https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Pontic Greek bvll lazaridis jus BTFO "turks" once and for all
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I don't get it, are modern Turks only ~9% Central Asian Turkic-speaker or ~9-22%? How come ancient Central Asians are ~41-100% Turkic speaker?
Modern turke are 9% east eurasian
Using ancient turkic samples ranging from 41 to 100% east eurasian
They are estimated 9/41 to 9/100 turkic
Oh OK it wasn't in the screenshot, thanks.
Modern turks are 9 % turkic
Not 9 % east eurasian moron
Turkics were hapas so they were only half east eurasian
Modern turks must be only like 2 % east eurasian
in this case it's talking about literal 100% asians, so 9% means east eurasians
>100% asians
But turkics were never 100 % asian
They were hapas in the beginning and quapas in seljuk/abbasid times
Their ethnogenesis is literally being indo european rapebabies
Hell even mongols are 3 or 5 % West eurasian
Mongols are actually like 25% Caucasoid and similar to Native Americans
No 25 % is way too high but they do have like 3 or 5 %
This is you can some mongols have light eyes/hair but thats extremely rare
25 % is people like kazakhs
Way too high
>But turkics were never 100 % asian
there are turkics that are very overwhelmingly asian, they are completely all over the place
How is this "btfo"? This proves that they are the original natives and not the kurds/arabs/greeks, but they also carry central asian influx albeit minimal.
Also, Lazaridis is a butthurt biased homosexual.
It means they are being racist against themselves when they are racist against the remaining unmixed people. It is basically "you are not mixed like us, I hate you"
How does this BTFO Turks?
9% to 22% is very significant. They aren't the same people they were before the Turkish invasion, unlike Hungarians who have no Magyar DNA at all.
They are 80% the same, that’s more than modern day Greeks being same as ancient Greeks, dumb post.
on that logic, no one in europe is the same as they were 3000 years ago or in some cases 800 years ago (pic) german samples.
>Hungarians who have no Magyar DNA at all.
proofs? people don't just randomly adopt a language as foreign as that
they were white even before the Pannonian Invasion
Isn't this common knowledge that Turks are just Anatolians who speak an Oghuz Turkic language
15% Mongoloid for most Turks, and is most accurately modelled as 50% Turkmen and 50% Cappadocian Greek. The major thing is that Turkics never had a defined genetic cluster and have always been all over the place.
50% Is Turk cope, It’s at max 30% if being generous.
No, it really do be like that
>Picking the least Turkic sample with EEF admixture
This is like saying Americans are native American by picking a mutt sample, giga cope. Ancient Turkic samples have no EEF and are modeled at 30% max. Modern Turkmens are Iranic rapebabies and for that reason overlap, you can literally model any euro with part EA admixture as Turkmen. tl;dr: you're mentally ill and likely the same schizo poster that shits up DNA threads.
I didn't pick anything, I just let it select the samples that create the closest approximation, and yes Turkmen have Iranic admixture, but no one disputes them being Turkic, only Anatolians for political reasons
>Using modern samples
>Using literal closest approximation with no sample limit and allowing Tajik mutt mix with Yamnaya into the table
you're a dumb moron and have no idea what you're talking about, you can make models where they are as low as 20% Turkic with ancient samples which are the accurate ones, not with mutt samples of today.
The fact of the matter is that modern Anatolian Turks are equivalent to half-Turkmen half-Greek, anything else is cope and whining
Yes, they clearly had profound genetic impact
>The fact of the matter is that modern Anatolian Turks are equivalent to half-Turkmen half-Greek, anything else is cope and whining
You're mentally ill, Imagine being this butthurt instead of accepting fact and coming up with meme cherrypicked theories when ALL ancient samples point to ancient Turkics having barely any EEF compared to modern day Turkmen and the EEF came from Anatolians who were 60% EEF roughly, not Turkics or mutted Turkmen of today.
Last post before more Turk schizos come and seethe.
Modern Anatolian Turks are modelled as half-Turkmen, half-Greek. Will you live with it or will you continue to shit yourself?
I just gave you an Ancient model above
You're the one shitting yourself and using MODERN Turkmen who are irrelevant to Anatolian admixture, they carry literally AASI which Anatolian Turks don't, using modern Turkmen to model Anatolian Turks instead of ancients already says enough about your moronic seething.
The calculator itself picked Turkmen because they are the closest approximation, take it up with Davidski. Seljuks literally came from the area of current Turkmenistan and Ottomans cluster with Turkmens so this is obviously legit. Turks are not native to Anatolia, cope and seethe.
I'm not a Turk, and you're mentally ill, where did I state they are native? Actually name one native population today to anatolia, Kurds? Greeks themselves aren't native to mainland Greece by that logic you inbred idiot. You don't even know the calculator you're using, here's a breakdown of modern day Turkish DNA and ancient Byzantine sample.
Ancient Turkics had very little EEF, all Turkic samples point towards max 30% admixture even with the most Turkic Turk, even if we use Kipchaks who were HAPA mutts it doesn't reach 35%, and their historical recording isn't with Anatolia.
Literal subhuman intelligence who knows nothing of what he's talking of.
