PDA

View Full Version : [Split] The Early Turks: Distribution & Demographic Outcomes



Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 05:28 AM
Such analogies are often flawed. Often small but important components are ignored for the external credibility.
As a result, the concept of "a handful of savages captured numerous civilized society and imposed their language" is widespread and using to explain various historical paradoxes.
However, on closer examination the number of savages often is understated (or there is no reliable data on the number), and the wildness of savages is exaggerated. On the other hand, power, strength and the large number of "civilized people" is exaggerated.
Favorite example of adepts of this concept - the Ottoman Empire.

Well I think the Steppic or 'Barbarian', violence-heavy contribution to the evolution of political structure and social organisation in Eurasia has been severely underestimated, and the 'Civilised', agrarian, economic-heavy contribution has been greatly overestimated, because all the people with extensive literate traditions, Europeans, Chinese, Persians or Indians, are all settled people that have developed a historiographical hatred for Inner Asian nomads and other 'primitives', and this bleeds over into modern times. But, whatever direction the exaggerations may have been--I think the past is, if anything, portrayed as more peaceful than it actually was--the Turkification of Anatolia is a bad example to illustrate how 'civilised' the Steppic peoples were. It was one of the most gruesome periods of history in that part of the world, with the Christian population declining precipitously due to repeated massacres and pillaging of cities, in two periods separated by a period of peace. This is anyway expected, because in the first period, the Turks still retained the social structure they had on the steppes, with tribal clans and family federations forming the basis of Seljuk power and a disempowered institutional state structure; the Seljuks in Iran, for example, sent the Turkic clans under its control--clans, preserving the old way of life, and which still did not live in settled habitations yet--up North, where their methods of battle with the Byzantines retained many characteristics of the raiding and pillage style of warfare used on the Steppe. After the establishment of the Sultanate of Rum, which resulted in a period of stability and re-urbanisation, the Mongol Invasions resulted in a second collapse of central authority, the local Turkic elites fissioned into many tiny clan-based Beys, reverting yet again to Steppe-like methods of social organisation and unleashing another wave of violence.

This second period is notable because the collapse of institutional life was so complete that the Persianate high culture was lost, and the subsequent Ottoman Empire, itself a bey that recentralised authority in Anatolia via conquest, had to use Turkish as its language of administration.

Chronicles of war in the first period record well the dismal list of cities put to the sword, and Greek visitors to Anatolia in the second period decry the cities falling into disrepair, populated with a much diminished number of poor, illiterate Christians, living at subsistence, whose faith had degenerated into the grossest superstition in the absence of organisational support. The mixed steppe-agrarian origin of the Ottomans leaves an institutional legacy in the retention of hereditary beys, the importance of courtly and military slaves to the state as the clan structure and the ethnic distinctiveness of the foreign Turkic military class diminishes, and the non-existent succession policy, where any prospective sultan has to eliminate all his brothers before his position is secure.

Ral
07-23-2016, 10:45 AM
Well I think the Steppic or 'Barbarian', violence-heavy contribution to the evolution of political structure and social organisation in Eurasia has been severely underestimated, and the 'Civilised', agrarian, economic-heavy contribution has been greatly overestimated, because all the people with extensive literate traditions, Europeans, Chinese, Persians or Indians, are all settled people that have developed a historiographical hatred for Inner Asian nomads and other 'primitives', and this bleeds over into modern times. But, whatever direction the exaggerations may have been--I think the past is, if anything, portrayed as more peaceful than it actually was--the Turkification of Anatolia is a bad example to illustrate how 'civilised' the Steppic peoples were. It was one of the most gruesome periods of history in that part of the world, with the Christian population declining precipitously due to repeated massacres and pillaging of cities, in two periods separated by a period of peace. This is anyway expected, because in the first period, the Turks still retained the social structure they had on the steppes, with tribal clans and family federations forming the basis of Seljuk power and a disempowered institutional state structure; the Seljuks in Iran, for example, sent the Turkic clans under its control--clans, preserving the old way of life, and which still did not live in settled habitations yet--up North, where their methods of battle with the Byzantines retained many characteristics of the raiding and pillage style of warfare used on the Steppe. After the establishment of the Sultanate of Rum, which resulted in a period of stability and re-urbanisation, the Mongol Invasions resulted in a second collapse of central authority, the local Turkic elites fissioned into many tiny clan-based Beys, reverting yet again to Steppe-like methods of social organisation and unleashing another wave of violence.

This second period is notable because the collapse of institutional life was so complete that the Persianate high culture was lost, and the subsequent Ottoman Empire, itself a bey that recentralised authority in Anatolia via conquest, had to use Turkish as its language of administration.

Chronicles of war in the first period record well the dismal list of cities put to the sword, and Greek visitors to Anatolia in the second period decry the cities falling into disrepair, populated with a much diminished number of poor, illiterate Christians, living at subsistence, whose faith had degenerated into the grossest superstition in the absence of organisational support. The mixed steppe-agrarian origin of the Ottomans leaves an institutional legacy in the retention of hereditary beys, the importance of courtly and military slaves to the state as the clan structure and the ethnic distinctiveness of the foreign Turkic military class diminishes, and the non-existent succession policy, where any prospective sultan has to eliminate all his brothers before his position is secure.
I will explain.
Take for example a savage tribe of the Amazon, which lives by primitive system already 5000 years and the Soviet Union, created in 1922.
The Soviet Union had nuclear and space industry and lasted 69 years. The tribe is still intact. What does this mean? Primitive society wins? No. Ussr collapsed through its own inefficiency (political, economic), and not because of the space industry. Byzantine Empire collapsed through its own inefficiency, and an abstract "high culture" did not matter. Byzantium was decrepit ineffective theocracy before death. Seljuks were only a catalyst but not the cause of the fall of the empire.
Why are these arguments? They are indirectly related to the theory of invasion to India and the concept, according to which, elite domination of barbarians can fundamentally change the linguistic picture. This seemingly illogical concept is not supported by empirical observations and examples.

I don’t know how much originally Turkic-speaking population were in Ottoman Empire at start , but I think it can be 40-50%. And then model the "melting pot" was launched when multimillion migration during hundreds of years to Ottoman Empire led to the erosion of the titular nation with a stable language situation. But it is the «melting pot» model, not a model "elite dominance". So purely speculative concept "elite domination of the barbarians" is not confirmed by empirical examples and should not be used as an argument.

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 11:09 AM
I will explain.
Take for example a savage tribe of the Amazon, which lives by primitive system already 5000 years and the Soviet Union, created in 1922.
The Soviet Union had nuclear and space industry and lasted 69 years. The tribe is still intact. What does this mean? Primitive society wins? No. Ussr collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency (political, economic), and not because of the space industry. Byzantine Empire collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency, and an abstract "high culture" did not matter. Byzantium was decrepit ineffective theocracy before death. Seljuks were only a catalyst but not the cause of the fall of the empire.
Why are these arguments? They are indirectly related to the theory of invasion to India and the concept, according to which, elite domination of barbarians can fundamentally change the linguistic picture. This seemingly illogical concept is not supported by empirical observations and examples.

I don’t know how match originally Turkic-speaking population were in Ottoman Empire at start , but I think it can be 40-50%. And then model the "melting pot" was launched where multimillion migration during hundreds of years to Ottoman Empire led to the erosion of the titular nation with a stable language situation. But it is the «melting pot» model, not a model "elite dominance". So purely speculative concept "elite domination of the barbarians" is not confirmed by empirical examples and should not be used as an argument.

Ral, the invasions of the Turkics could not *possibly* have been 40-50%??? Note that the Seljuk Turks were a steppe people that imposed themselves as a tribal confederation over Iran while retaining their original way of life as best as possible, in fact the court was basically a travelling yurt, so the actual number of Turks was always very small; the locals staffing the state bureaucracy spoke Persian, as did the average inhabitant of their empire, which makes the preservation of the Turkic language and its imposition over Anatolia all the more remarkable. Though the preservation of a Turkic 'parallel society' based on steppic forms, and its tight internal cohesion across space and time, lessens our surprise.

I don't know where you're getting you empirical examples from, and your example is not applicable. The analogous situation is if the Amazonian tribe was somehow in competition with the USSR and managed to take it over.

The unending chain of such 'mystifying' events in the history of the Middle East and North Africa was what prompted Khaldun to think about the issues, such as social cohesion and the willingness of the average member to sacrifice continually for the community, in the medieval period, and got him to--in effect--found sociology as a discipline in the first place.

Ral
07-23-2016, 11:23 AM
Ral, the invasions of the Turkics could not *possibly* have been 40-50%??? Note that the Seljuk Turks were a steppe people that imposed themselves as a tribal confederation over Iran while retaining their original way of life as best as possible, in fact the court was basically a travelling yurt, so the actual number of Turks was always very small;
Give specific numbers,please. Everyone says:"very little", but no concrete results in figures.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_known_as_%22Iranian_Turks%22
other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran


At the beginning of the 20th century, Iran had a total population of just below 10 million, with an approximate ethnic composition of: 6 million Persians (60%), 2.5 million Azeris (25%), 0.2 million Mazandaranis and Gilakis each (2% each).

Ral
07-23-2016, 11:28 AM
I don't know where you're getting you empirical examples from, and your example is not applicable. The analogous situation is if the Amazonian tribe was somehow in competition with the USSR and managed to take it over.

It does not matter. It could be the Arab invasion. Just Turks were close and only "helped" to fall.

evon
07-23-2016, 11:32 AM
Ral, the invasions of the Turkics could not *possibly* have been 40-50%??? Note that the Seljuk Turks were a steppe people that imposed themselves as a tribal confederation over Iran while retaining their original way of life as best as possible, in fact the court was basically a travelling yurt, so the actual number of Turks was always very small; the locals staffing the state bureaucracy spoke Persian, as did the average inhabitant of their empire, which makes the preservation of the Turkic language and its imposition over Anatolia all the more remarkable. Though the preservation of a Turkic 'parallel society' based on steppic forms, and its tight internal cohesion across space and time, lessens our surprise.


I can chime in here and say that this is the case for most if not all Steppe conquests of sedentary cultures, such as China, India, Iran etc.. Taken from memory I think that it was during the Northern Wei rule of northern China that the Chinese adviser to the Wei court, argued against moving the capital of the Wei from the Steppe fringe into the Chinese heartland, because that would make it obvious how few "the Wei" were in comparison to their Chinese subjects and cause the Chinese to rebel. Furthermore, I think it was Christopher Beckwith who estimated that the whole of the Mongol horde was around 700 000, that included women and children, which I think sums it up pretty well... The reason for this is of course because the steppe economy could not support a large population, while sedentary peoples exploited their land more efficiently and so had larger numbers.

I think we can also further this argument to other fringe peoples such as the Viking raiders, who were few in number compared to the peoples of Europe...

One major advantage these groups generally had in warfare and social power, was that they tended to have less social stratification and less rules and regulations on life, which resulted in them being more well fed and thus being larger than their sedentary counterparts (Which enhanced their social power and level of influence), a subject that is discussed in the article I posted on Iran a few pages back...

Gravetto-Danubian
07-23-2016, 11:35 AM
Give specific numbers,please. Everyone says:"very little", but no concrete results in figures.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_known_as_%22Iranian_Turks%22
other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran

I think it is a very useful for question- but let's stick To Anatolia - which was Tiukicized, not Iran.
I'm not sure of absolute numbers, but it was "large ". ie it must have been at least on Par with the Byzantine war machine
That should give us a rough idea
Once the Ghazi- Turks piecemeal defeated the Byzantine military, it supplanted the Byzantine system with their own. So what matters is not mere absolute numbers of Plebs (sorry to be blunt), but the military machinery and how the oppositional systems are mixed, or not
Thus I don't think we can make hard and fast rules on "elite conquest". In fact, the Turkicazation of Anatolia was nothing of an "elite" affair. It was large numbers of warriors moving in and intentionally removing a previous systems

smal
07-23-2016, 11:50 AM
Kura Arax R1b belong to this 17000 year old branch
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L389/
This is the same branch as Villabruna.

This is not the same branch as Villabruna. Villabruna belongs to the R-L754 (xV88 xP297) clade. Kura Arax R1b belongs to the R-L754 > L389 > V1636 clade.


didnt Genetiker place it as R1b1a1b ? That's under M73, right ?
That's not under M73.


Since the discussion has shifted to R1b, there is one found in Neolithic spain, tested R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3) .

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/analyses-of-an-early-neolithic-genome-from-spain/

Of course it isn't R1b-M269, and the genome has no Caucasus affinity, but still intriguing.

The Iberian Els Trocs sample belongs to the R-V88>Y7777 (xV35 xY8447) branch.

Ral
07-23-2016, 11:53 AM
I think it is a very useful for question- but let's stick To Anatolia - which was Tiukicized, not Iran.
I'm not sure of absolute numbers, but it was "large ". ie it must have been at least on Par with the Byzantine war machine
That should give us a rough idea
Once the Ghazi- Turks piecemeal defeated the Byzantine military, it supplanted the Byzantine system with their own. So what matters is not mere absolute numbers of Plebs (sorry to be blunt), but the military machinery and how the oppositional systems are mixed, or not
Thus I don't think we can make hard and fast rules on "elite conquest". In fact, the Turkicazation of Anatolia was nothing of an "elite" affair. It was large numbers of warriors moving in and intentionally removing a previous systems
I will not argue over trifles. I am satisfied with your opinion: the example with Ottoman Empire does not support the "theory of elite domination."

Tomenable
07-23-2016, 12:33 PM
Everyone says:"very little", but no concrete results in figures

Comparison of 51 Byzantines from Sagalassos to 53 modern Turks from Ağlasun suggests 15% input:

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/150250

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/150250.figures-only

http://s17.postimg.org/k97mm8kyn/Mapki.jpg

Tomenable
07-23-2016, 12:40 PM
In Hungary it looks even worse (even smaller input).

Table 8. from p. 137 of Anna Szécsény-Nagy's dissertation shows zero percent of genetic continuity in informative haplotypes between samples of 25 conquest-era Magyars and 284 modern Hungarians:

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/AG%20Alt/AG%20Alt_Personal/Profile/Szecsenyi-Nagy.pdf

Gyöngyvér Tömöry came to similar conclusions after analyzing 27 Early Medieval Magyar samples:

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088/3/Tömöry_tézisek-angol.pdf

And in this 2008 study, 2 out of 2 elite Magyar males (Y-DNA samples) belonged to N1c haplogroup:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

N1c is associated with Uralic languages so it makes sense that Magyars from elite burials were N1c.

However, N1c is almost completely absent among modern Hungarians. In a sample of 100 modern Hungarian males from Hungary and 97 modern Szekler males from Romania, nobody had N1c.

Tomenable
07-23-2016, 12:55 PM
When it comes to autosomal DNA:

AFAIK modern Turks from Anatolia usually score between few and over a dozen % East Asian. On average about 10% East Asian. Which is more or less in agreement with 15% of East Asian mtDNA.

Tomenable
07-23-2016, 01:02 PM
As for Azeris - I saw autosomal results of several Azeris and several Iranians and Kurds. They are genetically almost identical. The only difference is that Azeris score few up to several % of East Asian, which usually doesn't show up among Kurds or Iranians (or if it does, then in small amounts - around one percent).

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 01:15 PM
Give specific numbers,please. Everyone says:"very little", but no concrete results in figures.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_known_as_%22Iranian_Turks%22
other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran

Well, surely you are not suggesting that Turkey got conquered by Azeris? Note that Azeris and Anatolian Turks are the result of parallel Turkification processes in the medieval period, except that Azeris are Shiite, and they are Turkified Persian speakers, while Anatolian Turks Sunni, and are Turkified Greek speakers. Prior to the Turkification of substrate populations the Turks in the middle east were members of the military confederations I have just described, with the rest of the governance staffed by Persians; or they are herdsmen 'gone rogue', as many did in Eastern Anatolia where independent steppic chiefdoms of almost purely nomadic Turks lorded over the city dwellers after the partial loss of control by the Byzantines.

Nevertheless, the issue of numbers in migration is an interesting question, and a notoriously difficult one. First, looking at the level of Turkic autosomal contribution, taking into account elite overproduction of offspring, we can get a good proxy for an upper bound of actual Turkic population fraction, which is no more than 15% for Anatolian Turks, as Tomenable has helpfully posted above, which also matches the estimates I've seen elsewhere.

Then looking at historical numbers, Treadgold gives population estimates for 12 million and 10 million for two dates around the turn of the twelfth century when Byzantines first came into contact with Turks, of which three quarters was in Anatolia, translating to 7.5 to 8 mil. At the same time, Al-Umari, the Arab historian, gives us figures for the Turkomans living in the nomadised parts of Eastern Anatolia, from sources within the small Beys there, which were already outside of Byzantine control at this time. The figures are 150 thousand from Orian, and 500 thousand from Balaban. Estimates by others are between these numbers, so we get an upper and lower bound here as well.

Dividing, the population was 1.8% Turkic to 7.1% Turkic at this time. Therefore, there is no historical support that 40% to 50% of the population derived from a Turkic migration, none whatsoever.

Of course the real figures are likely in between these two percentages.

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 01:23 PM
I think it is a very useful for question- but let's stick To Anatolia - which was Tiukicized, not Iran.
I'm not sure of absolute numbers, but it was "large ". ie it must have been at least on Par with the Byzantine war machine
That should give us a rough idea
Once the Ghazi- Turks piecemeal defeated the Byzantine military, it supplanted the Byzantine system with their own. So what matters is not mere absolute numbers of Plebs (sorry to be blunt), but the military machinery and how the oppositional systems are mixed, or not
Thus I don't think we can make hard and fast rules on "elite conquest". In fact, the Turkicazation of Anatolia was nothing of an "elite" affair. It was large numbers of warriors moving in and intentionally removing a previous systems

Thank you for being a rigorous scholar, I was indeed playing fast and loose with my words. A population movement exceeding one hundred thousand may stretch the definition of 'elite dominance', which seems to match the Hungarian scenario much better, as well as the dynamics of language spread in the modern and colonial ages. The question between me and Ral was about the role of asymmetric cultural contribution for language and ethnic identity, which I think you'll agree is nevertheless quite common, especially when mediated by status differentials between communities, even when the numbers are not as extreme as in the case of the Hungarians.

Tomenable
07-23-2016, 02:50 PM
Well, surely you are not suggesting that Turkey got conquered by Azeris?

Most likely not. But conquest-era Seljuk Turks could be similar to modern Turkmens.

Surely by the time of reaching Anatolia they were not 100% genetically Proto-Turkic.

Turkic expansions were "snowball effects" - conquest + assimilation of locals in area A. Then such Turkicized population from area A conquers + assimilates area B. Then they procede to area C. Etc.

A lot of Seljuk invaders could be descended from Turkicized Iranic-speakers and Tocharians.

lgmayka
07-23-2016, 02:57 PM
AFAIK modern Turks from Anatolia usually score between few and over a dozen % East Asian. On average about 10% East Asian.
When back-calculating from modern percentages, we must take into account (as Ryukendo wrote) the "elite overproduction of offspring"--an effect greatly multiplied by the replacing culture's practice of polygamy and concubinage (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/harem.htm). Thus, a modern East Asian component of 10% may be the result of an original component (at time of takeover) of much less than that.

Shaikorth
07-23-2016, 03:28 PM
I checked the Broushaki supplements where modern populations were modeled with haplotypes to see if those could pick up a modern proxy for the Turkic invaders of Anatolia, as they should preserve recent ancestry better. Turns out not, the Turkish populations of Anatolia just copy from each other, Trabzon being the exception in having nothing copied from other Turkish samples. Subtable 3 where moderns are modeled as mixes of ancients and Han+Yoruba just confirm the exception of Trabzon and don't answer the question of what the original conquerors were like. Similar pictures in both the Lazaridis dataset (http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/681447/field_highwire_adjunct_files/3/Table_S24.xlsx) and the Busby dataset (http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/681447/field_highwire_adjunct_files/4/Table_S25.xlsx).

Ral
07-23-2016, 03:32 PM
To Tomenable.
No,no,no.
We discuss the viability of the model "elite dominance". Your data will not fit. I will explain why.
1.Too point data.
We do not know the ethnic composition of Ağlasun. Perhaps there is still Greek, Armenian, Kurdish population dominate.
When i say about significant Turkic population of the Ottoman Empire, I do not mean the western Anatolia:the main part of the turkic-speaking population was located east. In addition, the fact that the initial turkic component among the Turkish is in minority is not even questioned.
I explain it as before fall of Byzantium Turkic population have significantly absorbed the local component (assimilation) + subsequent melting pot has reduced the original Turkic component.

