain the ethnogenesis of Turkic ethnicities with language shift model, maybe because they are over 90% East Eurasian, which automatically makes them "the purest Turkic people" in the eyes of many.

Fortunately for you, the two genetic papers I linked for Bashkirs also cover Yakuts. Yakuts and closely-related Dolgans have substantial ancestry from their Tungusic neighbors Evens and Evenks, so in no way I would use them as a representative of Proto-Turkic genetics.

Alkaevli
01-25-2018, 09:25 PM
I have never claimed that Bashkirs have exclusively or almost exclusively non-Turkic ancestry from the Turkicized locals, and I do not know eolien's views on this issue in detail. Bashkirs are genetically a multi-layered amalgamation of Finno-Ugric, Indo-European and Turkic genetic elements as is made clear by these two important genetic papers:

https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdfExtended/S0002-9297(16)30160-4


I know, that part of my post was directed at eolien.

eolien
01-26-2018, 09:16 AM
I know, that part of my post was directed at eolien.

I relied on these passages from the first paper cited by Onur:
"The Volga-Ural region is populated by three major language and cultural groups: Uralic, Turkic and Slavic speakers. Bashkir and Tatar are major Turkic groups in the region. Although both ethnic groups live in the same region and their languages are mutually intelligible, we surprisingly detected only a limited amount of ancient IBD blocks shared between them, and their overall IBD sharing pattern is different: Tatar share moderate amount of IBD (3.55–7.35 cM per pair) with all neighbouring populations, while Bashkir share most of their ancient blocks (on average 8.62 cM per pair) with Khanty, a group of Uralic speakers from Western Siberia. We speculate that this disparity between cultural and genetic affinities of Tatar and Bashkir can be attributed to a phenomenon of cultural dominance: the population ancestral to Bashkir adopted the Turkic language during Turkic expansion from the east (language replacement event)."

"One of most curious findings involved the Bashkir, an ethnicity with an extremely complex historical background. There are three main theories describing Bashkir origins: “Turkic”, “Finno-Ugric”, and “Iranian” [76, 77]. According to the “Turkic” theory, most Bashkir genetic ancestry was formed by Turkic tribes migrating from Central Asia in the first millennium AD. The “Finno-Ugric” theory stipulates that the nucleus of Bashkir ancestry was formed by the Magyar (Hungarians), who were later assimilated by Turkic tribes and adopted a Turkic language, while the “Iranian” theory considers Bashkir to be descendants of Sarmatians from the southern Ural.

Speaking generally, our findings add weight to “Finno-Ugric” theory of the origin of Bashkir. A majority of Bashkir IBD fragments were shared with Khanty, an ethnicity related to Magyar. Interestingly, some works point out that before the thirteenth century the Hungarians were commonly called Bashkir ([78], pp. 289–294). It is surmised that the Magyar ethnicity was formed in the region between Volga and the Ural Mountains, then, at the end of the sixth century AD, moved to the Don-Kuban steppes abandoned by the Proto-Bulgarians followed by the move to their present location between Dnieper and Danube somewhat later.

Further analyses (ADMIXTURE and recent IBD) pointed to proximity of Bashkir to Turkic-speaking Tatar and Chuvash as well as to Finno-Ugric Udmurt and Khanty. In addition, results of f3 outgroup analysis indicate that Bashkir, in contrary to other Turkic speakers, were strongly influenced by Ancient Northern Eurasians, highlighting a mismatch of their cultural background and genetic ancestry and an intricacy of the historic interface between Turkic and Uralic populations. As a general pattern, the Eastern European speakers of Uralic languages share large amounts of IBD with Khanty and Ket, with Turkic speaking Bashkir being added to this rule.