I call Anatolia the Brazil of the old world
>all Turkic samples point towards max 30% admixture even with the most Turkic Turk
Admixture of what? The point is that Turkic DNA literally cannot even be defined, as soon as Turks appear in the historical record they are Latino-tier ubermutts who range from Nordic as frick to Mongol throat singers. All I'm proving is that Turks are not Greeks or god forbid native Anatolians, they are a completely separate ethnicity with substantial connection to the other Turkics.
You're the one who doesn't understand the calculator as the timing of the samples is a distraction here, you can see that the distances on your chart are immensely higher than of the Single runs, meaning they are less accurate.
Context matters in what samples you use you dumb mutt, once again you move the goalpost like a inbred moron. You can model any Euro with a combination of moronic samples as long as they are Yamnaya+EEF, once again you know nothing of what you're talking of.
>Turkic DNA cannot be defined
It is defined, It's EA + Yamnaya in 80% of all cases, the Turkmen of today are Iranic mutts and carry heavy amounts of Yamnaya, Ganj_Dareh_N, much less Siberian and also AASI, it makes sense why you can model modern Turks with 50% of them as long as you have a EEF source, however it logically makes no sense as Turkmens carry admixture of things Turks do not such as AASI and their admixture is VERY different and you need to use moronic mutt combinations in order to model them together with Turk+Anatolian.
>muh distances
they are within' the range of 3, you're literally mentally moronic.
>Latino-tier ubermutts
They are Anatolian-Turkic pretty much all across until you reach Eastern Turkey, once again mentally moronic post.
>All I'm proving is that Turks are not Greeks or god forbid native Anatolians
Greeks aren't native anatolians either, they virtually have nothing to do with them and they are barely 30% mycenean if talking about Ancient Greeks, holy shit the amount of cope.
>It is defined, It's EA + Yamnaya in 80% of all cases
What the kind of nonsense is this? Are you gonna walk up to a Kazakh and tell him he is like 60% Turkic? This is not how the world works.
>however it logically makes no sense as Turkmens carry admixture of things Turks do not such as AASI and their admixture is VERY different and you need to use moronic mutt combinations in order to model them together with Turk+Anatolian
The calculator itself picks it because it creates the shortest distance, the half-Greek half-Turkment result is literally closer to the Turkish average than individual Turks are to each other, you complete and utter moron.
>They are Anatolian-Turkic pretty much all across until you reach Eastern Turkey, once again mentally moronic post.
Eastern Turks are Turkified Armenians, what I say applies only to Anatolia proper.
>Greeks aren't native anatolians either, they virtually have nothing to do with them and they are barely 30% mycenean
Who knows what the frick native Anatolian even means but Turks have discontinuity to Byzantine Anatolians, they are a unique genetic profile entirely unlike anything in ancient samples.
>muh mutts
Shut the frick up with these fricking buzzwords you fricking moron
There is hardly a more appropriate context to use this word in than population genetics.
Find literally 1 flaw with what I did
And no, using phenotype for this is the most moronic approach by far. It's the same thing as with Finns.
Turkics have a solid amount of Yamnaya due to Scythian admixture, the Ottoman samples mog modern Turks in Yamnaya still.
>Turkics have a solid amount of Yamnaya due to Scythian admixture, the Ottoman samples mog modern Turks in Yamnaya still.
It really doesn't because Turks can't be modeled with the Ottoman samples on such a level, they reach 40% at highest, which isn't enough to highten the yamnaya levels to modern day Turks. The Ottoman samples are also mutt-tier, they carry Anatolian influence.
>Find literally 1 flaw with what I did
anon...check the distances
You got any better model that will give significantly different numbers? It's necessary for something as broad as this.
Those numbers are ridiculous and non-sense, It's the same as the somali argument you made before.
Also the Ottoman sample argument doesn't hold up as they are part anatolian rape-babies, they have 20% EEF, that's more then half of modern day Turks and way more than Ancient Turkics. The Yamnaya levels also don't hold up, they are 30% while Balikesir Turks are 23% , there has to have been PIE/IE admixture coming in from somewhere else.
>Those numbers are ridiculous and non-sense
Do you have any contrary evidence? Why can't Mongols be quarter West Eurasian? Uyghurs are right there.
>Also the Ottoman sample argument doesn't hold up
I didn't say it was the sole source of Yamnaya in Turks, just that the poster seemed to be unaware that Turkics do have substantial Yamnaya themselves. Turks have plenty of random admixture from everywhere because the Ottoman Empire was New World-tier.
>Do you have any contrary evidence? Why can't Mongols be quarter West Eurasian? Uyghurs are right there.
Because the distances are extreme that the model is non-sense.
They are mostly native anatolian with some Turkic thrown into the mix, if Lazaridis report is accurate then they have even less Turkic admixture than recent G25 models. The Yamnaya admixture is the only outlier, as they have too much for it to simply come from Turkics, it's likely partly Balkan or Thracian related.
>Because the distances are extreme that the model is non-sense.