2. Modern autosomal pattern of Turks only confuse.
By the time of the fall of Byzantium Turk's autosomes probably differed little from the local population's autosomes.
You can compare the autosomes Azerbaijanis, Iranian Turks and Turkmens - they should not be radically different. In addition, even the Yakut havent 100% East Asian component . (Look at the autosomes of uygurs for example).
3. The same situation is with the Hungarians.
Predominant haplogroups of Mansi(the closest relatives of Hungarians by the language) is Q, N1b, not N1c(Yakuts have 88% of N1c).
Classic assimilation + subsequent melting pot replace the original genes no worse than the elite dominance theory.
Why complicate things?
Put any people of Asia in the amount of 10,000 people in Europe. Across
1000 years (if there is a lot of intermarriage) their autosomes will be like the autosomes of neighboring nations, not asian , without the elite dominance.
(I found some information about turks in the territory of modern Turkey (without Iranian turks and azerbaijanis ). In 1844, according to the census, 35% of the population have turk identification)

Ral
07-23-2016, 03:37 PM
Most likely not. But conquest-era Seljuk Turks could be similar to modern Turkmens.

Surely by the time of reaching Anatolia they were not 100% genetically Proto-Turkic.

Turkic expansions were "snowball effects" - conquest + assimilation of locals in area A.
Yes, thats right. There is "snowball effects", not vulgar "elite domination". My english is bad.

Ebizur
07-23-2016, 03:45 PM
Most likely not. But conquest-era Seljuk Turks could be similar to modern Turkmens.

Surely by the time of reaching Anatolia they were not 100% genetically Proto-Turkic.

Turkic expansions were "snowball effects" - conquest + assimilation of locals in area A. Then such Turkicized population from area A conquers + assimilates area B. Then they procede to area C. Etc.

A lot of Seljuk invaders could be descended from Turkicized Iranic-speakers and Tocharians.In this connection, I note that a huge percentage of the vocabulary of the Turkish language consists of loanwords from Persian and Arabic. Very little influence from the Greek and Armenian languages that have immediately preceded Turkish in Anatolia is apparent. The spread of Turkish-Azeri in West Asia has been intimately connected with a westward expansion of the Islamic religion and its Perso-Arabic linguistic accoutrements, so it should not be surprising if there has been some Iranic or Arabic genetic influence in addition to whatever extraneous genes may be traced back to the original Turks.

Shaikorth
07-23-2016, 03:47 PM
To Tomenable.
No,no,no.
We discuss the viability of the model "elite dominance". Your data will not fit. I will explain why.
1.Too point data.
We do not know the ethnic composition of Ağlasun. Perhaps there is still Greek, Armenian, Kurdish population dominate.
When i say about significant Turkic population of the Ottoman Empire, I do not mean the western Anatolia:the main part of the turkic-speaking population was located east. In addition, the fact that the initial turkic component among the Turkish is in minority is not even questioned.
I explain it as before fall of Byzantium Turkic population have significantly absorbed the local component (assimilation) + subsequent melting pot has reduced the original Turkic component.

2. Modern autosomal pattern of Turks only confuse.
By the time of the fall of Byzantium Turk's autosomes probably differed little from the local population's autosomes.
You can compare the autosomes Azerbaijanis, Iranian Turks and Turkmens - they should not be radically different. In addition, even the Yakut havent 100% East Asian component . (Look at the autosomes of uygurs for example).
3. The same situation is with the Hungarians.
Predominant haplogroups of Mansi(the closest relatives of Hungarians by the language) is Q, N1b, not N1c(Yakuts have 88% of N1c).
Classic assimilation + subsequent melting pot replace the original genes no worse than the elite dominance theory.
Why complicate things?
Put any people of Asia in the amount of 10,000 people in Europe. Across
1000 years (if there is a lot of intermarriage) their autosomes will be like the autosomes of neighboring nations, not asian , without the elite dominance.
(I found some information about turks in the territory of modern Turkey (without Iranian turks and azerbaijanis ). In 1844, according to the census, 35% of the population have turk identification)

Do note that neither Mansi, who are recent migrants into their current locale, or Hungarians are suitable proxies for proto-Hungarians of Magna Hungaria. The Y-DNA that is unifying the two is the rare N1c-L1034, not N1b or Q.

R1a-Z93 is so common in ancient and even modern steppe that proportionally it well might represent a much greater turnover over the Bronze Age migrations.

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 03:53 PM
(I found some information about turks in the territory of modern Turkey (without Iranian turks and azerbaijanis ). In 1844, according to the census, 35% of the population have turk identification)

You of course know that Turkification, especially associated with conversion to the Islamic religion, was the main vector of that increase. The conversions were in response to legal and economic incentives. There is no evidence at all that a Turkic population a quarter of the size of the Anatolian population then moved in during the intervening centuries.

We were trying to explain why the language and ethnic self-identification of very small minorities can overcome that of larger groups, instead of the other way round holding place ~100% of the time--an objection often raised by those against an IE movement into India, which is why this entire discussion was begun in the first place. Any explanation has to take into account the disproportionate aspect of the impact, especially because, with a naive economic model, the incentive to adopt a language should be proportionate to the number of its speakers in the immediate vicinity, thus exposing the need for something else to explain cases of disproportionate impact of linguistic minorities. Looking at Shaikorth's figures, it seems like the numbers may be even smaller than usually assumed, so the disparate contribution is all the more glaring, though this is also somewhat orthogonal to the discussion as the number of Turkic speakers is the main issue here, which all evidence indicates is a small fraction of the total population at the beginning. I also don't get why you think the admixture with persians helps your case, because present-day Turks are intermediate between Greeks and Caucasian populations, not Greeks and Persians, so in any case Turks cannot be a vector of Persian gene flow into Anatolia, as that is the route that Turks took.

MfA
07-23-2016, 03:58 PM
I checked the Broushaki supplements where modern populations were modeled with haplotypes to see if those could pick up a modern proxy for the Turkic invaders of Anatolia, as they should preserve recent ancestry better. Turns out not, the Turkish populations of Anatolia just copy from each other, Trabzon being the exception in having nothing copied from other Turkish samples. Subtable 3 where moderns are modeled as mixes of ancients and Han+Yoruba just confirm the exception of Trabzon and don't answer the question of what the original conquerors were like. Similar pictures in both the Lazaridis dataset (http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/681447/field_highwire_adjunct_files/3/Table_S24.xlsx) and the Busby dataset (http://science.sciencemag.org/highwire/filestream/681447/field_highwire_adjunct_files/4/Table_S25.xlsx).

Just try the opposite, compare which modern populations were modeled as having Turkish proxy.

Ral
07-23-2016, 04:01 PM
Well, surely you are not suggesting that Turkey got conquered by Azeris? Note that Azeris and Anatolian Turks are the result of parallel Turkification processes in the medieval period, except that Azeris are Shiite, and they are Turkified Persian speakers, while Anatolian Turks Sunni, and are Turkified Greek speakers. Prior to the Turkification of substrate populations the Turks in the middle east were members of the military confederations I have just described, with the rest of the governance staffed by Persians; or they are herdsmen 'gone rogue', as many did in Eastern Anatolia where independent steppic chiefdoms of almost purely nomadic Turks lorded over the city dwellers after the partial loss of control by the Byzantines.

Nevertheless, the issue of numbers in migration is an interesting question, and a notoriously difficult one. First, looking at the level of Turkic autosomal contribution, taking into account elite overproduction of offspring, we can get a good proxy for an upper bound of actual Turkic population fraction, which is no more than 15% for Anatolian Turks, as Tomenable has helpfully posted above, which also matches the estimates I've seen elsewhere.

Then looking at historical numbers, Treadgold gives population estimates for 12 million and 10 million for two dates around the turn of the twelfth century when Byzantines first came into contact with Turks, of which three quarters was in Anatolia, translating to 7.5 to 8 mil. At the same time, Al-Umari, the Arab historian, gives us figures for the Turkomans living in the nomadised parts of Eastern Anatolia, from sources within the small Beys there, which were already outside of Byzantine control at this time. The figures are 150 thousand from Orian, and 500 thousand from Balaban. Estimates by others are between these numbers, so we get an upper and lower bound here as well.

Dividing, the population was 1.8% Turkic to 7.1% Turkic at this time. Therefore, there is no historical support that 40% to 50% of the population derived from a Turkic migration, none whatsoever.

Of course the real figures are likely in between these two percentages.
Turkish shepherds is elite of the Greeks and Persians.Do not you think it looks a bit strange?
5% is too little. 50% probably is very high number. I agree 30%.:)

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 04:11 PM
Turkish shepherds is elite of the Greeks and Persians.Do not you think it looks a bit strange?
5% is too little. 50% probably is very high number. I agree 30%.:)

So something backed by no evidence at all except for you own preference is more believable than figures from respected historians such as Vyronis and Treadgold?

Anglo Saxons were an elite over sub-Roman britons. Nahuas were an elite over urban Toltecs. Vikings were an elite over French. Arabs were an elite over Egyptians and Syrians, and Berbers and Turks elites over Arabs in turn. Nothing surprising about this pattern.

EDIT: please read the previous post, added some stuff.

Shaikorth
07-23-2016, 04:28 PM
Just try the opposite, compare which modern populations were modeled as having Turkish proxy.

Alright, that actually gives something from a Turkmen-like population though the numbers are a bit inconsistent. The Turkmen sample is modeled as almost 50% coming from various Anatolian Turks, but these also represent its West Eurasian side, and the ancient genome modeling suggests modern Turks are closer to 30% than 50% Turkmen-like looking at the Han contribution.

Kristiina
07-23-2016, 04:33 PM
However, N1c is almost completely absent among modern Hungarians. In a sample of 100 modern Hungarian males from Hungary and 97 modern Szekler males from Romania, nobody had N1c.

Szekler in Transylvania do carry N1c, as ”Results proved that there is at least one Hungarian ethnic group, the Seklers with a non-negligible frequency of hg N-Tat (6.52%) in Eastern Centtral Europe. Seklers (Hung. ‘Székely’), one of the largest Hungarian-speaking populations in Transylvania with approximately 600,000 people, are settled mainly in Mures, Harghita and Covasna counties in Central Romania. Seklers were considered the finest warriors of medieval Transylvania, but their origin is subject to debate”.

Source: p. 7, YSNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian-speaking populations.

Ral
07-23-2016, 04:45 PM
So something backed by no evidence at all except for you own preference is more believable than figures from respected historians such as Vyronis and Treadgold?

Anglo Saxons were an elite over sub-Roman britons. Nahuas were an elite over urban Toltecs. Vikings were an elite over French. Arabs were an elite over Egyptians and Syrians, and Berbers and Turks elites over Arabs in turn. Nothing surprising about this pattern.

EDIT: please read the previous post, added some stuff.
One clarification: we discuss the change of language. For example, bolgars had turkic elite, but did not change the language.

Ryukendo
07-23-2016, 04:47 PM
Yes, and the examples above already have at least two instances where minorities changed the languages of majorities, concomitant with change in sociopolitical structure, so the objection raised by those against IE movement into India are moot.

Ral
07-23-2016, 05:00 PM
Yes, and the examples above already have at least two instances where minorities changed the languages of majorities, concomitant with change in sociopolitical structure, so the objection raised by those against IE movement into India are moot.
I did not say about can simple minorities change the language of majority. I said that 5% elite minoroties cant change languages.And we have not agreed.
Situation with India is different. 30 % of R1a in India is not elite minority. And it does not look like a "snowball effect". It look like simple mixing.

vettor
07-23-2016, 06:45 PM
Well, surely you are not suggesting that Turkey got conquered by Azeris? Note that Azeris and Anatolian Turks are the result of parallel Turkification processes in the medieval period, except that Azeris are Shiite, and they are Turkified Persian speakers, while Anatolian Turks Sunni, and are Turkified Greek speakers. Prior to the Turkification of substrate populations the Turks in the middle east were members of the military confederations I have just described, with the rest of the governance staffed by Persians; or they are herdsmen 'gone rogue', as many did in Eastern Anatolia where independent steppic chiefdoms of almost purely nomadic Turks lorded over the city dwellers after the partial loss of control by the Byzantines.

Nevertheless, the issue of numbers in migration is an interesting question, and a notoriously difficult one. First, looking at the level of Turkic autosomal contribution, taking into account elite overproduction of offspring, we can get a good proxy for an upper bound of actual Turkic population fraction, which is no more than 15% for Anatolian Turks, as Tomenable has helpfully posted above, which also matches the estimates I've seen elsewhere.

Then looking at historical numbers, Treadgold gives population estimates for 12 million and 10 million for two dates around the turn of the twelfth century when Byzantines first came into contact with Turks, of which three quarters was in Anatolia, translating to 7.5 to 8 mil. At the same time, Al-Umari, the Arab historian, gives us figures for the Turkomans living in the nomadised parts of Eastern Anatolia, from sources within the small Beys there, which were already outside of Byzantine control at this time. The figures are 150 thousand from Orian, and 500 thousand from Balaban. Estimates by others are between these numbers, so we get an upper and lower bound here as well.

Dividing, the population was 1.8% Turkic to 7.1% Turkic at this time. Therefore, there is no historical support that 40% to 50% of the population derived from a Turkic migration, none whatsoever.

Of course the real figures are likely in between these two percentages.

The ancient Medes are from Azeri lands

The original population area of the Median people was Northwest Iran and named after them as "Media". At the end of the 2nd millennium BC the Median tribes emerged in the region (one of several Iranian tribes to do so) which they later called Media.

vettor
07-23-2016, 06:51 PM
To Tomenable.
No,no,no.
We discuss the viability of the model "elite dominance". Your data will not fit. I will explain why.
1.Too point data.
We do not know the ethnic composition of Ağlasun. Perhaps there is still Greek, Armenian, Kurdish population dominate.
When i say about significant Turkic population of the Ottoman Empire, I do not mean the western Anatolia:the main part of the turkic-speaking population was located east. In addition, the fact that the initial turkic component among the Turkish is in minority is not even questioned.
I explain it as before fall of Byzantium Turkic population have significantly absorbed the local component (assimilation) + subsequent melting pot has reduced the original Turkic component.

2. Modern autosomal pattern of Turks only confuse.
By the time of the fall of Byzantium Turk's autosomes probably differed little from the local population's autosomes.
You can compare the autosomes Azerbaijanis, Iranian Turks and Turkmens - they should not be radically different. In addition, even the Yakut havent 100% East Asian component . (Look at the autosomes of uygurs for example).
3. The same situation is with the Hungarians.
Predominant haplogroups of Mansi(the closest relatives of Hungarians by the language) is Q, N1b, not N1c(Yakuts have 88% of N1c).
Classic assimilation + subsequent melting pot replace the original genes no worse than the elite dominance theory.
Why complicate things?
Put any people of Asia in the amount of 10,000 people in Europe. Across
1000 years (if there is a lot of intermarriage) their autosomes will be like the autosomes of neighboring nations, not asian , without the elite dominance.
(I found some information about turks in the territory of modern Turkey (without Iranian turks and azerbaijanis ). In 1844, according to the census, 35% of the population have turk identification)

The first Turkic people to enter modern Turkey where the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuq_dynasty
They only came in the 11th century AD ................about 1000 years ago ..only

Volat
07-23-2016, 10:07 PM
One clarification: we discuss the change of language. For example, bolgars had turkic elite, but did not change the language.

Bulgarian elite imposed their Oghur language on people similar to Finno-Ugric Mari living in present day Chuvashia and Tatarstan. Chuvashes speak Oghur language , while Kazan Tatars switched to Kypchak brought to them from western Kazakhkstan during Horde era. Isam was adopted by Volga Bulgaria, so likely religion was a driving factor in switching to another language just like in Anatolia 500-600 years later.

Volat
07-23-2016, 10:30 PM
I said that 5% elite minoroties cant change languages.And we have not agreed.

A small elite minority can be responsible. There is a number of examples in not so distant future in which people switched to other languages changing their identities because they lived in spheres of other cultures. A particular language was prestigeous to know as it was used in literature , universities, church services. New cultures and languages brought social and economic benefits to people living in some states. So it's quite possible.

Afshar
07-23-2016, 11:00 PM
Well, surely you are not suggesting that Turkey got conquered by Azeris? Note that Azeris and Anatolian Turks are the result of parallel Turkification processes in the medieval period, except that Azeris are Shiite, and they are Turkified Persian speakers, while Anatolian Turks Sunni, and are Turkified Greek speakers. Prior to the Turkification of substrate populations the Turks in the middle east were members of the military confederations I have just described, with the rest of the governance staffed by Persians; or they are herdsmen 'gone rogue', as many did in Eastern Anatolia where independent steppic chiefdoms of almost purely nomadic Turks lorded over the city dwellers after the partial loss of control by the Byzantines.

Nevertheless, the issue of numbers in migration is an interesting question, and a notoriously difficult one. First, looking at the level of Turkic autosomal contribution, taking into account elite overproduction of offspring, we can get a good proxy for an upper bound of actual Turkic population fraction, which is no more than 15% for Anatolian Turks, as Tomenable has helpfully posted above, which also matches the estimates I've seen elsewhere.

Then looking at historical numbers, Treadgold gives population estimates for 12 million and 10 million for two dates around the turn of the twelfth century when Byzantines first came into contact with Turks, of which three quarters was in Anatolia, translating to 7.5 to 8 mil. At the same time, Al-Umari, the Arab historian, gives us figures for the Turkomans living in the nomadised parts of Eastern Anatolia, from sources within the small Beys there, which were already outside of Byzantine control at this time. The figures are 150 thousand from Orian, and 500 thousand from Balaban. Estimates by others are between these numbers, so we get an upper and lower bound here as well.

Dividing, the population was 1.8% Turkic to 7.1% Turkic at this time. Therefore, there is no historical support that 40% to 50% of the population derived from a Turkic migration, none whatsoever.

Of course the real figures are likely in between these two percentages.
Find it hard to estimate a percentage of something that has no reference. Who said they were Turkic, they have could well been Turkified arabs before that. Also ottoman numbers in later periods are much different, which makes this scenario impossible. Without any ancient oghuz reference dna these numbers are based on nothing. Also what I found hard to believe is that, no matter how well organized they are, nomadic culture will absorb and assimilate city people, it should be the other way around.

Volat
07-23-2016, 11:49 PM
Without any ancient oghuz reference dna these numbers are based on nothing. Also what I found hard to believe is that, no matter how well organized they are, nomadic culture will absorb and assimilate city people, it should be the other way around.

Ancient Oghuz DNA maybe difficult to find. Oghuz speaking tribes were pushed by other Turkic tribes in the east resulting in Oghuz migration into modern day Turkmenistan in 9th century. Turkmenistan was populated by east Iranic peoples prior to Turkic migrations. Modern day Turkmens are genetically more similar to Tajiks and Iranians than to their neighbouring Uzbeks, who have a higher east Asian admixture. Original Oghuz were certain tribes living in south-eastern Kazakhstan , north-western China?

This is the conclusion of authors in The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia (2014) paper in which authors supported language replacement in west Eurasia (Anatolia, Iran, Caucasus) by elite dominance
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/30/005850.full.pdf


https://s31.postimg.org/kndw2kcu3/image.png

Ryukendo
07-24-2016, 12:54 AM
I did not say about can simple minorities change the language of majority. I said that 5% elite minoroties cant change languages.And we have not agreed.
Situation with India is different. 30 % of R1a in India is not elite minority. And it does not look like a "snowball effect". It look like simple mixing.

There is already an instance of movement where we know for a fact that a small minority both changed the language of an area, and also contributed disproportiontely to the gene pool due to elite overproduction, despite being illiterate non-city dwellers with tribal organisation. Prior to aDNA evidence, grave-counting in the South and East of England produced a ratio of 1:4 Anglo-Saxon to Sub-Roman Briton graves for the two centuries where A-S migrations took place, from inferences from grave goods which differed systematically between the two ethnicities. Harke, using this figure from Heather, then got a figure of ~5-10% migration of A-S to England when the A-S were compared against the Britons of England in their entirety.

From aDNA of Briton and A-S, we now know that the contribution of A-S to the modern British gene pool is ~30%, rising up to ~40% in the South and East of England and slightly lower elsewhere. Such disproportionate demographic impact must be due to status differentials, presumably arising due to differing legal status of A-S and Britons, with e.g. the Weregeld of a Briton being half that of an A-S man, the A-S man being entitled to carrying arms but not the Briton, and myriad other distinctions and discriminations. We also know that the A-S did not mix completely into the population until two centuries later; ethnic distinctions remained salient, observable from systematic differences in height of male skeletons of A-S versus Britons not disappearing until two centuries later.

Whether you are talking about a H-G culture, or a small-scale agropastoral one, all the way down to medieval cultures, all societies studied thus far have an association between male status and reproductive success. Look up the anthropological literature for Amazonian HGs and Papuan small-scale agrigulturalists, or Greg Clark's and associates' studies of reproductive differential between the wealthy/politically privileged vs the poor in Medieval societies around the world. In the Indian case, we already know the gene flow was male-biased, as Kristiina has posted, which makes it virtually certain that disproportionate demographic contribution with status differential was present there as well. And here in the A-S the disproportionate contribution also points to status differential. From the A-S example, your point that small minorities *cannot* change languages of a majority, with concomitant status differential, is already moot.