It is noteworthy that the genomes of closest linguistic relatives of Bashkir, Volga Tatar, bears very little traces of East Asian or Central Siberian ancestry. Volga Tatar are a mix between Bulgar who carried a large Finno-Ugric component, Pecheneg, Kuman, Khazar, local Finno-Ugric tribes, and even Alan. Therefore, Volga Tatars are predominantly European ethnicity with a tiny contribution of East-Asian component. As most Tatar’ IBD is shared with various Turkic and Uralic populations from Volga-Ural region, an amalgamation of various cultures is evident. When the original Finno-Ugric speaking people were conquered by Turkic tribes, both Tatar and Chuvash are likely to have experience language replacement, while retaining their genetic core. Most likely, these events took place sometime around VIII century AD, after the relocation of Bulgar tribes to Volga and Kama river basins, and expansion of Turkic people.

We speculate that Bashkir, Tatar, Chuvash and Finno-Ugric speakers from Volga basin has a common Turkic component, which could have been acquired as a result of Turkic expansion to Volga-Urals region. However, the original Finno-Ugric substrate was not homogeneous: Tatar and Chuvash genomes carry mainly “Finno-Permic” component, while Bashkir carry the “Magyar” one. The fraction of the Turkic component in Bashkir is, undoubtedly, quite significant, and larger than that in Tatar and Chuvash. This component reflects the South Siberian influence on Bashkir, which makes them related to Altai, Kyrgyz, Tuvinian, and Kazakh people.

As a standalone approach, an analysis of shared IBD is not sufficient to support the Finno-Ugric hypothesis of Bashkir origin as a sole source, while pointing at temporal separation of genetic components in Bashkir. Hence, we demonstrated that Bashkir genepool is a multifaceted, multicomponent system, lacking the main “core”; it is an amalgamation of Turkic, Ugric, Finnish and Indo-European contributions. In this mosaic, it is impossible to identify the leading element. Therefore, Bashkir are the most genetically diverse ethnic group of the Volga-Urals region."

Emphasises added by me. One can disagree with their conclusions but the data are quite solid i my opinion.

eolien
01-26-2018, 10:05 AM
Language shift model: a population shifts to speaking a different language with little-to-no change in gene pool.

Apparently even Bashkirs have become victims of the phenomenon of explaining the ethnogenesis of Turkic-speaking ethnicities with language shift model. Yes, it is annoying. I have never seen anyone explaining the ethnogenesis of any Indo-European speaking population with the language shift model despite the fact that modern Indo-European speakers are extremely heterogeneous (genetically speaking). I can understand suggesting this model for Gagauz people. But for Bashkirs, seriously? Their culture is one of the best preserved Turkic cultures, not to mention their DNA results. It becomes more and more obvious that Turkic peoples emerged as a result of the interaction between West Eurasian and East Eurasian ancestral populations in the steppe, so some of their Y-DNA lineages must have been West/North Eurasian in origin.

I dare say, Bashkirs have more proto-Turkic ancestry than most IE-speakers have PIE ancestry (even if you choose to attribute all of their West Eurasian admixture to assimilated non-Turkic populations).


I cannot agree with your definition of language shift. I also think this is not the common understanding of it. We are not talking about the elite dominance model here which is an extreme case of it. In most cases there is a significant population settling there. On of the most recent examples is the Arabization of the North Africa and the Middle East. We can very well follow that process in historical times, especially the aspects related to language shift.

The Baskir Turks (coming beyond Urals to their present country) already carried western and eastern asiatic DNA. In fact the common consensus of turkish enthogenesis is based on such an encounter (similar to what happended with Uyghurs after their migration or with Kok-turks). Nevertheless it is exciting that they can distinguish between Ugric and Magyar sources, which is obvoiously great for better understanding of the Magyar history.

Onur Dincer
01-26-2018, 04:05 PM
I cannot agree with your definition of language shift. I also think this is not the common understanding of it. We are not talking about the elite dominance model here which is an extreme case of it. In most cases there is a significant population settling there. On of the most recent examples is the Arabization of the North Africa and the Middle East. We can very well follow that process in historical times, especially the aspects related to language shift.

