PDA

View Full Version : Estimating Central Asian Genetic Contribution to Turks



Buhedyar
01-23-2018, 05:38 PM
Hi. I tried to calculate the "Central Asian heritage" by using Afghan Turkmens on Eurogenes k13 spreadsheet and comparing them to Turkish Eurogenes K13 results. If anyone's wondering here Afghan Turkmen results on Eurogenes K13 spreadsheet:

Afghan Turkmen on Eurogenes K13 spreadsheet:
North Atlantic: 7.16
Baltic: 12.65
West_Med: 3.08
West_Asian: 22.29
East_Med: 7.92
Red_Sea: 0.41
South_Asian: 8.31
East_Asian: 10.56
Siberian: 24.77
Amerindian: 1.32

If you're wondering, a Central Anatolian Turk (personal)
North_Atlantic 6.98
Baltic: 7.15
West_Med: 11.52
West_Asian: 27.26
East_Med: 25.23
Red_Sea: 5.11
South_Asian: 2.80
East_Asian 5.52
Siberian: 7.36
Amerindian 1.08


Average mongoloid dna seems to be around 36.65% for Turkmens from Afghanistan. Turks are around 8-15% If Seljuk Turkmens were similar to Afghan Turkmens, then the average Turks are around 30-35% Seljuk. I got the Turkish results from this page https://turkishdna.blogspot.com.tr/2018/01/turkiye-otozomal-il-ortalamalar.html


My method: Just compared Afghan Turkmen mongoloid dna to Turkish mongoloid dna and calculated what percent of Turkish mongoloid dna is Afghan Turkmen mongoloid dna.


Results:

South Turkey

Adana: %33.39
Hatay: %24.52
Mersin: %35.06
Antalya: %35.03
Gaziantep: %19.20
Kilis: %12.55

Aegean and Southwestern Turkey

Afyon: %33.64
Afyon-Emirdağ: %31.51
Denizli: %31.29
Antalya: %35.30
Kütahya: %30.28
Muğla: %47.85
Manisa: %33.31
İzmir: %37.35
Uşak: %22.45
Isparta: %22.07

Thrace and Northwest Turkey

Eskişehir: %33.80
Sakarya: %45.53
Balıkesir: %40.35
Çanakkale: %45.18
Bolu: %30.85
Karabük: %31.73
İstanbul-1: %19.72
İstanbul-2: %16.69
Edirne: %20.57

Central-West Turkey

Konya: %22.67
Ankara: %26.38
Karaman: %26.11
Çankırı: %25.15
Aksaray: %27.20

Central-East Turkey

Niğde: %27.80
Kayseri: %25.59
Kırşehir: %32.16
Tokat: %25.83
Yozgat: %23.02
Nevşehir: %21.11
Sivas: %16.18

Eastern Turkey

Batman: %12.27
Malatya: %16.38
Elazığ: %9.95
Erzincan: %13.34
Erzurum-İspir: %3.54

Eastern Black Sea

Trabzon Outlier: %12.82
Trabzon: %1.71
Ordu: %35.77
Gümüşhane-Kürtün: %46.22
Giresun: %33.26
Rize: %0.16
Bayburt: %0.30

Central Black Sea

Samsun: %24.82


All provinces combined: 23.17%




Note: This is just my non-professional work. If you think my method is wrong please discuss and point out my mistakes.

Buhedyar
01-23-2018, 07:12 PM
Of course these numbers are not 100% correct. Different Turkmen tribes migrated from different places. There were even Turkmen tribes from Azerbaijan that migrated to Anatolia (Karamanid dynasty is one of them). Also some Turkmens migrated from Kazakhstan, some from Turkmenistan some from Afghanistan and some from Iran. So Turkmens were probably very diverse and this also correlates with unstable mongoloid component in Turks, some Turkmens were probably similar to modern day Turkmenistan Turkmens, some were probably similar to Uzbeks and Afghan Turkmens. For now we can't say anything about Oghuz Turk genetic contribution to Anatolian Turks for we don't know anything Medieval Oghuz Turks' genetics (we need at least 10.000 samples from different years and some Ottoman/Seljuk sultan samples) but we can estimate the genetic contribution by using modern populations.

Onur Dincer
01-24-2018, 03:11 AM
For now we can't say anything about Oghuz Turk genetic contribution to Anatolian Turks for we don't know anything Medieval Oghuz Turks' genetics (we need at least 10.000 samples from different years and some Ottoman/Seljuk sultan samples) but we can estimate the genetic contribution by using modern populations.