And please don't take Shaikorth's '30% Turkmen-like' figure in modern Turks and just run with it, even if the final contribution was 30% it could not *possibly* have come from a demographic pulse in the Turkic migrations, as that will require a horde of five to six million nomadic Turks to descend on Anatolia to join a pre-existing population of 10 or 12 million; such a scenario is so far out that its patently absurd. This also applies to India, as the ratio there is also ~30% R1a, as you have stated, and there is no possible circumstance under which the steppe can support a population half as large as that of agriculturalists in India, who then all flood into India to give 1/3 R1a. Status-mediated reproductive differential was most definitely involved in both these processes.

This idea of simple mixing doesn't work; to repeat, a naive model of mixing will never get a linguistic minority to spread its language, as the language with the largest number of speakers would be the one language-learners are most incentivised to adopt, and this language will also come to be most used in common affairs in arenas where monolinguals of both languages are present, to lessen transaction costs of communication due to translation. In cases where the language of small minorities dominate, some other social factors *must* be at play, for example, due to increased opportunities or social, political or economic benefits to learning the minority language, as there in fact are today when so many people learn English globally, for example. In any case, Ebizur has mentioned that the impact of Persian and Arabic on Anatolian Turkish was much greater than that of Greek or Armenian, so Anatolian Turkic in its current geographical bounds is *not* the effect of language mixing with local Greek-speakers on purely empirical grounds already, in fact the time Turkic peoples spent in Iran with Persianate administration and courtly life influenced their language more than the substrate Greek population in Anatolia did, which once again suggests how important status differentials and other such sociological factors are in linguistic change.

Ryukendo
07-24-2016, 01:12 AM
Find it hard to estimate a percentage of something that has no reference. Who said they were Turkic, they have could well been Turkified arabs before that. Also ottoman numbers in later periods are much different, which makes this scenario impossible. Without any ancient oghuz reference dna these numbers are based on nothing. Also what I found hard to believe is that, no matter how well organized they are, nomadic culture will absorb and assimilate city people, it should be the other way around.

From Langer, William L.; Blake, Robert P. (April 1932). "The Rise of the Ottoman Turks and Its Historical Background"

"Turkic pastoralists remained only a small minority, however, and the gradual Turkification of Anatolia was due less to in-migration than to the conversion of many Christians to Islam, and their adoption of the Turkish language. The reasons for this conversion were first, the weak hold Greek culture had on much of the population, and second, the desire by the conquered population to retain its property or else to avoid being at a disadvantage in other ways."

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2016, 08:46 AM
I think the main issue in need of explanation, in this scenario as in most analogous ones, is how the learned and civilised population lost large numbers, in fact the vast majority of its numbers, to an alternate ethnic identification and language over time. Which perhaps should give us pause as to what degree learnedness confers real power in premodern politics. So there is indeed a question about what an 'elite' actually is; to define it more precisely though, I would say that the elite here is the ethnicity or the social or political coalition with a disproportionate capacity for coordinated violence, as the violence/coercive capacities of different groups and social or political coalitions is the central mechanism underlying political hierarchy and the power of the governments of extractive-redistributive states or chiefdoms, which all the pre-Industrial polities were.

The prevalence of endogamous units in the Middle East perhaps had some impact on the preservation of minority cultures, as the Briton-AS distinction, and other Germanic-local distinctions, did not collapse in England and elsewhere in Europe until the forcible imposition of exogamy by the Catholic Church and state authorities, so Europe may look like the Middle East today with endogamous minorities interspersed were it not for differing laws and social structure in the Medieval period.

I remember Frank somewhat disagreed with you about the A-S debate, and the nature of settlement. IIRC, he argued that the figures reflected longer settlement period and a massive scale (reflected by a population drop lasting until the 8th century in north Germania), and that these were more or less "egalitarian" social groups of free settlers (?)
But I agree with your explanation. Ryu, i think the best treatment of AS settlement is a series of papers by Chris Scull (see Academia- esp. "Local & regional identities and processes in 5th -7th century England..)

Ral
07-24-2016, 09:44 AM
Bulgarian elite imposed their Oghur language on people similar to Finno-Ugric Mari living in present day Chuvashia and Tatarstan. Chuvashes speak Oghur language , while Kazan Tatars switched to Kypchak brought to them from western Kazakhkstan during Horde era. Isam was adopted by Volga Bulgaria, so likely religion was a driving factor in switching to another language just like in Anatolia 500-600 years later.
I said about Dunai bulgars and their turkic elite. Chuvashes is mixed population,there is also no reason to talk about the "chuvash elite". Volga Bulgaria was muslim state in 10 century.The main part of the turks adopted Islam much later, including the Golden Hord turks. Kazan tatars are muslims, chuvashes are pagans and christians without muslim traces in their language.This is a typical historical incident - the language of the Volga Bulgars was not Ogur. Chuvash were one of the ethnic minorities in Volga Bulgaria, not titular nation.


A small elite minority can be responsible. There is a number of examples in not so distant future in which people switched to other languages changing their identities because they lived in spheres of other cultures. A particular language was prestigeous to know as it was used in literature , universities, church services. New cultures and languages brought social and economic benefits to people living in some states. So it's quite possible.

Give examples, preferably not from the recent past, when there was no television,radio,schools,newspapers and the bulk of the population was physically unable to communicate with elite. What is the problem of your logic?
I can say that the Indo-European languages in Europe a small elite group brought with haplogroup C and the rest of Europe began to speak language of that group. Your counter? In other places people of this haplogroup not speak an Indo-European language?
I can say that they have also changed their language through the influence of other groups. And it is final. I can imagine that with the passage of time traces of original speakers can completely disappear, but the theory of "elite dominance" is extremely versatile, which can be used to argue that the original Indo-European haplogroup was haplogroup A.

Volat
07-24-2016, 10:16 AM
I said about Dunai bulgars and their turkic elite. Chuvashes is mixed population,there is also no reason to talk about the "chuvash elite". Volga Bulgaria was muslim state in 10 century.The main part of the turks adopted Islam much later, including the Golden Hord turks. Kazan tatars are muslims, chuvashes are pagans and christians without muslim traces in their language.This is a typical historical incident - the language of the Volga Bulgars was not Ogur. Chuvash were one of the ethnic minorities in Volga Bulgaria, not titular nation.

Why there was a reason to talk about Bulgarian elite migrating in Dunai region, while there was no reason talk about Bulgarian elite settling in middle Volga? They were the same people migrating in different regions around the same time. It's well established that Bulgars spoke the Oghur language. So do modern day Chuvashes speak the Oghur language Yet, Chuvashes' religion is pagan similar to that of Finno-Ugric Mari. Chuvashes are also genetically similar to Mari. So, I gave the example about Bulgarian elite that migrated in middle Volga region imposed their language onto locals.



Give examples, preferably not from the recent past, when there was no television,radio,newspapers and the bulk of the population was physically unable to communicate with the elite. What is the problem of your logic?

Not so distant past does not mean the past of the last 100 years when television, radio and education to wide public became available. The new world was settled by many different peoples earlier most of them switching to English, Spanish, French, Portuguese prior to the past of the last 100 years. There were people in eastern & central Europe living in Prussian, Russian, Austro-Hungarian empires changing their language and identities around 150- 200 years. This can be verified in historic records.



I can say that the Indo-European languages in Europe a small elite group brought with haplogroup C and the rest of Europe began to speak in the language of the group. Your counter? In other places people of this haplogroup not speak an Indo-European language?
I can say that they have also changed their language under the influence of other groups. And it is final. I can imagine that with the passage of time traces of the original speakers can completely disappear, but the theory of "elite dominance" is extremely versatile, which can be used to argue that the original Indo-European haplogroup was haplogroup A.

I cannot follow you here.

--

Here's a scholarly article in which DNA of Turkic peoples were studied . Authors concluded that Turkic languages were spread by elite groups : http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068#pgen.1005068.ref015



These results [of DNA analyses] support the model that expansion of the Turkic language family outside its presumed East Eurasian core area occurred primarily through language replacement, perhaps by the elite dominance scenario, that is, intrusive Turkic nomads imposed their language on indigenous peoples due to advantages in military and/or social organization.

Ryukendo
07-24-2016, 10:18 AM
I remember frank somewhat disagreed with you about the A-S debate. IIRC, he argued that the figures reflected longer settlement period, which probably stretched well into the 8-9th century (when he argued we see a settlement drop in north Germania), and that these were egalitarian social groups of free settlers (?)

There may well be continual movement into England into the later periods, though I have not seen evidence to this effect. Maybe we can look at some of Harke's research, since he was the first to propose elite overproduction in England specifically when he caught wind of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA data, and if continual migration were sufficient he would presumably have spelled out that scenario, which will void the need for elite overproduction. Frank's point seems to be more that there was no clear status differential between the Sub-Roman Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, which, from both the textual and the archaeological evidence, as well as inferences from the political structures, is extremely unlikely.

Addendum to the previous post: the 1:4 ratio for A-S to Briton is actually the largest ratio supported by any academic, Harke and Hamerow in this case, most of the other ratios for the initial movement are much smaller, for example Hodges and Hills suggest 1:20.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2016, 10:27 AM
There may well be continual movement into England into the later periods, though I have not seen evidence to this effect. Maybe we can look at some of Harke's writings, since he was the first to propose elite overproduction in England specifically when he caught wind of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA data, and if continual migration were sufficient he would presumably have spelled out that scenario, which will void the need for elite overproduction. Frank's point seems to be more that there was no clear status differential between the Sub-Roman Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, which, from both the textual and the archaeological evidence, as well as inferences from the political structures, is extremely unlikely.

Addendum to the previous post: the 1:4 ratio for A-S to Briton is actually the largest ratio supported by any academic, Harke and Hamerow in this case, most of the other ratios for the initial movement are much smaller, for example Hodges and Hills suggest 1:20.

I actually agree with you , esp in light of aDNA
30% sounds right on average, probably even 40-50% from an isolated male perspective (disproportionate reproductive success of AS men)
See my amended prev post, and a good reference in there

Ryukendo
07-24-2016, 10:46 AM
I actually agree with you , esp in light of aDNA
30% sounds right on average, probably even 40-50% from an isolated male perspective (disproportionate reproductive success of AS men)
See my amended prev post, and a good reference in there

Nice paper and tome, thanks man

Ral
07-24-2016, 11:04 AM
There is already an instance of movement where we know for a fact that a small minority both changed the language of an area, and also contributed disproportiontely to the gene pool due to elite overproduction, despite being illiterate non-city dwellers with tribal organisation. Prior to aDNA evidence, grave-counting in the South and East of England produced a ratio of 1:4 Anglo-Saxon to Sub-Roman Briton graves for the two centuries where A-S migrations took place, from inferences from grave goods which differed systematically between the two ethnicities. Harke, using this figure from Heather, then got a figure of ~5-10% migration of A-S to England when the A-S were compared against the Britons of England in their entirety.

From aDNA of Briton and A-S, we now know that the contribution of A-S to the modern British gene pool is ~30%, rising up to ~40% in the South and East of England and slightly lower elsewhere. Such disproportionate demographic impact must be due to status differentials, presumably arising due to differing legal status of A-S and Britons, with e.g. the Weregeld of a Briton being half that of an A-S man, the A-S man being entitled to carrying arms but not the Briton, and myriad other distinctions and discriminations. We also know that the A-S did not mix completely into the population until two centuries later; ethnic distinctions remained salient, observable from systematic differences in height of male skeletons of A-S versus Britons not disappearing until two centuries later.

Whether you are talking about a H-G culture, or a small-scale agropastoral one, all the way down to medieval cultures, all societies studied thus far have an association between male status and reproductive success. Look up the anthropological literature for Amazonian HGs and Papuan small-scale agrigulturalists, or Greg Clark's and associates' studies of reproductive differential between the wealthy/politically privileged vs the poor in Medieval societies around the world. In the Indian case, we already know the gene flow was male-biased, as Kristiina has posted, which makes it virtually certain that disproportionate demographic contribution with status differential was present there as well. And here in the A-S the disproportionate contribution also points to status differential. From the A-S example, your point that small minorities *cannot* change languages of a majority, with concomitant status differential, is already moot.

And please don't take Shaikorth's '30% Turkmen-like' figure in modern Turks and just run with it, even if the final contribution was 30% it could not *possibly* have come from a demographic pulse in the Turkic migrations, as that will require a horde of five to six million nomadic Turks to descend on Anatolia to join a pre-existing population of 10 or 12 million; such a scenario is so far out that its patently absurd. This also applies to India, as the ratio there is also ~30% R1a, as you have stated, and there is no possible circumstance under which the steppe can support a population half as large as that of agriculturalists in India, who then all flood into India to give 1/3 R1a. Status-mediated reproductive differential was most definitely involved in both these processes.

This idea of simple mixing doesn't work; to repeat, a naive model of mixing will never get a linguistic minority to spread its language, as the language with the largest number of speakers would be the one language-learners are most incentivised to adopt, and this language will also come to be most used in common affairs in arenas where monolinguals of both languages are present, to lessen transaction costs of communication due to translation. In cases where the language of small minorities dominate, some other social factors *must* be at play, for example, due to increased opportunities or social, political or economic benefits to learning the minority language, as there in fact are today when so many people learn English globally, for example. In any case, Ebizur has mentioned that the impact of Persian and Arabic on Anatolian Turkish was much greater than that of Greek or Armenian, so Anatolian Turkic in its current geographical bounds is *not* the effect of language mixing with local Greek-speakers on purely empirical grounds already, in fact the time Turkic peoples spent in Iran with Persianate administration and courtly life influenced their language more than the substrate Greek population in Anatolia did, which once again suggests how important status differentials and other such sociological factors are in linguistic change.
I see the problem:
1. Lack of important data that we are trying to replace the subjective reasoning.
2. The lack of correct data. Many of the data, which is considered to be reliable, are often the author version of some researchers and are not facts in the strict sense.
Therefore, it is difficult to come to objective correct conclusions .
With regard to the comparison of the Aryan invasion and Turkic expansion in Anatolia - I do not see any similarities.
Turks borrowed almost all of the local Greek, Persian and Arab tribal: urban culture, a religion, a significant body of vocabulary.
The business correspondence of the Ottoman Empire, sometimes included up to 80% of Arabic and Persian words. The elite of the Ottoman Empire was much more persianized, arabized than turkic bottoms. A diverse ethnically and linguistically region needed lingua franca,and 30% of turkic-speaking people was enough that he was fixed (with Turkish authorities, of course). It's my personal opinion.

Shaikorth
07-24-2016, 11:15 AM
I see the problem:
1. Lack of important data that we are trying to replace the subjective reasoning.
2. The lack of correct data. Many of the data, which is considered to be reliable, are often the author's version and some researchers are not facts in the strict sense.
Therefore, it is difficult to come to objective conclusions correct.
With regard to the comparison of the Aryan invasion and Turkic expansion in Anatolia - I do not see any similarities.
Turks borrowed almost all of the local Greek, Persian and Arab tribal: urban culture, a religion, a significant body of vocabulary.
The business correspondence of the Ottoman Empire, sometimes included up to 80% of Arabic and Persian words. The elite of the Ottoman Empire was much more persianized, arabized than turkic bottoms. A diverse ethnically and linguistically region needed lingua franca,and 30% of turkic-speaking people was enough that he was fixed (with Turkish authorities, of course). It's my personal opinion.

As RK mentioned before, the number of Turkic invaders was unlikely to be as high as their genetic contribution in modern Turks even if it's 30% Turkmen-like. These are illustrative examples and not to be taken as actual statistics, but if a Turkic speaker averages 2,5 offspring/generation and a Greek speaker's number is 2,2 the Turk's genetic legacy in the population increases over time without any need for further immigration.

Ral
07-24-2016, 11:21 AM
Without any ancient oghuz reference dna these numbers are based on nothing.
Totally agree with your opinion. They take for standard Yakut's genetic, which probably were ugric people in the past.

Shaikorth
07-24-2016, 11:34 AM
Totally agree with your opinion. They take the standard of reason Yakut genetics, which probably was ugric people in the past.


Yakuts are mostly on a Tungusic substrate autosomally as they resemble Evenks more than Altaians or Tuvans, but their N1c is clearly from the Turkic migrants who brought the language and subject to massive founder effect.

http://rjgg.molgen.org/index.php/RJGGRE/article/view/157

Ral
07-24-2016, 12:57 PM
Why there was a reason to talk about Bulgarian elite migrating in Dunai region, while there was no reason talk about Bulgarian elite settling in middle Volga?
Because we know about turkic elite of bulgars through historic documents, and we know nothing about turkic elite of Mari. Also, slavic tribes not lost language through turkic elite, but the elite lost their initial language.


I gave the example about Bulgarian elite that migrated in middle Volga region imposed their language onto locals.

No you did'nt. Its your own (and others) interpretation of some data. There is alternative interpretaion of that data.
But i can give some more real data.
There is a small forest wild turkic-speaking tribe In Siberia.
They have traces of ugric people in the vocabulary and phonetics and culture . They live next door to the more numerous Turkic tribes and have little genetic contacts, but there are trade contacts. It seems that the tribe change its language through trade contacts.
This forest tribe didnt have a turkic elite,of course,and probably even intensive marital contacts. But if we consider them to integrated system, it is 15,000 turkic-speaking people against 3000 ugric-speaking. Number is important.



It's well established that Bulgars spoke the Oghur language.

No, it is established opinion that probably is not correct, because it conflicts with other data, so such dubious theory as " elite dominance " come to help him because it can easily explain all the inconsistencies.



Here's a scholarly article in which DNA of Turkic peoples were studied . Authors concluded that Turkic languages were spread by elite groups :

it is author's interpretation of the some data.You can agree with them or not.

Ral
07-24-2016, 01:05 PM
Yakuts are mostly on a Tungusic substrate autosomally as they resemble Evenks more than Altaians or Tuvans, but their N1c is clearly from the Turkic migrants who brought the language and subject to massive founder effect.

http://rjgg.molgen.org/index.php/RJGGRE/article/view/157

I guess a more complex scheme: ugric->turkic+tungus and even ugric-mongolic->turkic+tungus
There are some linguistic considerations for it.

Arame
07-24-2016, 01:25 PM
Ancient Oghuz DNA maybe difficult to find. Oghuz speaking tribes were pushed by other Turkic tribes in the east resulting in Oghuz migration into modern day Turkmenistan in 9th century.

Well very ancient maybe will be difficult. But medieval quite realistic. Here one mausoleum in Armenia.
Kara Koyunlu emirs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_Kara_Koyunlu_emirs

Shaikorth
07-24-2016, 01:40 PM
I guess a more complex scheme: ugric->turkic+tungus and even ugric-mongolic->turkic+tungus
There are some linguistic considerations for it.

The "Yakut branch" (M2019 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/N/)) separated 6000-7000 years ago, Balt N1c and Mansi-Hungarian N1c (not found in Yakutia or Altai) are much more related to each other than to it. The separation happened before Ugric languages existed, so it reflects older population movements.

The oldest subclade in the Yakut branch (separated long before Yakut's migration to northern Siberia) is according to the Adamov paper found in Central and Eastern Europe.

Volat
07-24-2016, 01:56 PM
Well very ancient maybe will be difficult. But medieval quite realistic. Here one mausoleum in Armenia.
Kara Koyunlu emirs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_Kara_Koyunlu_emirs

Oghuz were likely to be mixed by the time they reached southern Caucasus in the early 15th century. It's often mentioned in literature Oghuz were pushed by Karluks (another Turkic tribe) from region in south-eastern Kazakhstan known as "Seven Rivers" towards east Caspian. During that time territories of modern day Turkmenistan were settled by east Iranic where Oghuz began mixing with the locals. As well as with people in northern Iran. DNA of autochthonous Turkic people of Altay known as Khakass maybe considered as a proxy for the DNA of original Turkic.

Volat
07-24-2016, 02:07 PM
Because we know about turkic elite of bulgars through historic documents, and we know nothing about turkic elite of Mari. Also, slavic tribes not lost language through turkic elite, but the elite lost their initial language.

No you did'nt. Its your own (and others) interpretation of some data. There is alternative interpretaion of that data.
But i can give some more real data.
There is a small forest wild turkic-speaking tribe In Siberia.
They have traces of ugric people in the vocabulary and phonetics and culture . They live next door to the more numerous Turkic tribes and have little genetic contacts, but there are trade contacts. It seems that the tribe change its language through trade contacts. This forest tribe didnt have a turkic elite,of course,and probably even intensive marital contacts. But if we consider them to integrated system, it is 15,000 turkic-speaking people against 3000 ugric-speaking. Number is important.


No, it is established opinion that probably is not correct, because it conflicts with other data, so such dubious theory as " elite dominance " come to help him because it can easily explain all the inconsistencies.