Yes eolien. For the same reason, the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age spread of the Indo-European languages is also shown as an example to language shift by elite dominance despite the fact that the genetic impact of the early Indo-European invaders was quite high in most cases so much so that they replaced most of the Y-DNA haplogroups in most of Europe. The key factor in the elite dominance model is not the number of the elite group imposing its language on the invaded groups, but the process of the imposing of language by the elite group itself. Of course, we cannot compare the genetic impact of the medieval Turkic migration to Anatolia, Azerbaijan and the environs and that of the medieval Arab migration to the Near East and North Africa to the much stronger genetic impact of Indo-Europeans in most of Europe during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, population dynamics had changed a lot in most of Eurasia and North Africa from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age times to the Late and post-Bronze Age times and populations had become much more stable and much more resistant to big demographic changes even in cases of mass migrations that resulted in language shifts.

Dibran
02-21-2018, 12:56 AM
I think there are two scenarios.

Scenario I

They were Turkifield Balkan natives and resettled to Besarabia. But that scenario doesn't explain their religion.

Scenario II

They were a Turkic tribe and mixed with natives. As far as I know some Turkic tribes such as Huns, Bulgars etc... arrived Europe a few centuries before the Ottomans. It could explain why they speak a Turkic language and also the religion. I know that their language is little bit different than Oghuz Turkish.

I always figured Gaugauz were remnants of the turkic speaking Bulgars. Their genetics could be explained through integration into the largely Slavic/Native autosomal results. Perhaps the turkic ancestry was weeded out, whilst the linguistic preservation remained? Idk.

Onur Dincer
02-21-2018, 02:44 AM
I always figured Gaugauz were remnants of the turkic speaking Bulgars. Their genetics could be explained through integration into the largely Slavic/Native autosomal results. Perhaps the turkic ancestry was weeded out, whilst the linguistic preservation remained? Idk.

But Gagauz do not speak the Turkic Bulgar language, which is extinct (assuming Chuvash is not a direct descendant of the Turkic Bulgar language but a sister language), Gagauz speak a Balkan dialect of (Ottoman) Turkish, which is from the Oghuz branch of Turkic rather than the Hunno-Bulgar (Oghur) branch. Oghuz and Oghur are distant branches of the Turkic language family and are totally mutually unintelligible.

J Man
02-21-2018, 03:04 AM
I remember a study from years ago and from what I remember the Y-DNA lineages of the Gagauz in that study were mainly native Balkan types. They are likely mainly Turkified Balkan natvies.

Volat
02-21-2018, 03:27 AM
But Gagauz do not speak the Turkic Bulgar language, which is extinct (assuming Chuvash is not a direct descendant of the Turkic Bulgar language but a sister language), Gagauz speak a Balkan dialect of (Ottoman) Turkish, which is from the Oghuz branch of Turkic rather than the Hunno-Bulgar (Oghur) branch. Oghuz and Oghur are distant branches of the Turkic language family and are totally mutually unintelligible.

It's generally accepted Chuvash language is descendant of the language Volga Bulgar spoke evident from notes of Arab traveler Ibn Fadland who visited Volga Bulgari after the state adopted Islam in 921. He met rulers of Volga Bulgaria, as he was a member of embassy. Also evident from numerous grave writings, given names and other pieces of information. Prior to Bulgar arrival ancestors of Chuvashes and Kazan Tatars spoke Finno-Ugric, as they live around FInno-Ugrikc people: Mari (who are also culturally similar to Chuvashes), Moksh and Erzya to south-west. Historic Muroma to the west and hisitoric Merja to north-west.

Volat
02-21-2018, 03:30 AM
I remember a study from years ago and from what I remember the Y-DNA lineages of the Gagauz in that study were mainly native Balkan types. They are likely mainly Turkified Balkan natvies.

In modern days most Gagauz living in republic of Moldova are russified. Few can speak Gagauz language in cities. They entered Russian community living in Moldova. Their Orthodoxy religion may helped them to establish closer bonds. Moldovans are also eastern Orthodox.

Volat
02-21-2018, 05:52 AM
I prepared a PCA graph based on Turkic populations from MDLP K23b project. Some immediate geographic non-Turkic neighbours were included . As expected Gagauz population is genetically similar to those of Romanian and Bulgarian.