Ultimately we need ancient DNA data to give a satisfactory answer on this subject, but 10.000 DNA samples from different periods is certainly not a necessity (even modern populations are not sampled so densely), especially if we will also study the autosomes. What is necessary is to take DNA samples from the earliest Oghuz/Turcoman cemeteries in Anatolia and environs (say, from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries) as much as we can. But taking DNA samples from the Oghuz/Turcoman cemeteries of the Oghuz Yabgu State in what is now Kazakhstan would also be informative, at least in an auxiliary way.

Anabasis
01-24-2018, 06:55 AM
Why do you only compare mongoloid components? You should compare all components score overall. There are many tools about that like oracles and nmonte.

eolien
01-24-2018, 10:55 AM
I am personally very much against this methodology and its conclusions. There are people (not me unfortunately) who could suggest what is the best mathematical way of doing it but I think many if not most posts are here contaminated with our biased understanding of the turkish and turkic history.

Correct me if I am wrong but your question is about the initial (lets say pre-ottoman) genetic contribution of Turkmens (=Oghuz) population to the Anatolia of that time. Or is it about the the asiatic precentage of the present day population. Because these are very different questions. Whatever your question is, it cannot be answered by a few samples from here and there without any controls and any indication of statistical significance. As a layman, I could immediately observe the lack of any indication of variance or of standard variation on averages.

Second, you cannot take one component like Siberian and ignore the rest of the populations, what kind of scenario do you imagine that could lead from your Afgan Turkmen to the Central Anatolian Turk? It just doesn't make sense.

Third, you ignore the whole phenomena of language replacement, please just see the uniparental results of Hungarians, the genetic contribution of 'real' Hungarians are estimated not more than 3-5% in Hungary. And they managed a whole shift of language shift.

Historically, there were significant migrations from Inner Asia to Anatolia but not all of them were Turkic. And not all of them were Turkmens. And not everyone came from Horasan. Turkmen was mostly a designation for Muslim Turks by the Arabs often with a loaded meaning of pastoral lifestyle.

I think apart from ancient DNA studies we can concentrate on uniparental markers and try to deduce for example the asiatic male contribution to turkish population (like the ones I observe in Caucasian DNA pages, accomplished succesfully).

From Geneplaza K29 results that I shared with you here in another thread, it is clear that different Turks get a share from different Turkic groups but not always from Turkmens. And until now never more than 15-20% in total (just keep in mind that we are talking about present turkic populations). It shouldn't be so difficult to choose some very 'pure' looking Turkmen and Yörük samples and run this K29 test on them.

Or we could try one of these K25, K30 calculators represented in autosomal DNA threads.

In conclusion, there might be some Turks here in Anatolia that have lets say 25% Siberian but if these Turks are only 1% of the population what significance does it have? This is the problem with cherry picking of the samples. They are not representative of anything except the samples themselves.

Buhedyar
01-24-2018, 12:57 PM
Why do you only compare mongoloid components? You should compare all components score overall. There are many tools about that like oracles and nmonte.

I compared mongoloid components (Amerindian, Siberian and East Asian) only because it's the only unique admixture that Central Asians brought here (they also brought other components here but i'm talking about 'unique' components). Byzantine Anatolians obviously didn't and don't have any mongoloid in them (and even when they did, it's in very small amounts) so i thought it's safe to compare mongoloid components. Also according to oracle, for example, Çanakkale sample comes up as 3 51% Cyprian + 49% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.76 or 15 54% South_Italian + 46% Afghan_Turkmen @ 7.04 16 54.9% Ashkenazi + 45.1% Afghan_Turkmen @ 7.07 but according to my method çanakkale sample comes up as 45.18% Afghan Turkmen. So my method is close to oracle's methods too i think.

Buhedyar
01-24-2018, 01:04 PM
I am personally very much against this methodology and its conclusions. There are people (not me unfortunately) who could suggest what is the best mathematical way of doing it but I think many if not most posts are here contaminated with our biased understanding of the turkish and turkic history.

Correct me if I am wrong but your question is about the initial (lets say pre-ottoman) genetic contribution of Turkmens (=Oghuz) population to the Anatolia of that time. Or is it about the the asiatic precentage of the present day population. Because these are very different questions. Whatever your question is, it cannot be answered by a few samples from here and there without any controls and any indication of statistical significance. As a layman, I could immediately observe the lack of any indication of variance or of standard variation on averages.