They only people who speak Oghur language today are Chuvashes. Bulgars also spoke the Oghur language. Open any book on the subject. How did Chuvashes began to speak the Oghur language, when it's known they are related to Finno-Ugric Mari people culturally and genetically? It's also known Bulgars migrated in middle Volga establishing a state known as Volga Bulgaria.




it is author's interpretation of the some data.You can agree with them or not.

Authors presented their conclusion based on the results they obtained in analyses of genetic data in the article I referenced.

Ryukendo
07-24-2016, 02:26 PM
Also, slavic tribes not lost language through turkic elite, but the elite lost their initial language...

This is getting long, but anyway, the original question is whether *at least some* language shifts from minority populations with coincident status differentials, or technologically primitive populations taking over technologically and economically advanced populations due to sociological or organisational advantages, have occurred. You still haven't talked about the Nahuatlisation of the Mexica Valley, the Arabization of Egypt and the Middle East, the Indo-Europeanisation of India, the Burmanization of the Mon-Khmer areas, et cetera, out of which many cases e.g. in the Arab conquests, there was a sharp sociopolitical transformation due to a small defined movement and no snowball effect whatsover.



...Number is important....

No, it is established opinion that probably is not correct, because it conflicts with other data, so such dubious theory as " elite dominance " come to help him because it can easily explain all the inconsistencies....

it is author's interpretation of the some data.You can agree with them or not.

The paper that Volat cited demonstrated that all Turkic populations in West Eurasia have, like Anatolian Turks, have only minority putatively Turkic autosomal contribution, disproportionate or no. Any model of 'stochastic mixing' of populations and languages will have to explain why it is that, of the two sides doing the mixing, the *minority* linguistic group had such anomalous statistical success at transmission of its ethnolinguistic identity to the hybrid population so much of the time. The answer of course is that 'stochastic mixing' is a poor model for language spread in the Turkic case, and probably many others as well.


A diverse ethnically and linguistically region needed lingua franca,and 30% of turkic-speaking people was enough that he was fixed (with Turkish authorities, of course). It's my personal opinion.
The 'Turkish authorities', there you have it. If this isn't an example of sociopolitical dominance leading to generalisation of a minority language, I don't know what is.

Ral
07-24-2016, 03:22 PM
They only people who speak Oghur language today are Chuvashes. Bulgars also spoke the Oghur language. Open any book on the subject.

Believe me, I'm much more aware of this issue than you. I know all the arguments for and against. This is a big separate issue and it's not appropriate.
How it happens? Dozens of books authors usually refer to five experts. Four Of these five professionals refer to one. And you have impression that this issue carefully studied dozens of experts.
I choose a one moment. Volga Bulgaria was islamic state like a modern Iran.
Volga Bulgars even offered to accept Islam to Russian princes. It was almost a theocracy.
But few сhuvash pagans were declared descendants of these zealous muslims, who have no even a hint for the muslim past, as well as Mari.
This concept even does not pass famous duck test. I know meandering logic which used to explain this contradiction.


Authors presented their conclusion based on the results they obtained in analyses of genetic data in the article I referenced.


I quote Afshar


Without any ancient oghuz(turk- Ral.) reference dna these numbers are based on nothing

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2016, 03:38 PM
Let's open a new thread on the genetic and linguistics of Chuvash, old Bulgars, " forest turkic", etc

J Man
07-24-2016, 03:46 PM
Well very ancient maybe will be difficult. But medieval quite realistic. Here one mausoleum in Armenia.
Kara Koyunlu emirs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_Kara_Koyunlu_emirs

Now that would be interesting!

Ral
07-24-2016, 03:47 PM
To Ryukendo.
I'm tired of explaining. I'm out of the dispute

parasar
07-24-2016, 03:52 PM
...
Without any ancient oghuz(turk- Ral.) reference dna these numbers are based on nothing...

The Turki (tuh-kiueh-'hun) were originally from the south of Mongolia, west of Wei, and east of Loulan. They are described as having mongol features for their eyes, beard, nose, etc.
Sung-Yun: "Ascending the Chih-Ling and proceeding westward twenty-three days, having crossed the Drifting Sands, they arrived at the country of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun. Along the road the cold was very severe, whilst the high winds, and the driving snow, and the pelting sand and gravel were so bad, that it was impossible to raise one's eyes without getting them filled. The chief city of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun and the neighbourhood is agreeably warm. The written character of this country is nearly the same as that of the Wei. The customs and regulations observed by these people are mostly barbarous in character (after the rules of the outside barbarians or foreigners). Prom this country going west 3500 li, we arrive at the city of Shen-Shen [Loulan]. This city, from the time it set up a king, was seized by the Tuh-kiueh-'hun, and at present there resides in it a military officer (the second general) for subjugating (pacifying) the west. The entire cantonment amounts to 3000 men, who are employed in withstanding the western Hu."

By the time of Xuanzhang trip the tuh-kiueh had displaced the Tukhara (tu-hulo) rule all over Central Asia.
Tukhara: https://books.google.com/books?id=1_03AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA10

Ral
07-24-2016, 04:09 PM
The Turki (tuh-kiueh-'hun) were originally from the south of Mongolia, west of Wei, and east of Loulan. They are described as having mongol features for their eyes, beard, nose, etc.
Sung-Yun: "Ascending the Chih-Ling and proceeding westward twenty-three days, having crossed the Drifting Sands, they arrived at the country of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun. Along the road the cold was very severe, whilst the high winds, and the driving snow, and the pelting sand and gravel were so bad, that it was impossible to raise one's eyes without getting them filled. The chief city of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun and the neighbourhood is agreeably warm. The written character of this country is nearly the same as that of the Wei. The customs and regulations observed by these people are mostly barbarous in character (after the rules of the outside barbarians or foreigners). Prom this country going west 3500 li, we arrive at the city of Shen-Shen [Loulan]. This city, from the time it set up a king, was seized by the Tuh-kiueh-'hun, and at present there resides in it a military officer (the second general) for subjugating (pacifying) the west. The entire cantonment amounts to 3000 men, who are employed in withstanding the western Hu."

By the time of Xuanzhang trip the tuh-kiueh had displaced the Tukhara (tu-hulo) rule all over Central Asia.
Tukhara: https://books.google.com/books?id=1_03AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA10

I believe that in that time the Turkic populations already have different genetic and greater number than is commonly believed.
Otherwise, I would have to agree with the concept of elite dominance. This things are related, of course.

parasar
07-24-2016, 04:26 PM
I believe that in that time the Turkic populations already have different genetic and greater number than is commonly believed.
Otherwise, I would have to agree with the concept of elite dominance. This related things, of course.

Not with a Turkic name. We see a clear expansion of the Turki through the writings of Faxian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faxian), Song Yun ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_Yun ), and Xuanzang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang).
Within about a 250 year period the Turks became a paramount power in inner Asia and soon after we see reports about them from India.

As far as influence, I think that they likely had influence via the Kushans (Huns, Khazars) but not as Turks.

Ral
07-24-2016, 04:39 PM
Not with a Turkic name...
but not as Turks.
I will explain. "Turks" is not a single ethnic name of turkic tribes, and even for the majority of turkic tribes. The ethnonym "Turk" is well correlated with Oguz. Apparently, Turkic koganat was named through influential tribe with the name "Turk".

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2016, 04:45 PM
I will explain. "Turks" is not a single ethnic name of turkic tribes, and even for the majority of turkic tribes. The ethnonym "Turk" is well correlated with Oguz. Apparently, Turkic koganat was named through influential tribe with the name "Turk".

Correct
The name "Turk" first appears and popularised with GokTurks**. That is why I have previously argued elsewhere that groups like Avars and Bulgars were not "Turkic", but actual enemies of Turks, albeit their language - Oghur- might have branched from a common ancestor a few hundred years earlier

** although "Tujue" appears in Inner Mongolia with the Xiongnu

parasar
07-24-2016, 05:01 PM
I will explain. "Turks" is not a single ethnic name of turkic tribes, and even for the majority of turkic tribes. The ethnonym "Turk" is well correlated with Oguz. Apparently, Turkic koganat was named through influential tribe with the name "Turk".

Okay let us go with turkic then rather than Turk.

Each and every major river or mountain in central Asia had a non-turkic name. Starting about 450 AD and by about 700AD the names progressively became turkic.
For example the most important river of Central Asia is the Amu.
Its Indic name is Vakshu. Its Chinese name is F o-t'su. Its Greek name is Oxus. Its Persian name is Vaksh. All are related except Amu.
It was considered one of the four main rivers of the Indic world (along with Sheet, Sindhu, and Ganga). But the turkic influence was so complete in central Asia that the prior name of Vakshu near completely disappeared. The same happened to the river Sheet which became Tarim. Tukhara became Turkestan. Anatolia and surrounds became Turkey. That is turkic elite dominance at display.

evon
07-24-2016, 05:20 PM
Okay let us go with turkic then rather than Turk.

Each and every major river or mountain in central Asia had a non-turkic name. Starting about 450 AD and by about 700AD the names progressively became turkic.
For example the most important river of Central Asia is the Amu.
Its Indic name is Vakshu. Its Chinese name is F o-t'su. Its Greek name is Oxus. Its Persian name is Vaksh. All are related except Amu.
It was considered one of the four main rivers of the Indic world (along with Sheet, Sindhu, and Ganga). But the turkic influence was so complete in central Asia that the prior name of Vakshu near completely disappeared. The same happened to the river Sheet which became Tarim. Tukhara became Turkestan. Anatolia and surrounds became Turkey. That is turkic elite dominance at display.

As a note to this, the term "Turkestan" is a oft used historic term that referred to a region known to have a Turkic speaking population, while it today often refers to the Tarim basin and the plains between the Syr and Amu Darya, in the past it referred to regions further north (as is notable in a slave contract from Turfan written in Sogdian dated to the mid 600's), which suggest that Turkestan was during the late 600's located north of the Tian Shan mountain range.

Also, it was mainly during the later part of the 600's into the 700's that the Sogdian elite begun to show a cultural influence from the Turkic speaking peoples further north. It is likely that this was in direct response to the rising Arab threat to the central Asian region after the fall of the Sasanian empire, as it is also the same period that the Sogdians begun to manipulate various iconographic materials in order to gain favor with the Chinese, who actually ruled much of central Asia via their Turkic speaking vassals.. So one could say that the Turkic cultural influence was a byproduct of the Arab threat to Sogdiana...

Kristiina
07-24-2016, 05:23 PM
DNA of autochthonous Turkic people of Altay known as Khakass maybe considered as a proxy for the DNA of original Turkic.

Volat, if Khakass are close to original Turks, proto-Turk is about N1b-P43 (44%), N1c (20%) and R1a1 (28%) which cover 92% of Khakass yDNA.

“The beginning of the Khakass ethnogenesis dates back to the Hunnic/Sarmatian time (2nd century BC to 2nd century AD), when several Turkic groups of Gyan’–Gun’s and Hunns moved to the Altai and Sayany from Central Asia. In this period, they merged with the former Siberian Scythian population of the Tagar culture.” Source: Genetic diversity of the Khakass gene pool: Subethnic differentiation and the structure of Y-chromosome haplogroups, Khar’kov et al, 2012

If Tagar are R1a1, then ‘Central Asian’ groups are N1b-A and N1c. N1b-A is shared with Samoyeds, so N1b men may originally have been proto-Samoyedic-speakers and they may have come somewhere from Tomsk area. Instead, Khakas N1c seems to be an independent branch shared with Shors, Tuvinians and Altaians defined lately as N3b B187, further apart from Volgaic N1c than Yakut branch, so they probably never were Uralic speakers and are a candidate for original Turkic speakers.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-24-2016, 05:27 PM
Okay let us go with turkic then rather than Turk.

Each and every major river or mountain in central Asia had a non-turkic name. Starting about 450 AD and by about 700AD the names progressively became turkic.
For example the most important river of Central Asia is the Amu.
Its Indic name is Vakshu. Its Chinese name is F o-t'su. Its Greek name is Oxus. Its Persian name is Vaksh. All are related except Amu.
It was considered one of the four main rivers of the Indic world (along with Sheet, Sindhu, and Ganga). But the turkic influence was so complete in central Asia that the prior name of Vakshu near completely disappeared. The same happened to the river Sheet which became Tarim. Tukhara became Turkestan. Anatolia and surrounds became Turkey. That is turkic elite dominance at display.

Do you have specific list / chronology of when the earliest Turkic-type names appear in Central Asia ?

Shaikorth
07-24-2016, 05:35 PM
If Tagar are R1a1, then ‘Central Asian’ groups are N1b-A and N1c. N1b-A is shared with Samoyeds, so N1b men may originally have been proto-Samoyedic-speakers and they may have come somewhere from Tomsk area. Instead, Khakas N1c seems to be an independent branch shared with Shors, Tuvinians and Altaians defined lately as N3b B187, further apart from Volgaic N1c than Yakut branch, so they probably never were Uralic speakers and are a candidate for original Turkic speakers.

Modern frequencies of Y-DNA aren't sufficient to say that. N3b has a recent MRCA and is generally absent in Turkics outside Altai, not found in Siberian Tatars, Dolgans, Bashkirs, Karakalpaks, Karanogays, Uzbeks, Kazakhs etc. Needless to say, it is extremely unlikely that all these groups would have 0% original Turkic Y-DNA.

Kristiina
07-24-2016, 05:49 PM
A valid point. In the end, maybe only R1a1-Z93 is shared between all Turks. :-) Khakass R1a1 seems to be Z93. Most groups also have a small amount of R1b-M73 and several Q lines. However, 6 out of 7 Khakass groups lack C-217 which is found in most Turkic groups. A complex issue...

Kanenas
07-24-2016, 05:57 PM
Ptolemy had mentioned some people called Χούνοι in the western region of Eurasian steppes but they say that the similarity is coincidental. It can be. But their argument isn't very strong.


The 2nd-century geographer Ptolemy mentioned a people called Chuni (Χοῦνοι or Χουνοί) when listing the peoples of the western region of the Eurasian Steppes.[37][38] The Chuni lived "between the Bastarnae and the Roxolani", according to Ptolemy.[37][38] Edward Arthur Thompson said, the similarity between the two ethnonyms (Chuni and Huns) is only a coincidence: Western Roman authors often wrote Chunni or Chuni in reference to the Huns, East Romans never used the guttural "[x]" at the beginning of their name.[38] Maenchen-Helfen and Denis Sinor also dispute the association of the Chuni with Attila's Huns.[39][40] However, Maenchen-Helfen proposes that Ammianus Marcellinus referred to Ptolemy's report of the Chuni when stating that the Huns "are mentioned only cursorily in ancient writers".[12][39] He does not exclude either that the Urugundi who invaded the Roman Empire from the steppes to the north of the Lower Danube in 250 AD, according to Zosimus, were identical with the Vurugundi, whom Agathias listed among the Hunnic tribes.[41]

They are even called Θούνοι (Thuni) in one source written by Eustathius of Thessalonica. (Commentarium in Dionysii periegetae orbis descriptionem)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Thessalonica 1115 – 1195/6

"Ότι Ούννοι ή Θούννοι [...] Κάσπιον έθνος εισίν Σκυθικόν"
"Because Unni or Thunni are a Scythian Caspian tribe"

Furthermore he says that the 'Unni' towards the north of east (?) are called Turks by Persians.

That's enough to prove that the Greek-speaking authors didn't always use terms like 'Unni'.

So, the name Χούνοι in Ptolemy isn't necessarily a coincidence. Maybe Turkic speaking people existed in western Eurasian steppes since the times of Ptolemy or even before.

My impression is that the Greeks believed that the homeland of Turkic-speaking people was east of Don.

Ral
07-24-2016, 05:59 PM
Okay let us go with turkic then rather than Turk.

Each and every major river or mountain in central Asia had a non-turkic name. Starting about 450 AD and by about 700AD the names progressively became turkic.
For example the most important river of Central Asia is the Amu.
Its Indic name is Vakshu. Its Chinese name is F o-t'su. Its Greek name is Oxus. Its Persian name is Vaksh. All are related except Amu.
It was considered one of the four main rivers of the Indic world (along with Sheet, Sindhu, and Ganga). But the turkic influence was so complete in central Asia that the prior name of Vakshu near completely disappeared. The same happened to the river Sheet which became Tarim. Tukhara became Turkestan. Anatolia and surrounds became Turkey. That is turkic elite dominance at display.
What is the Aryan etymology Vakhsh?(=greek "ox").The name of river has well turkic etimology.

Kristiina
07-24-2016, 06:13 PM
Turks borrowed almost all of the local Greek, Persian and Arab tribal: urban culture, a religion, a significant body of vocabulary.


If Turks are to a significant extent R1a1, e.g. Kyrgyz 63.5%, Uzbeks 27%, Kazan Tatars 20%, Gagauz 19%, Kazakhs 15%, Turkmens 7%, Khakass 28%, Shor 78%, Teleut 68%, Altai Kizhi 50%, Tubalar 37%, Chelkan 16%, Kumandin 12%, I really wonder why and how they should have borrowed anything from themselves. :-)

Ral
07-24-2016, 06:26 PM
If Turks are mostly R1a1, e.g. Kyrgyz 63.5%, Uzbeks 27%, Kazan Tatars 20%, Gagauz 19%, Kazakhs 15%, Turkmens 7%, Khakass 28%, I really wonder why and how they should have borrowed anything from themselves. :-)
It is not yet complete data.But I give a hint. The sibirian turks is mixed not less than turkish. Not only genetic, mixing is fixed by documents.
Sibirian turks assimilated some groups of samoyeds, ugric, mongols,yeniseian and others.

DMXX
07-24-2016, 06:32 PM
This thread has been split from here. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7877-Broushaki-et-al-quot-Early-Neolithic-genomes-from-the-eastern-Fertile-Crescent-quot/page39)

parasar
07-24-2016, 07:12 PM
What is the Aryan etymology Vakhsh?(=greek "ox").The name of river has well turkic etimology.

To speak. It is IE rooted. The Greeks and the Chinese were transliterating.
vak-as, vak-i, vak-shu, vak-mi, vak-shi, vak-ti
Also a form for Saraswati and a speaking tree/oak.

There is also a river ikshu from to see also IE rooted.

Ral
07-24-2016, 08:15 PM
To speak. It is IE rooted. The Greeks and the Chinese were transliterating.
vak-as, vak-i, vak-shu, vak-mi, vak-shi, vak-ti
Also a form for Saraswati and a speaking tree/oak.

There is also a river ikshu from to see also IE rooted.
Turkic etimology is more logical.
For start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya


In classical antiquity, the river was known as the Ōxus in Latin and Ὦξος Ôxos in Greek—a clear derivative of Vakhsh, the name of the largest tributary of the river.[citation needed] In Vedic Sanskrit, the river is also referred to as Vakṣu (वक्षु). The Avestan texts too refer to the River as Yakhsha/Vakhsha (and Yakhsha Arta ("upper Yakhsha") referring to the Jaxartes/Syr Darya twin river to Amu Darya).

In Middle Persian sources of the Sassanid period the river is known as Wehrōd[2] (lit. "good river").

Further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksu


Aksu or Aqsu (Turkic: "white water") may refer to:

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


Aksu, the name of the Bartang River in its upper reaches in Afghanistan and Tajikistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartang_River
In russian:
http://infolio.asf.ru/Sprav/Brokgaus/0/206.html
translation


Usually considered the upper reaches of the Amu Darya river Aksu, flowing at 37 ° 15 's. w. and at 89 °. d. from the lake Kuli

In russian too
https://ok.ru/dinibehi/topic/65321711359267 (Information from Herodot)


Ak (AKES) - river Amu Darya of "plain (valley) Horasmis" of Herodotus.

Herodotus calls the river without formant "su" ("river,water" in turkic) - river AK ("white") as Amu ( without "darya"), it completely breaks the aryan etymology.
I do not mind the information from Herodotus, I am embarrassed that the river already mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit as Vakṣu. This is too early.:amen:

gravetti
07-24-2016, 08:22 PM
In Hungary it looks even worse (even smaller input).

Table 8. from p. 137 of Anna Szécsény-Nagy's dissertation shows zero percent of genetic continuity in informative haplotypes between samples of 25 conquest-era Magyars and 284 modern Hungarians:

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/AG%20Alt/AG%20Alt_Personal/Profile/Szecsenyi-Nagy.pdf

Gyöngyvér Tömöry came to similar conclusions after analyzing 27 Early Medieval Magyar samples:

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/1088/3/Tömöry_tézisek-angol.pdf

And in this 2008 study, 2 out of 2 elite Magyar males (Y-DNA samples) belonged to N1c haplogroup:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

N1c is associated with Uralic languages so it makes sense that Magyars from elite burials were N1c.

However, N1c is almost completely absent among modern Hungarians. In a sample of 100 modern Hungarian males from Hungary and 97 modern Szekler males from Romania, nobody had N1c.