Genetically similar to Romanians and Bulgarians.
Their religion is eastern Orthodox.
Modern day Gagauz speak Russian
Native and historic language of Gagauz was Balkan version of Oghuz (the language of Anatolian Turks, Azeri, Turkmens)


See attachment or zoom in for greater detail on dropbox : https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrrgwbq12ilecrc/k60.png

Volat
02-21-2018, 06:25 AM
Other observations from the plot above.

Among Turkic most northern are Kryashen_Tatars (eastern Orthodox Tatars). They mixed with the Russians?
Crimean Tatars of the steppes (northern Crimea) are genetically distant to Crimean Tatars of the coast and mountains of Crimea (southern Crimea). The latter are genetically similar to people of northern Caucasus (non-Turkic Kabardins) and western Anatolians. Azov Greeks are also similar to them. Azov Greeks' ancestors were deported to Azov sea region from southern Crimea after Crimea was transfered from Ottoman to Russian empire in late 19th century

Modernancientdna
02-21-2018, 07:16 AM
Modern Gagauz is most similar with any native Balkan population specifically Bulgarians, Romanians, Macedonians, Serbs the results is obvious from autosomal comparison and most frequent Y-DNA I2 23.6%, R1A 19.1%. Only Anatolian Turks similar genetically with Gagauz is recent arrivals to Anatolia from Balkans cause genetically they also Slavicised-Balkan Turks.

Language is variable that can change all the time, no relation to genetics.

Here is my own results:

Starting known populations: Moldavian=37.6%; Polish=62.4%; Initial stdeviation=1.0082

3.9% of Altaian taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.67171 match quality:1.3662 max diff: 0.69444%
3.4% of Tuvinian taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.67206 match quality:1.3665 max diff: 0.69444%
3% of Oroqen taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.67335 match quality:1.3678 max diff: 0.69444%
3.5% of Mongolian taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.67599 match quality:1.3704 max diff: 0.69444%
2.9% of Daur taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.69362 match quality:1.3881 max diff: 0.69444%
11.6% of Tatar taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.69924 match quality:1.3937 max diff: 0.69444%
2.8% of Xibo taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.71714 match quality:1.4116 max diff: 0.69444%
2.6% of Yakut taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.72687 match quality:1.4213 max diff: 0.69444%
2.6% of Chukchi taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.73802 match quality:1.4325 max diff: 0.69444%
2.6% of Koryak taken from: Moldavian std dev: 0.73896 match quality:1.4334 max diff: 0.69444%

Volat
02-21-2018, 07:16 AM
It explains their religion pretty well if they switched to Turkish during the Ottoman times or during the late Rum Seljuk times (assuming that the Seljuk migration theory is correct). Their Turkic language is the Balkan variant of the Ottoman Turkish language, the language what is nowadays called Balkan Turkish, they specifically speak its Dobrudja dialect as Gagauz people lived in Dobrudja before being resettled in Bessarabia during the 19th century. In fact, as a Balkan Turk you should understand the language of Gagauz people pretty well.

There were Turkic tribes roaming steppes of southern Ukraine in 7th-12th centuries: Pechenegs, Torks (not to be confused with Turks), Berendei related to Torks. There's some evidence to suggest those spoke a variant of Oghuz language of Turkic linguistic family. They could be ancestors of Gagauz settling in south-eastern Romania and north-eastern Bulgaria at the time Ottomans were not around. Gagauz ancestors adopted Christianity as all others in the region including Danube Bulgars, for example. Similar religion was not an obstacle for intermarriages that explains genetic proximity. During Ottoman rule, the language of Ottomans had influence on the language of Gagauz, so Gagauz language converged. There was also conversion of Kypchak language spoken in Crimea (Lingua franca in Golden Horde) to Oghuz language of Anatolian Turks.

Modernancientdna
02-21-2018, 07:20 AM
Russian Empire

Volat
02-21-2018, 08:01 AM
Gagauz wedding.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2zhjLvx1mA

Modernancientdna
02-21-2018, 09:45 AM
Majority from wedding will pass in south Slavic country, maybe couple people can pass Turkey but must be considered this group has been heavily assimilated in Bessarabia since end of WW2, so the modern Gagauz is most likely some genetic differences to Gagauz of 2 or 3 centuries in the past.