Second, you cannot take one component like Siberian and ignore the rest of the populations, what kind of scenario do you imagine that could lead from your Afgan Turkmen to the Central Anatolian Turk? It just doesn't make sense.

Third, you ignore the whole phenomena of language replacement, please just see the uniparental results of Hungarians, the genetic contribution of 'real' Hungarians are estimated not more than 3-5% in Hungary. And they managed a whole shift of language shift.

Historically, there were significant migrations from Inner Asia to Anatolia but not all of them were Turkic. And not all of them were Turkmens. And not everyone came from Horasan. Turkmen was mostly a designation for Muslim Turks by the Arabs often with a loaded meaning of pastoral lifestyle.

I think apart from ancient DNA studies we can concentrate on uniparental markers and try to deduce for example the asiatic male contribution to turkish population (like the ones I observe in Caucasian DNA pages, accomplished succesfully).

From Geneplaza K29 results that I shared with you here in another thread, it is clear that different Turks get a share from different Turkic groups but not always from Turkmens. And until now never more than 15-20% in total (just keep in mind that we are talking about present turkic populations). It shouldn't be so difficult to choose some very 'pure' looking Turkmen and Yörük samples and run this K29 test on them.

Or we could try one of these K25, K30 calculators represented in autosomal DNA threads.

In conclusion, there might be some Turks here in Anatolia that have lets say 25% Siberian but if these Turks are only 1% of the population what significance does it have? This is the problem with cherry picking of the samples. They are not representative of anything except the samples themselves.


My question is about genetic contribution of Medieval Oghuzes. I used Afghan Turkmen average on Eurogenes K13 to calculate it. And about the number of samples, honestly we can't do anything about it for now.

And i didn't take "Siberian" component only. I also took Amerindian and East Asian too. Read my post above.

Historically, yes i'm aware of the fact that not only Turkmens migrated to Anatolia. But majority of the people who migrated were Turkmens/Oghuzes. In my second post i also explained that not all of them came from Khorasan.

Buhedyar
01-24-2018, 01:06 PM
Ultimately we need ancient DNA data to give a satisfactory answer on this subject, but 10.000 DNA samples from different periods is certainly not a necessity (even modern populations are not sampled so densely), especially if we will also study the autosomes. What is necessary is to take DNA samples from the earliest Oghuz/Turcoman cemeteries in Anatolia and environs (say, from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries) as much as we can. But taking DNA samples from the Oghuz/Turcoman cemeteries of the Oghuz Yabgu State in what is now Kazakhstan would also be informative, at least in an auxiliary way.

When i said "10.000" i was just exaggerating. But it'd be very nice if we could examine the dna of at least 1000 Oghuz Turks from 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries along with some Seljuk and Ottoman rulers' (first Ottoman sultans) dna.

eolien
01-24-2018, 01:27 PM
I compared mongoloid components (Amerindian, Siberian and East Asian) only because it's the only unique admixture that Central Asians brought here (they also brought other components here but i'm talking about 'unique' components). Byzantine Anatolians obviously didn't and don't have any mongoloid in them (and even when they did, it's in very small amounts) so i thought it's safe to compare mongoloid components. Also according to oracle, for example, Çanakkale sample comes up as 3 51% Cyprian + 49% Afghan_Turkmen @ 5.76 or 15 54% South_Italian + 46% Afghan_Turkmen @ 7.04 16 54.9% Ashkenazi + 45.1% Afghan_Turkmen @ 7.07 but according to my method çanakkale sample comes up as 45.18% Afghan Turkmen. So my method is close to oracle's methods too i think.

You see the problem in the oracles themselves. How does the oracle work, exactly like you do but in a more sophisticated way. The problem is as follows (Onur or Anabasis can correct me if I am mistaken). The oracle tries to find the best match among the reference populations. In our case a combination of Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi and Central Asian. You assume that Afgan Turkmen as proxy for Oghuz Turks and the Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi as proxy for pre-turkic western anatolian. Now how much was the local population of Anatolia (e.g. of Canakkale, i.e. Romans) was similar to Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi ? In general terms perhaps not too wrong but it is not too informative.

Since I have a science background we could the following control experiement: Take a Iranian, Kurdish, Armenian and Georgian sample and run the same calculator, let's see if Afgan Turkmen will pop-up?

Just take that sample and run K29 in geneplaza. If the turkmen portion in that test comes out more than 30%, you are on the correct path. What disturbs me is that that Afgan Turkmen had quite a lot of Baltic etc. Anyway perhaps other can comment on that....