Disinformation.

parasar
07-24-2016, 08:45 PM
Turkic etimology is more logical.
For start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya

Further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksu

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartang_River
In russian:
http://infolio.asf.ru/Sprav/Brokgaus/0/206.html
translation

In russian too
https://ok.ru/dinibehi/topic/65321711359267 (Information from Herodot)

Herodotus calls the river without formant "su" ("river,water" in turkic) - river AK ("white") as Amu ( without "darya"), it completely breaks the aryan etymology.
I do not mind the information from Herodotus, I am embarrassed that the river already mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit as Vakṣu. This is too early.:amen:

Okay lets now start with Ikshu (now Syr Darya)?
Then Sheet (or Tarim). There are many such names attested in Chinese and Indic texts. It would be highly incredible that Turks around 650AD would revamp old Turkic names with new Turkic ones.

Perhaps instead of showing recent etymological constructs, you could point to ancient Turkic material with these names.

Afshar
07-24-2016, 09:10 PM
Totally agree with your opinion. They take for standard Yakut's genetic, which probably were ugric people in the past.

Yes imo opinion we first need some ancient dna from the source to conclude what they contributed to the anatolian genepool.

Ral
07-24-2016, 09:19 PM
Okay lets now start with Ikshu (now Syr Darya)?
Perhaps instead of showing recent etymological constructs, you could point to ancient Turkic material with these names.
There is no turkic sources older than 6-7 century AD. In those documents words "ak" and "su" sound like now.
Due to the lack of ancient sources etymologization throw turkic language is difficult. In addition, it is necessary to know exactly what is the turkic version of the name of the river, not aryan. With Amu Darya we have the Greek version of the sound that is closer to the turkic sound than the aryan.

Ral
07-24-2016, 09:26 PM
Yes imo opinion we first need some ancient dna from the source to conclude what they contributed to the anatolian genepool.
Afshar, there is a problem. Ancient dna which will differ from Yakuts, will be identified as not turkish, not oguz DNA.:)

Afshar
07-24-2016, 09:33 PM
Afshar, there is a problem. Ancient dna which will differ from Yakuts, will be identified as not turkish, not oguz DNA.:)
Do you think ancient oghuz autDna will be somehat similar to Yakuts?

Ral
07-24-2016, 10:12 PM
Do you think ancient oghuz autDna will be somehat similar to Yakuts?
No,hardly. I have some information.This is indirect information, not autDna. There are no even eastern Eurasian haplogroups .

Kristiina
07-25-2016, 06:10 AM
Turkic etimology is more logical.

Herodotus calls the river without formant "su" ("river,water" in turkic) - river AK ("white") as Amu ( without "darya"), it completely breaks the aryan etymology.
I do not mind the information from Herodotus, I am embarrassed that the river already mentioned in Vedic Sanskrit as Vakṣu. This is too early.:amen:

I notice that the word 'white' is similar in Uralic Mordvin and Mari languages: Erzya ašo, Mokša akš, Mari oš, óšo white. In Bashkir 'light' (noun) is aqtiliq and in Northeast Caucasian Lezgi ekʷ.

The word for the Volga River has the same semantics: Erzya valdo, Mari vólgədo, Finnish valo 'light' (noun), Estonian valge, Saami vielgat, white.

Ryukendo
07-25-2016, 07:12 AM
No,hardly. I have some information.This is indirect information, not autDna. There are no even eastern Eurasian haplogroups .

It may well be the case that, for paternal haplogroups at least, the ancestral Turkic population retained only West Eurasian contributions. Its also clear that Yakuts are a poor representative of the ancestral Turkic population, and anyway they are distinguished from the surrounding Tungusics by having minor levels of West Eurasian steppe ancestry proper, which tells us that West Eurasian steppe ancestry is likely to be important in the ancestral Turkics. But we already have an aDNA time sequence of autosomal structure in the Eastern Steppes from the Bronze Age down to the centuries CE, from Allenthoft et al, including samples that bracket the Turkic expansion, just before and just after.

The Okunevo culture autosomally looks like a mixture of Afanasievo with Amerinds, the Karasuk looks like a further dilution of that with Central Siberian/Beringian-like ancestry. By the time of the Iron Age, the autosomes ~200BCE are already most similar to Bashkir and Siberian Tatar, containing a ~10% fraction of Japanese/Han-like East Asian ancestry, the rest Siberian, adding to 50% West Eurasian 50% East Eurasian overall. By ~700AD, just after the dominance of the Gokturks, but before the arrival of the Mongolic federations, the samples are similar to present-day Altaian and Khakass, only ~30% West Eurasian, the rest East Eurasian, and the proportion of Japanese/Han-like East Asian ancestry is increased yet further compared to before.

10624
(Click to enlarge)

Running these through admixture, these are very similar to present-day Turks, especially the later sample:
http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/autosomal-dna-comparison-of-ancient-altai-j2a-samples-2.png
http://www.haplogruplar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/RISE602-RISE504-results.jpg

The tendency to choose a cluster centering around Altaian and Khakass to represent a putatively Turkic population in most papers utilizing segment sharing, seems relatively accurate in light of the autosomes of the Eastern Steppes at this period.

Since the Turks issued out of the Eastern steppes in the time bracketed by the samples, these or something very similar to them are likely reflective of their ancestry. There is still some possibility that East Eurasian ancestry represents <50% of the autosomal element spread by the Turkic expansion, but just from geographic factors and so on, especially the fact that the centre of gravity of Turks was definitely not the Altai at this stage, but even further east, that doesn't look very likely.

Kristiina
07-25-2016, 08:03 AM
Okunevo (2000-1500 BC) yDNA or Afanasievo yDNA is not available

Meshovskaya (1200-600 BC): R1b1a2-PF6494, R1a1a1b-Z649 (often considered proto-Ugric)
Karasuk (1500–800 BC): Q1a1b1-L712, R1a1a1b-, R1a1a1b2a2-YP349 (Yeniseian and Burushaski languages proposed)
Iron Age Altai: R1a1a1b2a2a-Y431, J2a2-PF5000 x2, Q1a1b-M25

Do you think that one of these cultures was Turkic speaking? In any case, we need more data from Northern Central Asia and Siberia, and also Mesolithic data is welcome.

Shaikorth
07-25-2016, 08:04 AM
Tuvans were used as proto-Turks in Yunusbayev et al.

They are a bit more eastern than Khakass and Altaians and more similar to Buryats, but this could be because Buryats are actually Turkic shifted compared to most Mongolic speakers.

Ryukendo
07-25-2016, 08:29 AM
Delete

Kristiina
07-25-2016, 09:08 AM
Am I right that on the basis of the available autosomal data from Allentoft et al, Iron Age Altai is autosomally already close to Turkic Altai before the Turkic languages arrived?

It is true that linguistic issues should be resolved mainly with linguistic methods.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-25-2016, 09:14 AM
Am I right that on the basis of the available autosomal data from Allentoft et al, Iron Age Altai is autosomally already close to Turkic Altai before the Turkic languages arrived?

It is true that linguistic issues should be resolved mainly with linguistic methods.

Arrived from where specifically ? Inner Mongolia - the Xiongnu homeland ? But what does that necessarily imply about Turkic. Were the Xiongnu even definitely Turkic ?
How do we know where it arrived from ? It's all guesswork, within reasonable limits, as it'll be a kaleidoscope of languages families not following any genetic "treeness"

(Just pointing out hypotheticals )

Ryukendo
07-25-2016, 09:27 AM
Okunevo (2000-1500 BC) yDNA or Afanasievo yDNA is not available

Meshovskaya (1200-600 BC): R1b1a2-PF6494, R1a1a1b-Z649 (often considered proto-Ugric)
Karasuk (1500–800 BC): Q1a1b1-L712, R1a1a1b-, R1a1a1b2a2-YP349 (Yeniseian and Burushaski languages proposed)
Iron Age Altai: R1a1a1b2a2a-Y431, J2a2-PF5000 x2, Q1a1b-M25

Do you think that one of these cultures was Turkic speaking? In any case, we need more data from Northern Central Asia and Siberia, and also Mesolithic data is welcome.

I don't know which one of these exactly would be Turkic speaking, from what I know the best fitting interpretation for the Xiongnu linguistic matierial is that they are Yeniseian, and my assumption is that prior to the expansion of the Gokturks there was little or no presence of Turkic speakers into the Western Steppes. As far as I know there was no Turkic substrate in Central Asian IIrs, is there?

EDIT: Kristiina, this is a reply to the post before this one, I misread your meaning.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-25-2016, 09:33 AM
I don't know which one of these exactly would be Turkic speaking, from what I know the best fitting interpretation for the Xiongnu linguistic matierial is that they are Yeniseian, and my assumption is that prior to the expansion of the Gokturks there was little or no presence of Turkic speakers into the Western Steppes. As far as I know there was no Turkic substrate in Central Asian IIrs, is there?

EDIT: Kristiina, this is a reply to the post before this one, I misread your meaning.

If Xiongnu were Yenesei (? Latest academic source), and Turkic related to Oghuric (which shows a presence in the far west by late antiquity), then para-Turkic should be somewhat more western ?

Ryukendo
07-25-2016, 10:05 AM
If Xiongnu were Yenesei (? Latest academic source), and Turkic related to Oghuric (which shows a presence in the far west by late antiquity), then para-Turkic should be somewhat more western ?

Pulleyblank was the first to suggest this, then Vovin came over to his side because he managed to analyse a sentence of the (or a) Xiongnu language as Yeniseian better than he could using a Turkic fit. This sentence has been attracting a lot of attention as the only sentence recorded in the Chinese annals of any putatively Xiongnu language. Its recorded in the Book of Jin: 晉書, under the annals of the state of later Zhao, supposedly founded by descendants of Eastern Xiongnu:

秀支 替戾剛 僕谷 劬禿當
Modern Chinese pronounciation is 'Xiu Zhr, Ti Lie Gang, Pu Gu, Quy Tu Dang'
For which the meaning/gloss in Chinese is 'Go-Out-Army, Foreign-Epithet-Capture'.

Vovin reconstructs this as
si̯u-ci̯e tʰei-let/lei-kɑŋ bok/buk-kuk/yok ɡi̯u̯o-tʰuk-tɑŋ

Which according to him is best analysed as Yeniseian. I don't know enough about this though, I can provide the following resource for you more linguistically inclined guys to check:

A. Vovin, “Did the Xiong-nu Speak an Yeniseian Language?” Central Asiatic Journal 44-1, 2000.

http://www.academia.edu/1804191/Xiong-nu_Part2

This is admittedly little to go on. It would be nice to have denser sampling, to see if changes in Y-Haplogroup composition occurred during the periods in question, which would perhaps be more indicative.

Nevertheless though the highly East Eurasian autosomal pool on the steppe, even in carriers of J2a, which these two samples are, is pretty apparent throughout this period, which still means something for Ral's points I would think.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-25-2016, 10:42 AM
A neat summary by Pulleyblank

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/161177

Kristiina
07-25-2016, 11:05 AM
I think this is important for the identification of Xiongnu yDNA (however, this is not the only Xiongnu-related burial area from which data is available!):

"Particularly interesting are in the cemetery Heigouliang, Xinjiang (Black Gouliang cemetery, also known as the summer palace of Xiongnu king), east of Barkol basin, near the city of Hami. By typing results of DNA samples during the excavation of one of the tombs it was determined that of the 12 men there were: Q1a*(xQ-M120, xQ-M25, xQ-M3) - 6, Q1b (M378) - 4 (two separate tombs), Q*(xQ1a, xQ1b)-2 (unable to determine subclade). All Y-haplogroup Q1b-M378 represent hosts of the tombs, while half of Y-DNA Q1a* represents hosts and half sacrificial victims. They date from the time of early (Western) Han (2nd-1st Century BC). In another study, 3 in this place were identified as Q-M3. Summarizing the data from available evidences, it is concluded that the tombs belongs to the representatives of the Xiongnu/Hunnu nobility/conquerors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu#Ethno-linguistics)

Q1a* could be the same as Yeniseian Ket yDNA, Q1a- L330. Karasuk Q is M25, which was not identified in Heigouliang.

Afshar
07-25-2016, 02:42 PM
I think this is important for the identification of Xiongnu yDNA (however, this is not the only Xiongnu-related burial area from which data is available!):

"Particularly interesting are in the cemetery Heigouliang, Xinjiang (Black Gouliang cemetery, also known as the summer palace of Xiongnu king), east of Barkol basin, near the city of Hami. By typing results of DNA samples during the excavation of one of the tombs it was determined that of the 12 men there were: Q1a*(xQ-M120, xQ-M25, xQ-M3) - 6, Q1b (M378) - 4 (two separate tombs), Q*(xQ1a, xQ1b)-2 (unable to determine subclade). All Y-haplogroup Q1b-M378 represent hosts of the tombs, while half of Y-DNA Q1a* represents hosts and half sacrificial victims. They date from the time of early (Western) Han (2nd-1st Century BC). In another study, 3 in this place were identified as Q-M3. Summarizing the data from available evidences, it is concluded that the tombs belongs to the representatives of the Xiongnu/Hunnu nobility/conquerors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu#Ethno-linguistics)

Q1a* could be the same as Yeniseian Ket yDNA, Q1a- L330. Karasuk Q is M25, which was not identified in Heigouliang.

Karasuk Q samples are possible related to the Hunnic expansion (according to FTDNA project).

Ryukendo
07-26-2016, 05:57 AM
A neat summary by Pulleyblank

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/161177

Wow Rob, this paper is excellent! His command of Classical Chinese sources is truly masterful. Also, since the whole Rong-Di-Later Steppe population connection is so well supported in his work, as well as a rather clear demonstration of inheritance of the originally IE Steppe package to the semi-agriculturalist East Asian-type people on the edges of the Chinese polities, this may shed some light on the diffusion of 'East Asian Autosomal' ancestry to the Steppe from about 500BC to the present.

Ryukendo
07-26-2016, 06:09 AM
Its truly amazing, he even found a name of mixed origin, 'Gongsun Hunyue', of which the former pair 'Gongsun' 公孫 is a prominent Chinese surname present even today, and the latter 'Hunye' is obviously foreign and is identical with a given name attested among later Xiongnu. The person was of 'Yiqu' ethnicity, a Western Rong people to the Northwest of Qin and West of Zhao. A Xiongnu leader of the same name ('Hunye') then settled defeated Southern Xiongnu, now fully pastoral, in the same area as the former state of Yiqu 140 years later... Wow!

Gravetto-Danubian
07-26-2016, 08:34 AM
Wow Rob, this paper is excellent! His command of Classical Chinese sources is truly masterful. Also, since the whole Rong-Di-Later Steppe population connection is so well supported in his work, as well as a rather clear demonstration of inheritance of the originally IE Steppe package to the semi-agriculturalist East Asian-type people on the edges of the Chinese polities, this may shed some light on the diffusion of 'East Asian Autosomal' ancestry to the Steppe from about 500BC to the present.

The only thing I'd be cautious of is his equating of Wuhuan with the (European) Avars, in absence of unequivocal proof - etymological or otherwise .

Ral
07-26-2016, 09:05 AM
Russian experts have deciphered the phrase as clearly turkic.
I do not know why but whether because of the conservatism of the phonetic of turkic language, or because of some "adjustment", but this phrase some modern turkic-speaking peoples can read and understand.

Ral
07-26-2016, 09:19 AM
Transcription from China :Sü-čy ti-li-gan pu-gu'qüi tu-dan(tu-dar);
Modern turkic: süčy dilegan, Pugu'yu tutar
Translate: -(If) army head'd take off , would capture Pugu

Ryukendo
07-26-2016, 09:55 AM
I'm not a linguist, but something thats pretty clear is that transcription from foreign languages into Chinese was done systematically and meticulously by the Han period, due to a long history of Buddhist translations from foreign languages, with scrupulous attention paid to representing the same phonemes in the foreign language consistently with corresponding phonemes in Chinese; furthermore this particular transcription was one by a Buddhist monk of Indian origin who was fluent in the language.

The above transliteration already has irregular correspondence of 'gang' with 'gan', and 'Tang' with 'Tar'; these types of mistakes were not likely to be made.

Furthermore it seems to come from this site:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/AVovin_XiongnuLanguageEn.htm
Which seems to be an amateur site focusing on Turkic themes and interests, and I really don't know how much it is to be trusted...

Compare the non-correspondence of the above interpretations with the reconstructions of proper academics, which always end in either -ng or -n for the two syllables in question:

Ramstedt:
Sükä talıqın
bügüg tutun

Bazin:
Süg tägti ıdqaŋ
boquγıγ tutqaŋ!

von Gabain:
Särig tılıtqan
buγuγ kötürkän

et cetera. There are still problems of irregular correspondence, especially since systems of phonemic correspondence with sanskrit and prakit and so on are very well developed by this time, which is why Pulleyblank criticised the Turkic fits in the first place, and why Vovin found the Yeniseian fits to be much more comfortable and systematic, if we take his fits as valid.

Ral
07-26-2016, 10:09 AM
I'm not a linguist, but something thats pretty clear is that transcription from foreign languages into Chinese was done systematically and meticulously by the Han period, due to a long history of Buddhist translations from foreign languages, with scrupulous attention paid to representing the same phonemes in the foreign language consistently with corresponding phonemes in Chinese; furthermore this particular transcription was one by a Buddhist monk of Indian origin who was fluent in the language.

The above transliteration already has irregular correspondence of 'gang' with 'gan', and 'Tang' with 'Tar'; these types of mistakes were not likely to be made.

Furthermore it seems to come from this site:
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/AVovin_XiongnuLanguageEn.htm
Which seems to be an amateur site focusing on Turkic themes and interests, and I really don't know how much it is to be trusted...

Compare the non-correspondence of the above interpretations with the reconstructions of proper academics, which always end in either -ng or -n for the two syllables in question:

Ramstedt:
Sükä talıqın
bügüg tutun

Bazin:
Süg tägti ıdqaŋ
boquγıγ tutqaŋ!

von Gabain:
Särig tılıtqan
buγuγ kötürkän

et cetera. There are still problems of irregular correspondence, especially since systems of phonemic correspondence with sanskrit and prakit and so on are very well developed by this time, which is why Pulleyblank criticised the Turkic fits in the first place, and why Vovin found the Yeniseian fits to be much more comfortable and systematic, if we take his fits as valid.
Yes.I was looking for this phrase, but not found officially source(found this phrase on that site). Its not author's version. Its version of Moscow school of linguists, which consolidate leading turkologists of the country.

Ryukendo
07-26-2016, 10:16 AM
Yes.I was looking for this phrase, but not found officially source(found this phrase on that site). Its not author's version. Its version of Moscow school of linguists, which consolidate leading turkologists of the country.

How could this be the case, when its literally just juxtaposing modern Turkic beside the original? Source please.

Ral
07-26-2016, 10:28 AM
How could this be the case, when its literally just juxtaposing modern Turkic beside the original? Source please.
No, author in that source took for example some turkic dialect. Its not quote from oficially source. I have only video source in russian,unfortunately.
I have this theme is not very interesting, so i dont want anything to prove to you . Look for good sources if you like. I have outlined the main position of russian linguists.

Ryukendo
07-26-2016, 10:36 AM
No, author in that source took for example some turkic dialect. Its not quote from oficially source. I have only video source in russian,unfortunately.
I have this theme is not very interesting, so i dont want anything to prove to you . Look for good sources if you like. I have outlined the main position of russian linguists.

Look, this is just some internet thing, which we are all doing for intellectual curiosity; in my case because this is a parallel field to something I might study in the future, and forms part of the historical priors for any research that I might do. Many people here have made about-turns on many occasions on many topics, including me. If you have an argument to make, please present your sources, evidence, actual arguments, et cetera, not just adjectives, 'I heard this', 'this is vulgar'; even if there's confirmation bias at least you are opening minds. Otherwise you're not contributing much.

Ral
07-26-2016, 10:49 AM
Look, this is just some internet thing, which we are all doing for intellectual curiosity; in my case because this is a parallel field to something I might study in the future, and forms part of the historical priors for any research that I might do. Many people here have made about-turns on many occasions on many topics, including me. If you have an argument to make, please present your sources, evidence, actual arguments, et cetera, not just adjectives, 'I heard this', 'this is vulgar'; even if there's confirmation bias at least you are opening minds. Otherwise you're not contributing much.
I went through this stage.
I was convinced very thoroughly that many ancient sources are not reliable, and modern experts conclusions are not necessarily accurate. It makes skeptical of the prevailing theories (theories, not facts).
With regard to the latter topic, the sources is in the form of printed materials in russian. I myself sometimes settle for only quotes from those who read these works.

Kristiina
07-26-2016, 03:36 PM
The only thing I'd be cautious of is his equating of Wuhuan with the (European) Avars, in absence of unequivocal proof - etymological or otherwise .