Fungene
05-19-2018, 02:53 PM
Here’s a way to look at relatedness between modern Gagauz and ancient samples from the supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes.”
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

The relevant part is Section 4.
The dot hovering just to the west of the Black Sea represents modern Gagauz, while the dot in central Europe represents modern Germans.

Shared genetic drift between modern populations and each of the 137 ancients is provided in a map. This is for each one of the 137 ancient samples. Nice feature. It is intended to give a quick visual clue as to whether an ancient individual is genetically closer to modern West Eurasians or East Eurasians. Higher values (= genetically closer) are represented by red, lower, by blue. Let’s focus on the yellow to red.

Interesting pattern (in spite of just being based on eyeballing): if one of these ancient samples is related to Gagauz (a yellow to orange dot for Gagauz shows up on the map for that sample), it is at least as strongly related to German (relatedness indicated by color is at least equal, and almost always higher.) The reverse doesn’t seem to occur.
Take a look at: DA191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 111, 112, 30, 26, 58, 55, 31, 35, 121, 123, 125, 48, 53, 17, 19, 18, 119, 29, 206, 207, 208, 229, 202, 224, 117.

That’s 31/137 samples. A bunch of Turkic samples don’t register as being related to the Gagauz, although I had expected them to do so. So, obviously, they didn’t make the cut.

Unless you want to categorize Germans as Turkic, it looks like those in this thread who identified the Gagauz as Europeans made the right call.
I didn’t know much about the Gagauz. Ancient DNA helps us find out more about modern populations, and I appreciate that.

Leper
05-20-2018, 07:55 PM
Here’s a way to look at relatedness between modern Gagauz and ancient samples from the supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes.”
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

The relevant part is Section 4.
The dot hovering just to the west of the Black Sea represents modern Gagauz, while the dot in central Europe represents modern Germans.

Shared genetic drift between modern populations and each of the 137 ancients is provided in a map. This is for each one of the 137 ancient samples. Nice feature. It is intended to give a quick visual clue as to whether an ancient individual is genetically closer to modern West Eurasians or East Eurasians. Higher values (= genetically closer) are represented by red, lower, by blue. Let’s focus on the yellow to red.

Interesting pattern (in spite of just being based on eyeballing): if one of these ancient samples is related to Gagauz (a yellow to orange dot for Gagauz shows up on the map for that sample), it is at least as strongly related to German (relatedness indicated by color is at least equal, and almost always higher.) The reverse doesn’t seem to occur.
Take a look at: DA191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 111, 112, 30, 26, 58, 55, 31, 35, 121, 123, 125, 48, 53, 17, 19, 18, 119, 29, 206, 207, 208, 229, 202, 224, 117.

That’s 31/137 samples. A bunch of Turkic samples don’t register as being related to the Gagauz, although I had expected them to do so. So, obviously, they didn’t make the cut.

Unless you want to categorize Germans as Turkic, it looks like those in this thread who identified the Gagauz as Europeans made the right call.
I didn’t know much about the Gagauz. Ancient DNA helps us find out more about modern populations, and I appreciate that.

Gagauz are Turkic because they speak a Turkic language and indentify themselves as so. Ethnogenesis of contemporary nations/ethnicites does not (and did not) determined by their genetic structure. Their genetic proximity to Germans can't change the fact that they are a Turkic population.

Dorkymon
05-20-2018, 08:11 PM
Gagauz are Turkic because they speak a Turkic language and indentify themselves as so. Ethnogenesis of contemporary nations/ethnicites does not (and did not) determined by their genetic structure. Their genetic proximity to Germans can't change the fact that they are a Turkic population.

That's debatable, because they barely speak Gagauz. Their main language is Russian. Gagauz is in the same position as Irish. Without a proper revival, it will die out slowly.

JerryS.
05-20-2018, 08:33 PM
That's debatable, because they barely speak Gagauz. Their main language is Russian. Gagauz is in the same position as Irish. Without a proper revival, it will die out slowly.

just so I'm clear... regardless of their language or location, ethnically they are Turkish people?