Afshar
01-24-2018, 02:29 PM
You see the problem in the oracles themselves. How does the oracle work, exactly like you do but in a more sophisticated way. The problem is as follows (Onur or Anabasis can correct me if I am mistaken). The oracle tries to find the best match among the reference populations. In our case a combination of Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi and Central Asian. You assume that Afgan Turkmen as proxy for Oghuz Turks and the Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi as proxy for pre-turkic western anatolian. Now how much was the local population of Anatolia (e.g. of Canakkale, i.e. Romans) was similar to Cyprian/s. Italian/Ashkenazi ? In general terms perhaps not too wrong but it is not too informative.

Since I have a science background we could the following control experiement: Take a Iranian, Kurdish, Armenian and Georgian sample and run the same calculator, let's see if Afgan Turkmen will pop-up?

Just take that sample and run K29 in geneplaza. If the turkmen portion in that test comes out more than 30%, you are on the correct path. What disturbs me is that that Afgan Turkmen had quite a lot of Baltic etc. Anyway perhaps other can comment on that....
Oracles do not find a match, they find a fit for the series of numbers they get presented.

eolien
01-24-2018, 05:21 PM
Oracles do not find a match, they find a fit for the series of numbers they get presented.

Yes, what I meant was that to choose the best statistically fit matches among the available reference populations. Can we imagine it something like a connecting line between 2 populations in PCA in a spatial sense and the figure next to oracle representing a distance from this imagined point or do I totally misunderstand it?

for example along these lines:

20979

Afshar
01-24-2018, 05:54 PM
I would rather call it putting 2/4 sets of numbers to fit in a single set of numbers (50/25% each), so its just statistics no bases included.

Alkaevli
01-24-2018, 08:21 PM
Since I have a science background we could the following control experiement: Take a Iranian, Kurdish, Armenian and Georgian sample and run the same calculator, let's see if Afgan Turkmen will pop-up?
Excuse my ignorance, I don't have a science background. Why should we use Iranians, Kurds, Armenians and Georgians to represent pre-Turkic West and Central Anatolia? The results of Central Anatolian Greeks resemble those of Cypriots. Rationally speaking, West Anatolian Greeks must be even less West Asian and more Mediterranean than Central Anatolian Greeks.

So, what's the point (assuming you aren't trying to underestimate the Central Asian contribution)?


Third, you ignore the whole phenomena of language replacement, please just see the uniparental results of Hungarians, the genetic contribution of 'real' Hungarians are estimated not more than 3-5% in Hungary. And they managed a whole shift of language shift.

Are you seriously implying that the presence of the Turkish language in Asia Minor can be explained with an elite dominance-driven language replacement model? We aren't in the 2000s anymore, we are in 2018 and things have become much more clear, fortunately. Hungarians are irrelevant.


Autosomal DNA (Dodecad K12b) comparisons of Central Anatolian Greeks, Central Anatolian Turks and Central Asians

Turk_CA: Central Anatolian Turks
Greek_CA: Central Anatolian Greek
Turkmen_Yns: Yunusbayev's Turkmens (likely from Ashgabat)
Turkmen_Uzb: Uzbekistan/Khwarezm Turkmens
https://i.hizliresim.com/1JryaG.png (https://hizliresim.com/1JryaG)

In addition to East Eurasian admixture that Central Anatolian Greeks lack, Central Anatolian Turks have elevated levels of hunter-gatherer (North_European) and Iran_Neolithic-related (Gedrosia, South Asia) admixture, which indicates that Oghuz Turks during the Seljuk period were genetically closer (not identical) to modern Uzbekistan Turkmens than to Karakalpaks. Turkmen_Yunusbayev and Karakalpak are not really good candidates, there is no correlation between Karakalpaks' admixture levels and those of Central Anatolian Turks.


Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of ethnic Turks have Central Asian admixture, we can easily assume that the Turkification of Anatolia occurred (for the most part) via intermarriage. This is also what historical sources tell us.


And when Archbishop Palamas came among Greek Christians in Asia Minor, who might be considered his own people, he observed with some wistfulness – but also some admiration – “the Christians and the Turks mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and being led by each other...”

History of the Ottoman Empire - Douglas A. Howard


There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society

The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century - Speros Jr. Vryonis


In Turcomania there are three classes of people. First, there are Turcomans; these are worshippers of Mahommed, a rude people with uncouth language of their own. They dwell among mountains and downs where they they find good pasture, for their occupation is cattle-keeping. Excellent horses, known as Turquans, are reared in their country, and also very valuable mules. The other two classes are the Armenians and the Greeks, who live mixed with the former in the towns and villages, occupying themselves with trade and handicrafts.