As for Wuhuan, Pulleyblank writes that "though a connection with the Wuhuan is not made explicitly in Chinese sources, there is no doubt that the Rouran were of Eastern Hu origin and spoke a Mongolian type language"; "as described in Later Han sources, the Proto-Mongol Wuhuan and Xianbei had a loose clan organization with no hereditary chiefs";

"A further question is whether the Proto-Mongol (Eastern) Hu were long-term residents of steppe lands north of the Chinese border who learned the technique of mounted archery and adopted the fully nomadic way of life that went with it from westerly (probably Indo-European) neighbours … This would seem to fit in with the ethnographic descriptions of the Xianbei and Wuhuan found in the Hou Hanshu and the commentary to the San guozhi, based on the third century Weishu, which indicate that even at that time they were partly agricultural in their way of life. "

I gathered from Pulleyblank's summary that Xiongnu originated in the area neighbouring China in the north and may cover several groups such as Yiqu and Di. Mongolic groups originated in the area north/northeast of the Xiongnu area and were identified as Eastern Hu, Wuhuan and Rouran. Tocarian IEs were identified as Yuezhi. In the end, Turkic identity was assigned to Dingling (Tiele) who would become Uighurs and Gekun/ Jiankun who were identified as Kirgiz.

In the new paper on Lipka Tatars, I noticed that there is a certain similarity between yDNA pool of Iron Age Altaians and Lipka Tatars: Lipka Tatars: Q1a-M25 1/74, R1a1-Z2125 8/74, J2a-(xM67) 6/74
One Q haplotype could be shared with Karasuk: Q1a-346 3/74.

It looks like the Eastern part of the Lipka Tatar yDNA pool could be derived from the Altai Iron Age haplotypes, and even more so now that we know how "East Asian" Kytmanovo J2a, 721 AD, was.

Ral
07-26-2016, 06:12 PM
Am I right that on the basis of the available autosomal data from Allentoft et al, Iron Age Altai is autosomally already close to Turkic Altai before the Turkic languages arrived?

It is true that linguistic issues should be resolved mainly with linguistic methods.
You're right. Many of those cultures smoothly flow to authentic turkic cultures.This is confirmed by genetics too.

SublimePorte
07-26-2016, 06:20 PM
Note that the Seljuk Turks were a steppe people that imposed themselves as a tribal confederation over Iran while retaining their original way of life as best as possible, in fact the court was basically a travelling yurt, so the actual number of Turks was always very small.

I think your posts in this topic are based on nothing but biased assumptions and cherry-picked data. The Turks obviously did not outnumber the locals, especially at the first wave (post-Manzikert migration, there was a second wave too).

But the number of Turks was not "very small" at all, on the contrary they were too many, at least this is what Byzantine and Islamic Chronicles say.

"When Turks arrived to Anatolia, it became a Turkmen sea and the subjects of Byzantine became like small islands in the middle of an ocean."
George Pachymeres, Byzantine Historian





Then looking at historical numbers, Treadgold gives population estimates for 12 million and 10 million for two dates around the turn of the twelfth century when Byzantines first came into contact with Turks, of which three quarters was in Anatolia, translating to 7.5 to 8 mil. At the same time, Al-Umari, the Arab historian, gives us figures for the Turkomans living in the nomadised parts of Eastern Anatolia, fro sources within the small Beys there, which were already outside of Byzantine control at this time. The figures are 150 thousand from Orian, and 500 thousand from Balaban. Estimates by others are between these numbers, so we get an upper and lower bound here as well.

Dividing, the population was 1.8% Turkic to 7.1% Turkic at this time.

1.8-7.1%? It is unbelievable that there are some members who agree with your post. The numbers in your post are clearly cherry-picked and make no sense at all, both from historical and modern genetic points of view (East Eurasian admixture alone is 10%, go figure) . According to Abu'l Fida, a Turkmen people of 200.000 tents (approximately 1 million people) was living in Antalya-Tonguzlu region alone (Southwest Anatolia). Why don't you mention it for example? How did 100-200 thousand Turks in Anatolia managed to face Crusader invasions, Byzantine-Georgian-Armenian wars, hundreds of battles and skirmishes, assuming only 1/5 of the Turkic population in Anatolia were fit for army that would make their numbers 20-40 thousand at most. How did they manage to fight so many enemies?


As for the population of Anatolia, it was ~5,5-6 million in the 16th century (the golden age of the empire), and ~12.5 million (including Istanbul) in the beginning of the 20th century and note that not all of them were ethnic Turks, Anatolia had sizeable non-muslim (~20%) and non-Turkish muslim population at that time.

http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/nbd_cilt25/mutlu.pdf


"12/14 or 8 million in pre-Turkic Anatolia" is the most unrealistic and absurd estimate I've ever seen, and for some reason it is always accepted as "unquestionable fact" when it comes to estimating Turkic genetic input in Anatolia.




The Turkish presence in Anatolia is not a result of "elite/military dominance", it is a result of a large-scale migration. Take Bahri Mamluk dynasty in Egypt as an example, Egypt was ruled by a Turkic military elite for centuries, one of the official names of the Mamluk Sultanate was dawla al-turkiyya (https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=_-G1L-9Zec0C&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=dawla+al+turkiyya&source=bl&ots=UrlivD2le4&sig=T_n368NblNXoOZ08zi-MTm5qpRI&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi98aTE2pHOAhXiO5oKHVLCD_MQ6AEIMjAC#v=on epage&q=dawla%20al%20turkiyya&f=false), "The State of the Turks", but Egypt did not become Turkey. Let alone Egpyt, most of the Middle East was ruled by various Turkish dynasties for centuries, but only Anatolia became Turkish, because the peninsula had received too many Turks to transform itself into "Turchia" (as called in Medieval Latin). Why did the Seljuk and Ottoman rule not turn entire Middle East into Turkey? Why did the Great Seljuk rule not turn Iran into Turkey? It took Anatolia only a few decades to become "Turkey" in the eyes of Europeans? Why didn't they call Holy Lands "Turchia/Turkey" for example? Syria was under the rule of Seljuk rulers at that time.


The same goes for Rumeli/Balkans. Most of South East European lands were under the rule of Ottoman Turks for centuries, but only those that received Turkmen tribes became Turkish. Bosniaks and Albanians became muslims, not Turks.


Population transfers in the Ottoman Empire
http://www.unm.edu/~phooper/thesis_condensed.pdf
http://i.hizliresim.com/BZ8PW9.png



The Turkish input can clearly be seen in Balkan Turks today.
They always come up as "Turkish_Balıkesir + Bulgarian" or "Turkish_Aydın + Serbian" in their oracle results, it is indeed a snowball effect.










Most likely not. But conquest-era Seljuk Turks could be similar to modern Turkmens.

Surely by the time of reaching Anatolia they were not 100% genetically Proto-Turkic.


There is no evidence that the proto-Turks were 100% East Eurasian by the way, the Göktürk-era Altai samples clearly show that they were a mixture of West and East Eurasian ancestral populations from the beginning, just as -much older- Yamnaya culture was a mixture of two major ancestral populations. Some people assume that the Oghuz Turks were an Eskimo-like population, they were not. Besides, the mixing with non-Turkics predates the Seljuk migration, Indo-European steppe tribes were long absorbed into the expanding Turkic power; not only nomads, but also sedentary Sogdians. According to Mahmud of Kashgar's (11th-century Turkic scholar) Diwan Lughat al-Turk Sogdians were Turkified too.

"‘Soğd, Buhara ile Semerkand arasındadır. Bunlar, Türk kılığını almışlar, Türk huyu ile huylanmışlardır.”
"Soğd: Balasagun ile Buhara ve Semerkand arasında yaşayan Türkleşmiş bir ulus."

"Sogd: A Turkified nation living between Balasagun and Bukhara-Samarkand."

^ Atalay, Besim (2006). Divanü Lügati't - Türk. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ISBN 975-16-0405-2, Cilt I, sayfa 30.
^ Atalay, Besim (2006). Divanü Lügati't - Türk. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ISBN 975-16-0405-2, Cilt I, sayfa 471



Some also claim that the Oghuz Turks were similar to modern Kazakhs, as they began their journey westward from what is now South Kazakhstan and parts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but for some reason they ignore the fact that the Kazakhs emerged as a nation from an amalgam of Turkic Kipchak and Mongol (such as Dughlat, Jalair, Kerei, Naiman, Onggirat etc) tribes long after the Mongol Invasion.


I believe Oghuz Turks led by the Seljuk Dynasty were predominantly West Eurasian (60-70%), however I don't believe they were identical to modern Turkmens, most Turkmens were nomads until the advent of the Soviet government in the 20th century but they must have some Eastern Iranic admixture judging from their South Asian and increased South Central Asian admixture, especially Yunusbayev's Turkmen samples. I think modern Turkmens are mostly of Oghuz stock though (they were nomads and had tribal identities only a century ago).


This is how Grigor of Akner (13th century Armenian historian) describes the invading Mongols:

"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".

The Turkish presence in Middle East and South Caucasus predates the Mongol one, and yet Armenians describe the invading Mongols as very different than other (ordinary) peoples they have seen.







Here is the comparison of an Anatolian Turk and an Anatolian Greek from Niğde, a province in Cappadocia.
http://i.hizliresim.com/7vLkBY.png


Turkic input does not seem to be limited to East Eurasian components?

Comparison of a Turk and Pontic Greek average from Eastern Black Sea region
http://i.hizliresim.com/5VbW0R.jpg (http://hizliresim.com/5VbW0R)



Turks are more native Anatolian than they are Central Asian, but the Turkish presence and identity in Anatolia cannot be explained by "elite dominance" or other anthrofora myths. It was a large scale migration, be it 20% or 40% Central Asian genetically, modern Turks are Turkic just as modern Europeans and Indians/Iranians are "Indo-European", original Indo-Europeans and modern IE-speakers are worlds apart genetically, just as proto-Turks and modern Anatolian Turks.

Ryukendo
07-27-2016, 02:16 AM
I think your posts in this topic are based on nothing but biased assumptions and cherry-picked data. The Turks obviously did not outnumber the locals, especially at the first wave (post-Manzikert migration, there was a second wave too).

Very busy at the moment, lets go over this methodically. Before anything else, though, you seem to have confused elite dominance and elite overproduction; the Turks of course did not get their language from Hungarian-like elite dominance, the genetic contribution is ~30%; the question is about the numbers for the initial migration, whether or not it was a small minority. Otherwise, your argument seems to be that the Byzantine estimates and the Turkic estimates are wrong, and furthermore that the contribution ~30% requires more movement. Apart from the percentage, ~30%, being irrelevant, since the same % is found for Anglo-Saxons and Indians with small initial contributions, as spelled out earlier, for the points about the cherry-picking of estimates, this is completely untrue on my side, and conversely your evidence seems to come almost entirely from quotations from 'Turkishness' debates in internet fora, where phrases and rhetorical bombs, quoted out of context and having a tenuous relationship with facts, are thrown by greeks and turks:

The estimate you gave (200, 000 tents from Abu'l Fida) especially, which is a phrase that has been floating around in such debates for a while: --first, this number did not originate in Abu'l Fida, only quoted by him, and secondly it actually originates from an Arab traveler Ibn Said when he was describing the situation in Anatolia ~1260 CE, i.e., ~200 years, two centuries after the battle of Manzikert and the establishment of the Sultanate of Rum, and even longer after the initial Turkic settlement of eastern Anatolia, after which Turkification began in earnest. Those people who quoted this without giving the rest of the paragraph, and who therefore psychologically transposed this in the minds of the readers to the period with the initial settlement of the Turks, probably did this from motivated reasoning, or even just outright lying. A number seven to eight generations after the initial settlement tells us almost nothing; England was almost completely English-identifying 200 years after the A-S migration.

Or maybe they were just confused by Ibn Athir's story of 200, 000 tents converting to Islam in East Turkestan on the borders of China, which was centuries earlier, if we give them the benefit of the doubt-not sure they deserve it though.

Secondly, the data I presented were emphatically--and I repeat this--emphatically not cherry picked. Note that, in debates such as these, I always present the data that is the most favourable to the opposite, i.e. your side, just like the case of the A-S invasion where I gave the largest figure, 25%, from Heinrich Harke, which still requires elite overproduction and social dominance. The figure for Turkic settlement in the Beyliks from just before the period of the Battle of Manzikert, from al-Umari, quoted by quite possibly the most respected Byzantine scholar in the field Spyros Vyronis, is the largest figure for Turkic settlement you can find in the literature/records for the Turkic population around the time of the Turkic settlement, before the process of Turkification and local reproduction began in earnest, all other estimates are smaller.

The figures for the Byzantines were derived from Treadgold from Everhadt after a meticulous run through of Byzantine tax records. I actually reduced the number allocated to Anatolia via the ratio of clergy staff per area; when the Byzantines lost much of Central Anatolia, holding on to the edges of it, at a moment in the 1000s, the records show a temporary >70% decline in tax receipts, so if anything the settlement of Anatolia is especially dense and I under-allocated the numbers to Anatolia. Secondly, for the Ottoman figures, you are blatantly ignoring the fact that the population declined precipitously, once during the Turkic takeover, and again after the collapse of the Sultanate of Rum, before the rise of the ottomans. Such low figures for Anatolia as obtained during the first eras of the Ottoman empire are anomalously low for that region historically speaking and are the result of centuries of chaos after the Byzantines and before the Ottomans. The population in Anatolia from Roman times as estimated from tax records and actual censuses, which if anything is even more accurate than Byzantine bookkeeping, is already 8.2 million in 14 CE and 9.4 million in 164 CE, after which there was almost uninterrupted peace in the Eastern half of the Romans down to the 1000s, which make Treadgold's estimates of 9-12 million using the records from an entirely different bureaucracy look eminently reasonable. (from Bruce Frier, "Demography", The Cambridge Ancient History XI: The High Empire, A.D. 70–192, (Cambridge University Press, 2000) You cannot talk about the population of the Byzantines while obfuscating these facts.--incidentally, another series of facts conveniently ignored by one side in those 'Turkishness' debates while pushing the low ottoman figures.

I will tackle the question of how the Turks took over Anatolia, what they did to the countryside, and what Pachymere actually meant when he said 'islands of greeks in a sea of Turkmens', all of which you ignore, later; also the social model of the Turks that made them such terrors to the settled states around them, even when their numbers were so small--this is a pattern in many places. Lastly the dynamics of Ottoman Imperial 'Turkishness', as opposed to the tribal Turkishness of the chiefdom-like Beys and Beyliks, which made things so much different.

But as it is, since the quote from Abu'l Fida is falsely used--the largest estimate continues to be al-Umari's which gives us ~7% Turkic population at the time of the initial settlement, with contemporaneous others having smaller estimates--and you are ignoring social factors completely, your argument ends up falling back entirely on the impact of Turks on present-day genetics and using that to 'Back-project' to the original invasion, which renders much of it irrelevant because, other than some upper bound--which I agree with you is around 30%, its impossible to know from present-day contribution how many original contributors existed like due to elite overproduction, as is already readily apparent, in the flesh, from the Anglo-Saxon invasions or the Aryan movements into India and their genetic impact. Revisiting the best estimates, we are back to the same situation, where 'stochastic mixing' requires millions of Turkmen, almost half the Anatolian population, to reach the current figure, which is ridiculous without differential reproductive success; success which will reduce the numbers to more historically accurate figures matching those from chronicles or archaeology, as it has in the A-S and I-Ar cases.

Ryukendo
07-27-2016, 05:45 AM
Certain issues I'm just dumping here as well: we really need to update our prior assumptions after the flood of recent studies. After the Karmin et al. paper, we get a ratio of 1:4 to 1:5 for Y DNA effective population size vs mtDNA effective population size throughout Eurasia after the Bronze Age. @ Ral, This is an actual number--it is not an interpretation, Y DNA diversity *really is* 20%-25% of mtDNA diversity. *Of course* this does not indicate that 20% of males reproduced for 100% of females each generation in all premodern societies: this merely tells us that reproductive variance in males is high *and heritable*; i.e. a particular patrilineage can raise a disproportionate number of children for multiple generations, for either cultural or social reasons, and this holds across all parts of Eurasia in the common era, which is the only phenomenon that can produce such lopsided numbers. This, in combination with economic historian Gregory Clark's studies on the number of children of rich and poor in medieval societies around the world, as well as the heritability of social status from surnames from the middle ages till the present, should *substantially* change our idea of how much genetic impact a small group can have, especially if it manages to lodge itself into some sort of landed or military aristocracy. E.g. Norman surnames like Mandeville, Montgomery, Percy, Darcy, etc. are *still* overrepresented in both the population at large, in the professions like law and medicine, and at Oxford and Cambridge today (6x times!), so many centuries after their forcible imposition as an elite. In fact, the very small number of Norman elites had enough demographic impact via elite overproduction to *reduce the steppe ancestry of English to a lower level than those of the Scots and Welsh, and also the ancient Celts and Saxons*, as is concluded by the Galinsky et al. paper from the latest mass analysis of DNA from British Biobank, even though the Normans were a small group of nobles from Normandy at the beginning!

Gravetto-Danubian
07-27-2016, 09:07 AM
I can't state too much more on the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, as I haven't looked into it too deeply, other than an intuitive reservation of calling it an elite conquest.
I'd say the same thing about the Magyars. They did not simply impose themselves as an elite upon a settled population in the Carpathian basin. Details are lacking and hotly contested in historiography, but in 900 AD when the Magyars arrived, the region had been a war-ravaged frontier going back to the 800s (Avars vs Franks and Slavic vassals), then the battles between Franks, Bulgars, & Great Moravia, having to contend with local potentates in different regions (eg the Banat, Transylvania, Slovakia)

I think the problem is the term 'elite conquest' itself. It is used too loosely to mean anything, and is a cop-out explanation used by many scholars when they lack empirical or methodological explanatory details for a process.
IMHO, the only reasonable example of elite conquest was the Normans in Britaian- a few thousand knights which conquered the countryside by defeating matching 'native' knights, then ruled somewhat from the seclusion of their moeted castles. They impacted no language shift exactly because they culturally separated themselves from the English common folk, but nevertheless effected a profound superstratum impact, which ultimately caused the birth of Middle English from Old English.

Ryukendo
07-27-2016, 09:15 AM
I can't state too much more on the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, as I haven't looked into it too deeply, other than an intuitive reservation of calling it an elite conquest.
I'd say the same thing about the Magyars. They did not simply impose themselves as an elite upon a settled population in the Carpathian basin. Details are lacking and hotly contested in historiography, but in 900 AD when the Magyars arrived, the region had been a war-ravaged frontier going back to the 800s (Avars vs Franks and Slavic vassals), then the battles between Franks, Bulgars, & Great Moravia, having to contend with local potentates in different regions (eg the Banat, Transylvania, Slovakia)

I think the problem is the term 'elite conquest' itself. It is used too loosely to mean anything, and is a cop-out explanation used by many scholars when they lack empirical or methodological explanatory details for a process.
IMHO, the only reasonable example of elite conquest was the Normans in Britaian- a few thousand knights which conquered the countryside by defeating matching 'native' knights, then ruled somewhat from the seclusion of their moeted castles. They impacted no language shift exactly because they culturally separated themselves from the English common folk, but nevertheless effected a profound superstratum impact, which ultimately caused the birth of Middle English from Old English.

Indeed, perhaps the term 'elite conquest' is too loose, but in this case we already have a very good historical record for the Turkic movements and the results of their integration into society.

Since this entire conversation is taking place in the context of disproportionate genetic impact of minority peoples over time, maybe we should restrict ourselves to the words 'elite overproduction'.

Edit: Actually, 'elite conquest' is quite a bad descriptor for Anatolia, because the number of clans multiplied across the face of Turkey and transformed even the economic order as the countryside 'pastoralised'.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-27-2016, 09:26 AM
30% might not be an absolute majority, but if the remaining 70% are not a homogenous block, but fractured and diverse,
and largely non-combatants, then all the advantage lies with a galvanized 30% or even 15%

Ryukendo
07-27-2016, 09:54 AM
An update: Now I'm referencing my sources instead of just memory, since at home at the moment, will revise the estimates upward somewhat.

It turns out that Orian and Balaban's figures for population is also too late, as they are describing the manpower of some West (not East) Anatolian Beyliks some time after substantial collapse of Byzantine Anatolia, not before... the earliest figure is now from 1189, one century after the Turkic movements, during the time of the Third Crusade, in one of Frederick Barbarossa's wartime records, cited in Vyronis again. We have a figure of 100, 000 nomads living in the space South and West from Konya to the sea, i.e. the SW 10% of Turkey or so. So the population of Turks may number to ~1 million one century after the collapse of Byzantine control. The figure from Abu'l Fida then gives us one more datapoint two centuries down, which would make us think of multiple millions by the second century after the initial movement. This is extremely tentative with huge error bars, though. That said, its in fitting with the extensive 'pastoralisation' of the countryside at the expense of city dwellers and agriculturalists, as detailed in the Georgian and Byzantine chronicles and quoted well by Vyronis.