Leper
05-20-2018, 08:37 PM
That's debatable, because they barely speak Gagauz. Their main language is Russian. Gagauz is in the same position as Irish. Without a proper revival, it will die out slowly.

Their main language is not Russian. I don't know where did you get that idea. Even so, that doesn't make any difference on their idendity.

Fungene
05-20-2018, 08:53 PM
This is a genetics and anthropology discussion forum. So data-based discussion of genetics is apposite.

Onur Dincer
05-20-2018, 09:31 PM
Gagauz are Turkic because they speak a Turkic language and indentify themselves as so. Ethnogenesis of contemporary nations/ethnicites does not (and did not) determined by their genetic structure. Their genetic proximity to Germans can't change the fact that they are a Turkic population.

In the Ottoman sources they are mentioned as Bulgarians, Rums (Orthodox) or just Christians, but never as Turks. Their identification as Turks is a modern one under the influence of Turkish nationalism and is not commonly shared by the Gagauz people. If they are a Turkic population, they are an unusual one due to lacking unambiguous signs of Turkic ancestry in their genetics.

Leper
05-20-2018, 10:54 PM
In the Ottoman sources they are mentioned as Bulgarians, Rums (Orthodox) or just Christians, but never as Turks. Their identification as Turks is a modern one under the influence of Turkish nationalism and is not commonly shared by the Gagauz people. If they are a Turkic population, they are an unusual one due to lacking unambiguous signs of Turkic ancestry in their genetics.

It is quite normal that Gagauz were not specifically mentioned as Turks in the Ottoman sources since the term "Turk" often used as a synonymous term for "muslim" in the Balkans. Not to mention they were bound to either Bulgarian or Greek orthodox churches, so it would have been natural to see if sometimes they were lumped together with them. We are talking about an era which the knowledge of "nationality" did not exist after all. So your argument doesn't make much sense when it comes to identifying Gagauz. They have been always speaking Turkish.

But I would like to see in which Ottoman sources they were referred as Bulgarian or Greek. Personally never heard that before.

Onur Dincer
05-20-2018, 11:39 PM
It is quite normal that Gagauz were not specifically mentioned as Turks in the Ottoman sources since the term "Turk" often used as a synonymous term for "muslim" in the Balkans. Not to mention they were bound to either Bulgarian or Greek orthodox churches, so it would have been natural to see if sometimes they were lumped together with them. We are talking about an era which the knowledge of "nationality" did not exist after all. So your argument doesn't make much sense when it comes to identifying Gagauz. They have been always speaking Turkish.

But I would like to see in which Ottoman sources they were referred as Bulgarian or Greek. Personally never heard that before.

Rum was a general term for the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire regardless of ethnicity in addition to its narrow meaning of Greek Orthodox. The Gagauz people were grouped among Rums together with all other Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire in the broad meaning of the term Rum. As for the term Bulgarian, it was used in an ethnic sense for the Gagauz too. These are from the Wikipedia article on the Gagauz:

"The Encyclopedia of World Cultures lists the ethnonym of the Gagauz as "Turkish speaking Bulgars".[11] Astrid Menz writes this about the etymology:

"Older ethnographic works such as Pees (1894) and Jireček (1891)—both covering the Gagauz in Bulgaria—mention that only their neighbors used the ethnonym Gagauz, partly as an insult. The Gagauz themselves did not use this self-designation; indeed, they considered it offensive. Both Pees and Jireček mention that the Gagauz in Bulgaria tended to register either as Greek because of their religion (clearly an outcome of the Ottoman millet-system) or as Bulgarian because of the newly emerging concept of nationalism. According to Pees informants from Moldova, the Gagauz there called themselves Hıristiyan-Bulgar (Christian Bulgars), and Gagauz was used only as a nickname (Pees 1894, p. 90). The etymology of the ethnonym Gagauz is as unclear as their history. As noted above, they are not mentioned—at least not under that name—in any historical sources before their immigration into Bessarabia. Therefore, we have no older versions of this ethnonym. This, combined with the report that the Gagauz felt offended when called by this name, makes the etymology somewhat dubious.""