The Travels of Marco Polo, Volume 1
https://i.hizliresim.com/EPpqYq.jpg (https://hizliresim.com/EPpqYq)

Armenians made a clear distinction between Turks and Mongols by describing the latter as "very different than others”

The first who came against our country were not like (ordinary) people. They were awful to see and impossible to describe. They had large heads, like a buffalo, narrow eyes like a chick, short noses like a cat, protruding chins like a dog, narrow waists like an ant, and short legs like a pig. They are completely beardless, possessing the strength of a lion and a screeching voice like an eagle.

History of the Nation of the Archers (the Mongols) - Grigor of Akner





Just take that sample and run K29 in geneplaza. If the turkmen portion in that test comes out more than 30%, you are on the correct path.
Calculators don't work like that. You can't estimate the Central Asian admixture with calculators like geneplaza K29, Kurd's "Turkic calculators" also failed to give a reliable estimate and were inconsistent.



I think apart from ancient DNA studies we can concentrate on uniparental markers and try to deduce for example the asiatic male contribution to turkish population (like the ones I observe in Caucasian DNA pages, accomplished succesfully).
By "Asiatic" are you referring to East Eurasian?



What disturbs me is that that Afgan Turkmen had quite a lot of Baltic etc. Anyway perhaps other can comment on that....
Do you think that is an indication of recent Slavic admixture? :amen:



Historically, there were significant migrations from Inner Asia to Anatolia but not all of them were Turkic. And not all of them were Turkmens. And not everyone came from Horasan. Turkmen was mostly a designation for Muslim Turks by the Arabs often with a loaded meaning of pastoral lifestyle.

Let's get some facts straight:

- There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those migrants were Oghuz Turks
- The names of the 24 great Oghuz tribes can be found in every part of Turkey (as toponyms)
- Turkish is an Oghuz language
- The name "Ghuzz" (Arabic version of Oghuz) was also used in Arabic sources, the Almohads referred to their Turkish mercenaries as "Ghuzz" for example

Buhedyar
01-24-2018, 08:56 PM
https://i.hizliresim.com/1JryaG.png (https://hizliresim.com/1JryaG)

I think Dodecad K12b is not a reliable calculator when it comes to asiatic admixture. It sometimes shows East Asian admixture being more than Siberian admixture in Turkics and sometimes it just "deletes" 1-2% of east eurasian admixture. Eurogenes K13 and MDLP k23b are better imo. But Eurogenes K13 is better because it has less components.

Alkaevli
01-24-2018, 09:25 PM
I think Dodecad K12b is not a reliable calculator when it comes to asiatic admixture. It sometimes shows East Asian admixture being more than Siberian admixture in Turkics and sometimes it just "deletes" 1-2% of east eurasian admixture. Eurogenes K13 and MDLP k23b are better imo. But Eurogenes K13 is better because it has less components.

Eurogenes (as its name indicates) focuses on Europe, Dodecad on the other hand focuses on Eurasia. Eurogenes’ definition of East Asian is different than that of Dodecad, hence the difference in results.

Afshar
01-24-2018, 09:45 PM
Without any relevant ancient dna this is like a "all we have is this" estimation.

Anabasis
01-26-2018, 10:16 PM
Without any relevant ancient dna this is like a "all we have is this" estimation.

Actually there are schytian samples as good ancient reference for proto Turks. On the other hand first turks who comes to anatolia would not have homogenous admixture. The basic conclusion we can do for anatolian Turks are "the inter merriage" as Alkaevli stated. And most probably they were not only "men" but also "female". Nobody can yield the true proportion for the "newcommers". However most of the efforts to find the proportion tend to rise this proportion with unlogical attempts.

Afshar
01-26-2018, 10:44 PM
Actually there are schytian samples as good ancient reference for proto Turks. On the other hand first turks who comes to anatolia would not have homogenous admixture. The basic conclusion we can do for anatolian Turks are "the inter merriage" as Alkaevli stated. And most probably they were not only "men" but also "female". Nobody can yield the true proportion for the "newcommers". However most of the efforts to find the proportion tend to rise this proportion with unlogical attempts.

I meant any Oghuz type of samples which I think would probably be different than the scythian samples we have now. Other than that all these are estimates at best.