Shaikorth
07-27-2016, 10:10 AM
Believe me, I'm much more aware of this issue than you. I know all the arguments for and against. This is a big separate issue and it's not appropriate.
How it happens? Dozens of books authors usually refer to five experts. Four Of these five professionals refer to one. And you have impression that this issue carefully studied dozens of experts.
I choose a one moment. Volga Bulgaria was islamic state like a modern Iran.
Volga Bulgars even offered to accept Islam to Russian princes. It was almost a theocracy.
But few сhuvash pagans were declared descendants of these zealous muslims, who have no even a hint for the muslim past, as well as Mari.
This concept even does not pass famous duck test. I know meandering logic which used to explain this contradiction.


I quote Afshar

It could be that Chuvashes and Volga Tatars are on a different substrate. Mari and Chuvash uniparentals point to that direction. N-Y9022 is the only N1c Udmurts have, and is also common in Chuvashes, Mordovians and Mari - Mari only have the "western" N3a3 on top of it. But that clade is very old, its separation >7000 years is way older than Uralic languages, but it's not found in Samoyeds, Baltic Finns, Hungarians or Saami. Or Volga Tatars. All Volga Tatar N1c high coverage sequences http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30160-4 turned out to be Y13850, the Magyar branch which is totally absent in Mari (they also have N3a3). Volga Tatars are also a bit more "western" autosomally than Chuvashes, which may further imply differences in substrate.

So perhaps the Chuvashes indeed are just language switching Mari, their religious practises included, and never formed an ethnic core of Muslim Tatar states of Volga or even share the same substrate.

Gravetto-Danubian
07-27-2016, 10:55 AM
It could be that Chuvashes and Volga Tatars are on a different substrate. Mari and Chuvash uniparentals point to that direction. N-Y9022 is the only N1c Udmurts have, and is also common in Chuvashes, Mordovians and Mari - Mari only have the "western" N3a3 on top of it. But that clade is very old, its separation >7000 years is way older than Uralic languages, but it's not found in Samoyeds, Baltic Finns, Hungarians or Saami. Or Volga Tatars. All Volga Tatar N1c high coverage sequences http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30160-4 turned out to be Y13850, the Magyar branch which is totally absent in Mari (they also have N3a3). Volga Tatars are also a bit more "western" autosomally than Chuvashes, which may further imply differences in substrate.

So perhaps the Chuvashes indeed are just language switching Mari, their religious practises included, and never formed an ethnic core of Muslim Tatar states of Volga or even share the same substrate.

The linguists' tide Rejecting Uralic substrate in Chuvash and other Oghuric languages might need to be reconsidered, if and when linguists understand this genetic evidence

Shaikorth
07-27-2016, 11:00 AM
The linguists' tide Rejecting Uralic substrate in Chuvash and other Oghuric languages might need to be reconsidered, if and when linguists understand this genetic evidence

It depends, if the Mari-types were totally dominated the linguistic substrate in Chuvash could still be insignificant, even if the genetic one is not. Might be different with other Oghuric languages, but those are gone so much harder to tell.

Ral
07-27-2016, 03:45 PM
For Chuvash possibly the following story may be reconstructed.
Non-turkic at start(non-finno-ugric,maybe some sibirian?)->turkic->mixing with Mari
Some volgar finno-ugric possibly assimilated some turkic tribe in ancient(not modern or medieval turkic tribes.There are cultural parallels).
These are my suggestions based on some cultural and linguistic data. You should know that you do not know about many ethnographical features. For example, Chuvash do not look like steppe people in the recent past. They were steppe people in very, very ancient time, or they were never (former nomads usually keep their economies skewed toward livestock at the long time.). Direct schemes explain nothing.
For Shaikorth.
Find the bulgar's words in Divan lugat at-Turk. It's normal kipchak words. Repulsive in own searches for what chuvashes is pre-bulgarian population of Volga Bulgaria.

Ral
07-27-2016, 04:07 PM
In addition. Kazan tatars is not direct descendants of the Bulgars. It is a mixture of the Bulgars and the turkic tribes lived to the west and south from Volga Bulgaria.

Shaikorth
07-27-2016, 04:25 PM
In addition. Kazan tatars is not direct descendants of the Bulgars. It is a mixture of the Bulgars and the turkic tribes lived to the west and south from Volga Bulgaria.

Yeah. The point is that since those Tatars lack N-Y9022 their Bulgar element might never have had it either. This would make Chuvashes who do have it quite unlike those Bulgars.

Waldemar
07-28-2016, 11:40 AM
Huge difference in this ADMIXTURE bar graph from the recent Pankratov et al. paper between Lipka Tatars from Belarus and nearby Balts and Slavs. The Lipka Tatars are almost identical to Volga Tatars despite residing in their current homeland for about 500 years. I'm guessing the fact that they're Sunni Muslims might have something to do with it.
https://s31.postimg.org/51ant7tdn/Tatars_Fig_2.png
http://polishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lipka-tatars-vs-balto-slavs.html

The Lipka Tatars are a group of Turkic-speaking Tatars who originally settled in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 14th century (more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars)).

Shaikorth
07-28-2016, 12:34 PM
http://polishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lipka-tatars-vs-balto-slavs.html

The Lipka Tatars are a group of Turkic-speaking Tatars who originally settled in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 14th century (more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars)).

Don't Lipka Tatars speak Slavic or Lithuanian?

In any case they've clearly maintained endogamy. According to that study their mtDNA is 30% East Eurasian and their Globetrotter modeling is 30% Mongola/Xibo and the rest Hungarian-like.

Their West Eurasian substrate doesn't thus look fully East Slavic but something more southern, IBD comparison to Belarusians suggests it too.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep30197/figures/3

Volat
07-28-2016, 12:52 PM
Lipka Tatars are respected in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus. Lithuania has memorial coins exhibiting Lipka Tatars. Lipka Tatars settled our region in early 14th rather 13th century. The greatest Grand Duke of Lithuania and prince of Grodno (Belarusian city) Vytautas offered Tatars land and nobility titles for their services in the Grunwald battle. Lipka Tatars switched to Belarusian fairly quickly remaining Muslim in Grodno region. Lipka Tatars wrote their texts in Belarusian using Arabic script have some importance to to linguists. The alphabet of Old Belarusian language did not relfect phonetic features of the language people spike, while Lipka Tatars' Belarusian texts written in Arabic script did.

Volat
07-31-2016, 11:10 AM
Don't Lipka Tatars speak Slavic or Lithuanian?

They switched to Slavic languages by 17th completely using Arabic script to write in literary Old Belarusian.

From supplementary on Lipka Tatars language : http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2016/160725/srep30197/extref/srep30197-s1.pdf


https://s32.postimg.org/hjd9cvdxx/ifwkck.png

Ral
08-05-2016, 05:16 AM
Who knows about the phylogeny of turkic n1c?What are the relations there?

Caspian
09-07-2016, 05:16 PM
I've calculated Central Asian Turkic input on my DNA using nMonte and Eurogenes K15. I've used Turkmen and Karakalpak samples for Turkic reference, because I believe that dna of 1000 years old Oghuzes was between dna of modern day Karakalpak and Turkmens. Oghuzes lived between Aral Sea (Khwarezm) and Khorasan along the shores of the Caspian Sea 1000 years ago before Seljuq period. I've used Karakalpak samples for Khwarezm area and Turkmen samples for Khorasan area.

Karakalpaks are average 50% East Eurasian and Turkmens are 33% which I've used and this is average results of Karakalpak and Turkmen.

North_Sea: 6.25
Atlantic: 3.38
Baltic: 4.38
Eastern_Euro: 10.95
West_Med: 1.18
West_Asian: 16.02
East_Med: 6.77
Red_Sea: 1.25
South_Asian: 7.16
Southeast_Asian: 15.44
Siberian: 24.86
Amerindian: 1.43
Oceanian: 0.47
Northeast_African: 0.16
Sub-Saharan: 0.28

This is location of Oghuzes in 1000AD. Seljuq migrations to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia started in 1020s.
http://i.imgur.com/KCyvdQc.jpg
Their neighbours were Cuman-Kipchaks, Bashkirs, Karakhanids, Karluks and Persians. Cuman-Kipchaks (ancestors of Kumyks, Karachay-Balkars and Crimean Tatars), Bashkirs, Karakhanid-Karluks (ancestors of Uyghurs and Uzbeks) also were Turkic tribes like Oghuzes. They were in contact and they knew that they were relatives. For example, Mahmud Kashgari was a Karakhanid Uyghur and he described Oghuzes in his dictionary of Turkic languages.

Back on my main topic, my nMonte calculation of Eurogenes K15 results is as follows. I've used 17 reference populations.

Me
"Armenian" 49.85
"Turkic_avg" 25.05
"Georgian" 14.25
"Iranian" 4.6
"Syrian" 3.25
"Central_Greek" 2.05
"Saudi" 0.95
"Kurdish" 0
"Assyrian" 0
"Chechen" 0
"Lezgin" 0
"Adygei" 0
"Mountain_Jewish" 0
"Lebanese_Muslim" 0
"Lebanese_Christian" 0
"Iranian_Jewish" 0
"Iraqi_avg" 0

My main admixture components are Armenian (50%), Turkic (25%) and Georgian (14%). Little components are Iranian (5%), Syrian (3%), Greek (2%) and Saudi Arabian (1%). I've found my Turkic admixture as 25% by this method. My maternal lineage has around 15% Turkic admixture with 7% East Eurasian components and my paternal lineage has around 35% Turkic admixture with 16% East Eurasian components. This result is consistent with Eurogenes K15 oracle results. Eurogenes calculators also show around 25% Central Asian Turkic admixture with Uyghur and Hazara reference populations.

Eurogenes Oracle Results.
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.9% Armenian + 27.1% Afghan_Hazara @ 2.84
2 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Hazara @ 2.85
3 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Uygur @ 2.89
4 73.5% Armenian + 26.5% Uzbeki @ 3.19
5 72.1% Georgian_Jewish + 27.9% Afghan_Hazara @ 3.89
6 72.3% Armenian + 27.7% Afghan_Turkmen @ 3.91
7 74.8% Georgian_Jewish + 25.2% Hazara @ 4.14
8 74.9% Georgian_Jewish + 25.1% Uygur @ 4.27
9 59.7% Assyrian + 40.3% Nogay @ 4.39
10 63.2% Georgian_Jewish + 36.8% Nogay @ 4.45
11 73% Georgian_Jewish + 27% Uzbeki @ 4.57
12 64.8% Armenian + 35.2% Nogay @ 4.61
13 83.2% Armenian + 16.8% Hakas @ 4.73
14 53.5% Kurdish_Jewish + 46.5% Nogay @ 4.76
15 84.7% Armenian + 15.3% Mongolian @ 4.78
16 84.1% Armenian + 15.9% Altaian @ 4.81
17 71.6% Georgian_Jewish + 28.4% Afghan_Turkmen @ 4.9
18 83% Armenian + 17% Shors @ 4.93
19 86% Armenian + 14% Tuvinian @ 5.34
20 52% Armenian + 48% Turkmen


Oracle-4

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +25% Armenian +25% Uygur @ 3.154930

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 2.789243
2 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian @ 2.823131
3 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Samaritan @ 2.911057
4 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Samaritan @ 2.937424
5 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.057315
6 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.076011
7 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Cyprian + Georgian @ 3.149267
8 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Uygur @ 3.154930
9 Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.155493
10 Afghan_Hazara + Georgian_Jewish + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 3.180224
11 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.183714
12 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Hazara @ 3.202775
13 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Assyrian + Cyprian @ 3.204877
14 Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.238966
15 Abhkasian + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.248121
16 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Ossetian + Samaritan @ 3.309176
17 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Armenian + Armenian @ 3.310400
18 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Muslim @ 3.326006
19 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.342431
20 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Samaritan @ 3.344322

According to these results Armenians, Central Asian Oghuzes and Georgians played important roles on my ethnogenesis.

Turkification wasn't only with elite dominance. Turkic migrations, migrations of Turkic civil nomads were reality. Thousands of Turkic civil nomads emigrated to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia between 11-13th centuries. My 25% Turkic heritage and my father's 35% Turkic heritage aren't elite dominance.

Volat
09-07-2016, 06:37 PM
I've calculated Central Asian Turkic input on my DNA using nMonte and Eurogenes K15. I've used Turkmen and Karakalpak samples for Turkic reference, because I believe that dna of 1000 years old Oghuzes was between dna of modern day Karakalpak and Turkmens. Oghuzes lived between Aral Sea (Khwarezm) and Khorasan along the shores of the Caspian Sea 1000 years ago before Seljuq period. I've used Karakalpak samples for Khwarezm area and Turkmen samples for Khorasan area.

Karakalpaks are average 50% East Eurasian and Turkmens are 33% which I've used and this is average results of Karakalpak and Turkmen.

Some authors state that Oghuzes were pushed out from south-eastern Kazakhstan by another confederation of Turkic tribes. Probably by the Karluks. If that is the case , then ancient Oghuz may had more eastern Asian admixture. There were east Iranic people living on territories of modern day Turkmenistan. All of them were gradually assimilated. Over 1,000 years Turkmens were marrying Iranian women. It was prestigious to have an Iranian wife. That may explain there lesser East Asian admixture than in Karakalpaks and neighbouring Uzbeks . Turkmens show more genetic similarities with Tajiks than with neighbouring Uzbeks. One of the interesting DNA results are those of Nogai. Western Kazakhs were maintaing Nogai are their close cousins. There's quite a genetic difference between Nogai and Kazakhs. Karakalpaks samples maybe used as a proxy for western Kazakhs.

Afshar
09-07-2016, 07:42 PM
Some authors state that Oghuzes were pushed out from south-eastern Kazakhstan by another confederation of Turkic tribes. Probably by the Karluks. If that is the case , then ancient Oghuz may had more eastern Asian admixture. There were east Iranic people living on territories of modern day Turkmenistan. All of them were gradually assimilated. Over 1,000 years Turkmens were marrying Iranian women. It was prestigious to have an Iranian wife. That may explain there lesser East Asian admixture than in Karakalpaks and neighbouring Uzbeks . Turkmens show more genetic similarities with Tajiks than with neighbouring Uzbeks. One of the interesting DNA results are those of Nogai. Western Kazakhs were maintaing Nogai are their close cousins. There's quite a genetic difference between Nogai and Kazakhs. Karakalpaks samples maybe used as a proxy for western Kazakhs.
Can you share some sources for your statements

Dimanto
09-07-2016, 08:07 PM
I found this to be interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

''According to Khazar sources, Oghuzes are descended from the seventh son of Togarmah related to Gog and Magog.''

Volat
09-07-2016, 10:13 PM
Can you share some sources for your statements
The source is above about the genetics of the mentioned populations. That's from a published study. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8017-Split-The-Early-Turks-Distribution-amp-Demographic-Outcomes&p=174779&viewfull=1#post174779

East Iranic lived in Turkmenistan prior to arrival of Oghuz. Probably the most knowb Iranic from those time was one of the founders of Algebra al al-Khwarizmi. He was borne Khwarezm, western Uzbekistan. Ancient Iranic states on territories of Turkmenistan are Margian, Parthia, Khorasan. In reference to original homeland of Oguz

In his accredited work titled Diwan Lughat al-Turk, Mahmud of Kashgar, a Turkic scholar of the 11th century, described the Karachuk Mountains which are located just east of the Aral Sea as the original homeland of the Oghuz Turks. The Karachuk mountains are now known as the Tengri Tagh (Tian Shan in Chinese) Mountains, and they are adjacent to Syr Darya.

rafael
09-26-2016, 05:58 PM
I've calculated Central Asian Turkic input on my DNA using nMonte and Eurogenes K15. I've used Turkmen and Karakalpak samples for Turkic reference, because I believe that dna of 1000 years old Oghuzes was between dna of modern day Karakalpak and Turkmens. Oghuzes lived between Aral Sea (Khwarezm) and Khorasan along the shores of the Caspian Sea 1000 years ago before Seljuq period. I've used Karakalpak samples for Khwarezm area and Turkmen samples for Khorasan area.

Karakalpaks are average 50% East Eurasian and Turkmens are 33% which I've used and this is average results of Karakalpak and Turkmen.



North_Sea: 6.25
Atlantic: 3.38
Baltic: 4.38
Eastern_Euro: 10.95
West_Med: 1.18
West_Asian: 16.02
East_Med: 6.77
Red_Sea: 1.25
South_Asian: 7.16
Southeast_Asian: 15.44
Siberian: 24.86
Amerindian: 1.43
Oceanian: 0.47
Northeast_African: 0.16
Sub-Saharan: 0.28

This is location of Oghuzes in 1000AD. Seljuq migrations to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia started in 1020s.
http://i.imgur.com/KCyvdQc.jpg
Their neighbours were Cuman-Kipchaks, Bashkirs, Karakhanids, Karluks and Persians. Cuman-Kipchaks (ancestors of Kumyks, Karachay-Balkars and Crimean Tatars), Bashkirs, Karakhanid-Karluks (ancestors of Uyghurs and Uzbeks) also were Turkic tribes like Oghuzes. They were in contact and they knew that they were relatives. For example, Mahmud Kashgari was a Karakhanid Uyghur and he described Oghuzes in his dictionary of Turkic languages.

Back on my main topic, my nMonte calculation of Eurogenes K15 results is as follows. I've used 17 reference populations.

Me
"Armenian" 49.85
"Turkic_avg" 25.05
"Georgian" 14.25
"Iranian" 4.6
"Syrian" 3.25
"Central_Greek" 2.05
"Saudi" 0.95
"Kurdish" 0
"Assyrian" 0
"Chechen" 0
"Lezgin" 0
"Adygei" 0
"Mountain_Jewish" 0
"Lebanese_Muslim" 0
"Lebanese_Christian" 0
"Iranian_Jewish" 0
"Iraqi_avg" 0

My main admixture components are Armenian (50%), Turkic (25%) and Georgian (14%). Little components are Iranian (5%), Syrian (3%), Greek (2%) and Saudi Arabian (1%). I've found my Turkic admixture as 25% by this method. My maternal lineage has around 15% Turkic admixture with 7% East Eurasian components and my paternal lineage has around 35% Turkic admixture with 16% East Eurasian components. This result is consistent with Eurogenes K15 oracle results. Eurogenes calculators also show around 25% Central Asian Turkic admixture with Uyghur and Hazara reference populations.

Eurogenes Oracle Results.
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.9% Armenian + 27.1% Afghan_Hazara @ 2.84
2 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Hazara @ 2.85
3 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Uygur @ 2.89
4 73.5% Armenian + 26.5% Uzbeki @ 3.19
5 72.1% Georgian_Jewish + 27.9% Afghan_Hazara @ 3.89
6 72.3% Armenian + 27.7% Afghan_Turkmen @ 3.91
7 74.8% Georgian_Jewish + 25.2% Hazara @ 4.14
8 74.9% Georgian_Jewish + 25.1% Uygur @ 4.27
9 59.7% Assyrian + 40.3% Nogay @ 4.39
10 63.2% Georgian_Jewish + 36.8% Nogay @ 4.45
11 73% Georgian_Jewish + 27% Uzbeki @ 4.57
12 64.8% Armenian + 35.2% Nogay @ 4.61
13 83.2% Armenian + 16.8% Hakas @ 4.73
14 53.5% Kurdish_Jewish + 46.5% Nogay @ 4.76
15 84.7% Armenian + 15.3% Mongolian @ 4.78
16 84.1% Armenian + 15.9% Altaian @ 4.81
17 71.6% Georgian_Jewish + 28.4% Afghan_Turkmen @ 4.9
18 83% Armenian + 17% Shors @ 4.93
19 86% Armenian + 14% Tuvinian @ 5.34
20 52% Armenian + 48% Turkmen


Oracle-4

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +25% Armenian +25% Uygur @ 3.154930

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 2.789243
2 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian @ 2.823131
3 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Samaritan @ 2.911057
4 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Samaritan @ 2.937424
5 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.057315
6 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.076011
7 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Cyprian + Georgian @ 3.149267
8 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Uygur @ 3.154930
9 Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.155493
10 Afghan_Hazara + Georgian_Jewish + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 3.180224
11 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.183714
12 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Hazara @ 3.202775
13 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Assyrian + Cyprian @ 3.204877
14 Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.238966
15 Abhkasian + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.248121
16 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Ossetian + Samaritan @ 3.309176
17 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Armenian + Armenian @ 3.310400
18 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Muslim @ 3.326006
19 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.342431
20 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Samaritan @ 3.344322

According to these results Armenians, Central Asian Oghuzes and Georgians played important roles on my ethnogenesis.

Turkification wasn't only with elite dominance. Turkic migrations, migrations of Turkic civil nomads were reality. Thousands of Turkic civil nomads emigrated to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia between 11-13th centuries. My 25% Turkic heritage and my father's 35% Turkic heritage aren't elite dominance.