"In the 19th century, before their migration to Bessarabia, the Gagauzes from the Bulgarian territories of the Ottoman Empire considered themselves Bulgarians. Ethnological research suggest that "Gagauz" was a linguistic distinction and not ethnic. Gagauzes to that time called themselves "Hasli Bulgar" (True Bulgars) or "Eski Bulgar" (Old Bulgars) and considered the term "Gagauz" applied to them by the Slavic-speaking Bulgarians (who they called "toukan") demeaning."

"Until 1869, the Gagauz in Bessarabia were described as Bulgarians. During the Romanian rule of southernmost Bessarabia (1856–1878), they supported Bulgarian schools in their settlements and participated in the Bulgarian national movement. Therefore, some ethnologists (Karel Škorpil, Gavril Zanetov, Benyo Tsonev) claim Bulgarian origin for the Gagauz."

Regarding their language, the Turkic language spoken by the Gagauz is nothing but a Balkan dialect of the Ottoman Turkish language and as such it clusters with the other Balkan dialects of the Ottoman Turkish language. Since the Gagauz speak the local spoken Ottoman Turkish dialect of their region in the Balkans along with Muslims of that region there is no reason to to assume a pre-Ottoman Turkic language for the ancestors of the Gagauz, they may well have switched from Bulgarian to Turkish during the Ottoman times. Interestingly, one of the two dialects spoken by the Gagauz is called the Bulgarian dialect:

"The modern Gagauz language has two dialects: central (or ‘‘Bulgar’’) and southern (or maritime) (Pokrovskaya, 1964; Gordon, 2005)."

Fungene
05-21-2018, 07:42 PM
Here’s a way to look at relatedness between modern Gagauz and ancient samples from the supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes.”
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

The relevant part is Section 4.
The dot hovering just to the west of the Black Sea represents modern Gagauz, while the dot in central Europe represents modern Germans.

Shared genetic drift between modern populations and each of the 137 ancients is provided in a map. This is for each one of the 137 ancient samples. Nice feature. It is intended to give a quick visual clue as to whether an ancient individual is genetically closer to modern West Eurasians or East Eurasians. Higher values (= genetically closer) are represented by red, lower, by blue. Let’s focus on the yellow to red.

Interesting pattern (in spite of just being based on eyeballing): if one of these ancient samples is related to Gagauz (a yellow to orange dot for Gagauz shows up on the map for that sample), it is at least as strongly related to German (relatedness indicated by color is at least equal, and almost always higher.) The reverse doesn’t seem to occur.
Take a look at: DA191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 111, 112, 30, 26, 58, 55, 31, 35, 121, 123, 125, 48, 53, 17, 19, 18, 119, 29, 206, 207, 208, 229, 202, 224, 117.


More samples fitting the pattern: DA171, DA 134, DA136, DA139, DA141, DA143, DA144, DA145, DA146, DA160, DA161, DA162, DA164
Bucking the trend, but barely (this means that similarity with modern Germans is still notable):
- DA188, Region: Belgorod
Radiocarbon 14C date: 1187 +- 31 BP uncal =calAD 831+/- 43*
Population label: Saltovo-Mayaki
- DA189Region: Belgorod
, Period: 750-900 AD
Population label: Saltovo-Mayaki

*Conversion using http://www.calpal-online.de

Correction: there is no sample DA55

Volat
05-23-2018, 04:21 AM
Their main language is not Russian. I don't know where did you get that idea. Even so, that doesn't make any difference on their idendity.

Their main language is Russian. They were russified. Only enthusiast and possibly older generation in rural areas speak Gagauz. You can find this yourself. Here's an article: "Why Gagauz prefer Russian"? All documentations in administration, the study programs in schools and institutions are conducted in Russian: https://inosmi.ru/social/20160715/237202192.html
Typical Gagauz websites which are in Russian language :
http://www.gagauz.md/
http://gagauzinfo.md/