Can you please explain what makes you believe that those admixture % are truly that what you claim them to be? How do you know for sure that 50% of your admixture is Armenian / Turkic/ Georgian? How do you connect those ethnicities with your admixture?

Anabasis
09-26-2016, 06:09 PM
I've calculated Central Asian Turkic input on my DNA using nMonte and Eurogenes K15. I've used Turkmen and Karakalpak samples for Turkic reference, because I believe that dna of 1000 years old Oghuzes was between dna of modern day Karakalpak and Turkmens. Oghuzes lived between Aral Sea (Khwarezm) and Khorasan along the shores of the Caspian Sea 1000 years ago before Seljuq period. I've used Karakalpak samples for Khwarezm area and Turkmen samples for Khorasan area.

Karakalpaks are average 50% East Eurasian and Turkmens are 33% which I've used and this is average results of Karakalpak and Turkmen.

North_Sea: 6.25
Atlantic: 3.38
Baltic: 4.38
Eastern_Euro: 10.95
West_Med: 1.18
West_Asian: 16.02
East_Med: 6.77
Red_Sea: 1.25
South_Asian: 7.16
Southeast_Asian: 15.44
Siberian: 24.86
Amerindian: 1.43
Oceanian: 0.47
Northeast_African: 0.16
Sub-Saharan: 0.28

This is location of Oghuzes in 1000AD. Seljuq migrations to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia started in 1020s.
http://i.imgur.com/KCyvdQc.jpg
Their neighbours were Cuman-Kipchaks, Bashkirs, Karakhanids, Karluks and Persians. Cuman-Kipchaks (ancestors of Kumyks, Karachay-Balkars and Crimean Tatars), Bashkirs, Karakhanid-Karluks (ancestors of Uyghurs and Uzbeks) also were Turkic tribes like Oghuzes. They were in contact and they knew that they were relatives. For example, Mahmud Kashgari was a Karakhanid Uyghur and he described Oghuzes in his dictionary of Turkic languages.

Back on my main topic, my nMonte calculation of Eurogenes K15 results is as follows. I've used 17 reference populations.

Me
"Armenian" 49.85
"Turkic_avg" 25.05
"Georgian" 14.25
"Iranian" 4.6
"Syrian" 3.25
"Central_Greek" 2.05
"Saudi" 0.95
"Kurdish" 0
"Assyrian" 0
"Chechen" 0
"Lezgin" 0
"Adygei" 0
"Mountain_Jewish" 0
"Lebanese_Muslim" 0
"Lebanese_Christian" 0
"Iranian_Jewish" 0
"Iraqi_avg" 0

My main admixture components are Armenian (50%), Turkic (25%) and Georgian (14%). Little components are Iranian (5%), Syrian (3%), Greek (2%) and Saudi Arabian (1%). I've found my Turkic admixture as 25% by this method. My maternal lineage has around 15% Turkic admixture with 7% East Eurasian components and my paternal lineage has around 35% Turkic admixture with 16% East Eurasian components. This result is consistent with Eurogenes K15 oracle results. Eurogenes calculators also show around 25% Central Asian Turkic admixture with Uyghur and Hazara reference populations.

Eurogenes Oracle Results.
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 72.9% Armenian + 27.1% Afghan_Hazara @ 2.84
2 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Hazara @ 2.85
3 75.4% Armenian + 24.6% Uygur @ 2.89
4 73.5% Armenian + 26.5% Uzbeki @ 3.19
5 72.1% Georgian_Jewish + 27.9% Afghan_Hazara @ 3.89
6 72.3% Armenian + 27.7% Afghan_Turkmen @ 3.91
7 74.8% Georgian_Jewish + 25.2% Hazara @ 4.14
8 74.9% Georgian_Jewish + 25.1% Uygur @ 4.27
9 59.7% Assyrian + 40.3% Nogay @ 4.39
10 63.2% Georgian_Jewish + 36.8% Nogay @ 4.45
11 73% Georgian_Jewish + 27% Uzbeki @ 4.57
12 64.8% Armenian + 35.2% Nogay @ 4.61
13 83.2% Armenian + 16.8% Hakas @ 4.73
14 53.5% Kurdish_Jewish + 46.5% Nogay @ 4.76
15 84.7% Armenian + 15.3% Mongolian @ 4.78
16 84.1% Armenian + 15.9% Altaian @ 4.81
17 71.6% Georgian_Jewish + 28.4% Afghan_Turkmen @ 4.9
18 83% Armenian + 17% Shors @ 4.93
19 86% Armenian + 14% Tuvinian @ 5.34
20 52% Armenian + 48% Turkmen


Oracle-4

Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +25% Armenian +25% Uygur @ 3.154930

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 2.789243
2 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian @ 2.823131
3 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Samaritan @ 2.911057
4 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Samaritan @ 2.937424
5 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.057315
6 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Lebanese_Christian @ 3.076011
7 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Cyprian + Georgian @ 3.149267
8 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Uygur @ 3.154930
9 Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.155493
10 Afghan_Hazara + Georgian_Jewish + Lebanese_Christian + Ossetian @ 3.180224
11 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.183714
12 Armenian + Armenian + Armenian + Hazara @ 3.202775
13 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Assyrian + Cyprian @ 3.204877
14 Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.238966
15 Abhkasian + Armenian + Lebanese_Christian + Uygur @ 3.248121
16 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Ossetian + Samaritan @ 3.309176
17 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Armenian + Armenian @ 3.310400
18 Afghan_Hazara + Armenian + Georgian + Lebanese_Muslim @ 3.326006
19 Abhkasian + Afghan_Hazara + Cyprian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.342431
20 Armenian + Georgian + Hazara + Samaritan @ 3.344322

According to these results Armenians, Central Asian Oghuzes and Georgians played important roles on my ethnogenesis.

Turkification wasn't only with elite dominance. Turkic migrations, migrations of Turkic civil nomads were reality. Thousands of Turkic civil nomads emigrated to Iran, Azerbaijan and Anatolia between 11-13th centuries. My 25% Turkic heritage and my father's 35% Turkic heritage aren't elite dominance.

Very good work Caspian. I completey agree with you that Turkification was not only with elite dominance but on the other hand we will withness different results for different regions in modern Turkey. Could you run nmonte according to Turkish average in K15 spreedsheet? I expect ~%15 Turkic_avg for Turkish average.

rafael
12-17-2016, 08:18 AM
12345

rafael
12-17-2016, 08:22 AM
I think your posts in this topic are based on nothing but biased assumptions and cherry-picked data. The Turks obviously did not outnumber the locals, especially at the first wave (post-Manzikert migration, there was a second wave too).

But the number of Turks was not "very small" at all, on the contrary they were too many, at least this is what Byzantine and Islamic Chronicles say.

"When Turks arrived to Anatolia, it became a Turkmen sea and the subjects of Byzantine became like small islands in the middle of an ocean."
George Pachymeres, Byzantine Historian





1.8-7.1%? It is unbelievable that there are some members who agree with your post. The numbers in your post are clearly cherry-picked and make no sense at all, both from historical and modern genetic points of view (East Eurasian admixture alone is 10%, go figure) . According to Abu'l Fida, a Turkmen people of 200.000 tents (approximately 1 million people) was living in Antalya-Tonguzlu region alone (Southwest Anatolia). Why don't you mention it for example? How did 100-200 thousand Turks in Anatolia managed to face Crusader invasions, Byzantine-Georgian-Armenian wars, hundreds of battles and skirmishes, assuming only 1/5 of the Turkic population in Anatolia were fit for army that would make their numbers 20-40 thousand at most. How did they manage to fight so many enemies?


As for the population of Anatolia, it was ~5,5-6 million in the 16th century (the golden age of the empire), and ~12.5 million (including Istanbul) in the beginning of the 20th century and note that not all of them were ethnic Turks, Anatolia had sizeable non-muslim (~20%) and non-Turkish muslim population at that time.

http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/nbd_cilt25/mutlu.pdf


"12/14 or 8 million in pre-Turkic Anatolia" is the most unrealistic and absurd estimate I've ever seen, and for some reason it is always accepted as "unquestionable fact" when it comes to estimating Turkic genetic input in Anatolia.




The Turkish presence in Anatolia is not a result of "elite/military dominance", it is a result of a large-scale migration. Take Bahri Mamluk dynasty in Egypt as an example, Egypt was ruled by a Turkic military elite for centuries, one of the official names of the Mamluk Sultanate was dawla al-turkiyya (https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=_-G1L-9Zec0C&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=dawla+al+turkiyya&source=bl&ots=UrlivD2le4&sig=T_n368NblNXoOZ08zi-MTm5qpRI&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi98aTE2pHOAhXiO5oKHVLCD_MQ6AEIMjAC#v=on epage&q=dawla%20al%20turkiyya&f=false), "The State of the Turks", but Egypt did not become Turkey. Let alone Egpyt, most of the Middle East was ruled by various Turkish dynasties for centuries, but only Anatolia became Turkish, because the peninsula had received too many Turks to transform itself into "Turchia" (as called in Medieval Latin). Why did the Seljuk and Ottoman rule not turn entire Middle East into Turkey? Why did the Great Seljuk rule not turn Iran into Turkey? It took Anatolia only a few decades to become "Turkey" in the eyes of Europeans? Why didn't they call Holy Lands "Turchia/Turkey" for example? Syria was under the rule of Seljuk rulers at that time.


The same goes for Rumeli/Balkans. Most of South East European lands were under the rule of Ottoman Turks for centuries, but only those that received Turkmen tribes became Turkish. Bosniaks and Albanians became muslims, not Turks.


Population transfers in the Ottoman Empire
http://www.unm.edu/~phooper/thesis_condensed.pdf
http://i.hizliresim.com/BZ8PW9.png



The Turkish input can clearly be seen in Balkan Turks today.
They always come up as "Turkish_Balıkesir + Bulgarian" or "Turkish_Aydın + Serbian" in their oracle results, it is indeed a snowball effect.











There is no evidence that the proto-Turks were 100% East Eurasian by the way, the Göktürk-era Altai samples clearly show that they were a mixture of West and East Eurasian ancestral populations from the beginning, just as -much older- Yamnaya culture was a mixture of two major ancestral populations. Some people assume that the Oghuz Turks were an Eskimo-like population, they were not. Besides, the mixing with non-Turkics predates the Seljuk migration, Indo-European steppe tribes were long absorbed into the expanding Turkic power; not only nomads, but also sedentary Sogdians. According to Mahmud of Kashgar's (11th-century Turkic scholar) Diwan Lughat al-Turk Sogdians were Turkified too.

"‘Soğd, Buhara ile Semerkand arasındadır. Bunlar, Türk kılığını almışlar, Türk huyu ile huylanmışlardır.”
"Soğd: Balasagun ile Buhara ve Semerkand arasında yaşayan Türkleşmiş bir ulus."

"Sogd: A Turkified nation living between Balasagun and Bukhara-Samarkand."

^ Atalay, Besim (2006). Divanü Lügati't - Türk. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ISBN 975-16-0405-2, Cilt I, sayfa 30.
^ Atalay, Besim (2006). Divanü Lügati't - Türk. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ISBN 975-16-0405-2, Cilt I, sayfa 471



Some also claim that the Oghuz Turks were similar to modern Kazakhs, as they began their journey westward from what is now South Kazakhstan and parts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but for some reason they ignore the fact that the Kazakhs emerged as a nation from an amalgam of Turkic Kipchak and Mongol (such as Dughlat, Jalair, Kerei, Naiman, Onggirat etc) tribes long after the Mongol Invasion.


I believe Oghuz Turks led by the Seljuk Dynasty were predominantly West Eurasian (60-70%), however I don't believe they were identical to modern Turkmens, most Turkmens were nomads until the advent of the Soviet government in the 20th century but they must have some Eastern Iranic admixture judging from their South Asian and increased South Central Asian admixture, especially Yunusbayev's Turkmen samples. I think modern Turkmens are mostly of Oghuz stock though (they were nomads and had tribal identities only a century ago).


This is how Grigor of Akner (13th century Armenian historian) describes the invading Mongols:

"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".

The Turkish presence in Middle East and South Caucasus predates the Mongol one, and yet Armenians describe the invading Mongols as very different than other (ordinary) peoples they have seen.







Here is the comparison of an Anatolian Turk and an Anatolian Greek from Niğde, a province in Cappadocia.
http://i.hizliresim.com/7vLkBY.png


Turkic input does not seem to be limited to East Eurasian components?

Comparison of a Turk and Pontic Greek average from Eastern Black Sea region
http://i.hizliresim.com/5VbW0R.jpg (http://hizliresim.com/5VbW0R)



Turks are more native Anatolian than they are Central Asian, but the Turkish presence and identity in Anatolia cannot be explained by "elite dominance" or other anthrofora myths. It was a large scale migration, be it 20% or 40% Central Asian genetically, modern Turks are Turkic just as modern Europeans and Indians/Iranians are "Indo-European", original Indo-Europeans and modern IE-speakers are worlds apart genetically, just as proto-Turks and modern Anatolian Turks.


Very interesting view. I agree with most what you said but could you provide little more detailed explanation on how Original Indo-Europeans and modern IE-speakers are worlds apart genetically? Weren't proto IE speakers mostly R1a and R1b carriers or are you referring to the ancient admixture?

Thanks

Magnetic
12-17-2016, 11:42 AM
@caspian can you please make such calculation also with my eurogenes k15 results ? I wonder how much "turkic" I am according to that because I score more than average east eurasian for a kurd and often azeri as first population approx . I also get turkmen/tajik etc. stuff on various oracles

here my eurogenes k15


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 32.9
2 West_Asian 32.18
3 South_Asian 7.42
4 North_Sea 5.85
5 Red_Sea 5.58
6 West_Med 5.34
7 Eastern_Euro 3.15
8 Baltic 2.57
9 Siberian 1.28
10 Atlantic 1.19
11 Sub-Saharan 1.19
12 Southeast_Asian 0.69
13 Amerindian 0.67

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Kurdish 5.94
2 Azeri 6.34
3 Iranian 6.89
4 Armenian 7.47
5 Georgian_Jewish 7.6
6 Assyrian 8.4
7 Turkish 8.48
8 Iranian_Jewish 11.65
9 Kurdish_Jewish 12.66
10 Lebanese_Muslim 14.26
11 Syrian 15.63
12 Turkmen 17.23
13 Cyprian 18.22
14 Kumyk 18.41
15 Lebanese_Christian 19.76
16 Lebanese_Druze 19.9
17 Jordanian 20.77
18 Samaritan 21.51
19 Ashkenazi 22.44
20 Georgian 22.49

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 79% Assyrian + 21% Afghan_Pashtun @ 3.25
2 77.9% Assyrian + 22.1% Tadjik @ 3.56
3 77.6% Assyrian + 22.4% Afghan_Tadjik @ 3.71
4 69.4% Iranian_Jewish + 30.6% Tabassaran @ 3.87
5 83.9% Assyrian + 16.1% Kalash @ 3.9
6 62.1% Iranian_Jewish + 37.9% Kumyk @ 3.99
7 78% Assyrian + 22% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 4.03
8 80.2% Georgian_Jewish + 19.8% Afghan_Tadjik @ 4.04
9 80.3% Georgian_Jewish + 19.7% Afghan_Uzbeki @ 4.09
10 87.5% Georgian_Jewish + 12.5% Punjabi_Jat @ 4.24
11 77.5% Assyrian + 22.5% Tabassaran @ 4.26
12 69.8% Assyrian + 30.2% Turkmen @ 4.27
13 85.2% Assyrian + 14.8% Burusho @ 4.3
14 60.1% Kurdish_Jewish + 39.9% Kumyk @ 4.32
15 56.9% Azeri + 43.1% Armenian @ 4.33
16 82.3% Georgian_Jewish + 17.7% Afghan_Pashtun @ 4.33
17 53.2% Iranian + 46.8% Armenian @ 4.34
18 60.9% Azeri + 39.1% Assyrian @ 4.35
19 67.9% Iranian_Jewish + 32.1% Lezgin @ 4.37
20 86.3% Georgian_Jewish + 13.7% Pathan @ 4.37

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +50% Azeri @ 4.948525


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Armenian +25% Iranian_Jewish +25% Turkmen @ 3.799828


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Abhkasian + Afghan_Pashtun + Lebanese_Druze + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.604710
2 Afghan_Pashtun + Armenian + Armenian + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.609683
3 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Assyrian + Assyrian @ 3.629106
4 Afghan_Pashtun + Georgian + Lebanese_Druze + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.678141
5 Afghan_Pashtun + Armenian + Georgian_Jewish + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.719117
6 Afghan_Tadjik + Georgian + Kurdish_Jewish + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.741019
7 Armenian + Assyrian + Kurdish_Jewish + Tadjik @ 3.777410
8 Afghan_Uzbeki + Armenian + Assyrian + Assyrian @ 3.798303
9 Armenian + Armenian + Iranian_Jewish + Turkmen @ 3.799828
10 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Assyrian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.802267
11 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Georgian_Jewish + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.819320
12 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Armenian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.838540
13 Afghan_Uzbeki + Armenian + Armenian + Kurdish_Jewish @ 3.843025
14 Afghan_Tadjik + Assyrian + Assyrian + Georgian_Jewish @ 3.861788
15 Afghan_Pashtun + Georgian + Lebanese_Christian + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.885322
16 Afghan_Uzbeki + Georgian + Kurdish_Jewish + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.892237
17 Abhkasian + Afghan_Tadjik + Lebanese_Druze + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.894062
18 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Armenian + Lebanese_Druze @ 3.894308
19 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Assyrian + Iranian_Jewish @ 3.904797
20 Afghan_Tadjik + Armenian + Armenian + Iranian_Jewish @ 3.907015

eolien
12-17-2016, 01:00 PM
I have an issue with this map and wrong conclusion you can derive from that. I think this map is misleading because it shows the Oghuz between Aral and Caspian Sea however based on written sources and map of Diwan-i Lugat-i Turk, Oghuz ili (Bilād al-Guzziyya) is clearly on the east/right bank and along of Syr Darya(Seyhun). Before making some approximations by Karakalpaks or Turkmens, and even some non-statistical calculations by Pontik 'Turks' and Capadocia turks, the best way could be to take some samples from Turkmen and Yoruk tribes from Turkey and get some data from them. The other common sense method would be more limiting but nevertheless informative: which Y-chromosome haplogroups could be representing Oghuz or western turkic groups?

Anabasis
12-17-2016, 02:21 PM
Comparison of a Turk and Pontic Greek average from Eastern Black Sea region
http://i.hizliresim.com/5VbW0R.jpg (http://hizliresim.com/5VbW0R)



Turks are more native Anatolian than they are Central Asian, but the Turkish presence and identity in Anatolia cannot be explained by "elite dominance" or other anthrofora myths. It was a large scale migration, be it 20% or 40% Central Asian genetically, modern Turks are Turkic just as modern Europeans and Indians/Iranians are "Indo-European", original Indo-Europeans and modern IE-speakers are worlds apart genetically, just as proto-Turks and modern Anatolian Turks.

Where that "pontic turk" comes from. All of the Turkish_Trabzon Rize and Artvin samples i got have almost same admixture results with Pontic Greek. In somehwere you make great mistake or your "Pontic Turk" actualy from Ordu or Giresun.

Huitzilopochtli
12-17-2016, 06:03 PM
Certain issues I'm just dumping here as well: we really need to update our prior assumptions after the flood of recent studies. After the Karmin et al. paper, we get a ratio of 1:4 to 1:5 for Y DNA effective population size vs mtDNA effective population size throughout Eurasia after the Bronze Age. @ Ral, This is an actual number--it is not an interpretation, Y DNA diversity *really is* 20%-25% of mtDNA diversity. *Of course* this does not indicate that 20% of males reproduced for 100% of females each generation in all premodern societies: this merely tells us that reproductive variance in males is high *and heritable*; i.e. a particular patrilineage can raise a disproportionate number of children for multiple generations, for either cultural or social reasons, and this holds across all parts of Eurasia in the common era, which is the only phenomenon that can produce such lopsided numbers. This, in combination with economic historian Gregory Clark's studies on the number of children of rich and poor in medieval societies around the world, as well as the heritability of social status from surnames from the middle ages till the present, should *substantially* change our idea of how much genetic impact a small group can have, especially if it manages to lodge itself into some sort of landed or military aristocracy. E.g. Norman surnames like Mandeville, Montgomery, Percy, Darcy, etc. are *still* overrepresented in both the population at large, in the professions like law and medicine, and at Oxford and Cambridge today (6x times!), so many centuries after their forcible imposition as an elite. In fact, the very small number of Norman elites had enough demographic impact via elite overproduction to *reduce the steppe ancestry of English to a lower level than those of the Scots and Welsh, and also the ancient Celts and Saxons*, as is concluded by the Galinsky et al. paper from the latest mass analysis of DNA from British Biobank, even though the Normans were a small group of nobles from Normandy at the beginning!

Could this have been to an earlier, pre-Roman migration from France, perhaps the one that brought Celtic languages?