But why does it give accurate numbers for Amerindians? That's the commonly accepted split, I included them to show that the model is not unreliable. Running it like this you get essentially accurate percentages for all other ethnicities. Other than the distance number, which is necessarily high for something as fundamental as West vs East Eurasian, what evidence do you have for admixture in Mongolds?
>They are mostly native anatolian with some Turkic thrown into the mix
Actually, they seem to carry a substantial amount of Iranian ancestry as well, which they probably picked up before entering Anatolia.
>But why does it give accurate numbers for Amerindians? That's the commonly accepted split, I included them to show that the model is not unreliable. Running it like this you get essentially accurate percentages for all other ethnicities. Other than the distance number, which is necessarily high for something as fundamental as West vs East Eurasian, what evidence do you have for admixture in Mongolds?
It is not accurate as the distances are too large, you're using two modern samples that have complete different admixture make-ups, those two combinations are impossible.
>Actually, they seem to carry a substantial amount of Iranian ancestry as well, which they probably picked up before entering Anatolia.
No, they have less or equal Iranian admixture compared to Ancient Anatolians, western Turks definitely have less Iranian admixture than ancient anatolians did.
>It is not accurate as the distances are too large, you're using two modern samples that have complete different admixture make-ups, those two combinations are impossible.
So how else would you do it? Using modern samples is not the problem you are making it out to be. You're complaining aimlessly.
It’s consistent with G25 if Eastern Anatolia is added into the equation
KAZ_Turk carries AASI which modern Turks do not have, it also has lower east-asian admixture than other Turkic samples so it's a bit of a cherrypick, I'll trust the study in this case until some new study comes out or something.
Modern samples are mutt-mixes, a modern day Greek is not the same as Ancient Greek, you can't model him as pure mycenean, same logic applies here, Mongolian is 17% Yamnaya, rest is pure east-asian, Irish carries EEF, Mongolians have no EEF, that combination is thus impossible.
Do you believe the samples have some metaphysical temporal dimension? It's just coordinates, ancient and modern samples can be nearly identical and give identical results. These components you refer to also have no particular significance, all that is being estimated is West vs East Eurasian, and you cannot prove at all that this is an invalid way of doing so.
you've been unironically shitting out moronic arguments since the beginning of this thread, they carry no EEF, every European carries a lot of EEF, using those two combinations is thus uber moronic, also you're using Ancient chinese and not Siberian which fricks up your model once again.
They do, they also unlike other Turkic samples carry EEF, this is a cherrypick and you know it. The results of the report comes before G25.
My arguments are literally 100% correct and are simply not accepted because they go against the preconceived political beliefs established in these circles.
It does not matter which samples I use because the fact of the matter is that the numbers are roughly correct and no matter how far we narrow the distances the percentages won't significantly change.
your distances are still way off compared to mine, because you're using inaccurate EA samples for Mongolians. Honestly, you're mentally ill, just admit you fricked up and move on.
Modern day Turks don't have AASI and BMAC admixture is debatable, modern day turks have less Ganj_Dareh than ancient anatolians did, majority of all Turkic samples were Yamnaya+EA admixtured, not EEF or BMAC. The North Caucasus relation also exists which is not AASI related either, I'm not repeating myself again, read the report and quit posting cherrypicked models.
You're incapable of creating a different model because the percentages are correct, even if you irrationally disagree with the way I modelled it. There is no need to use excessively local or ancient samples, the distance number might change but the percentages won't.
That’s because you didn’t account for the BMAC admixture (e.g Gonur) which itself is already admixed with AASI. Compare mine to yours. Gonur is clearly eating up the Shahri Sokhta sample, as it should be.
You’ve outed yourself as a moron. Virtually every Turkic groups has BMAC admixture due to mixing with Eastern Iranians. It’s not up to debate. If Medieval Turks had 1~5 percent AASI then it’s not even significant enough to persist 3 generations after the first admixture event. Never mind that AASI wasn’t some separate ancestry that arrived to Mongolia and that it was rather part of the BMAC (Gonur) package.
>muh ousted as moron
>using Hajji CHG drifted proxy with CHG, with a Ganj_Dareh and BMAC as EEF-Ganj_N again
No one is gonna believe your bullshit mehmet, if anyone would wanna know they'd read the report, but your bullshit schizo theory is easy to oust considering 80% of all Turkic samples aren't BMAC related and modern day Turks carry less Ganj_Dareh than former Anatolians did. I can give you Ancient-Anatolian + Karakhanid or something similar with minor Thracian shift for Western Turks and Armenian shift for Eastern Turks that works just as well if not better
Subhuman idiot trying to maneuver his way out with non sequiturs. Hajji Firuz Copper Age is ancestral to most West Asians, it’s irrelevant as to whether it’s eating up CHG or not because we’re looking for the BMAC admixture, not Neolithic Zagrosian. Distances are all perfect, not one above 0.015 — and that’s saying something.
>80% of all Turkic samples aren’t BMAC
Now pick up any academic paper and see if that holds up, you low IQ ape. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420313210
Last reply as your inbred brain does not seem to comprehend that modern day Turks cannot descend from EEF Turkics as its mathematically impossible, they have less Ganj_Dareh and CHG as well, the hightened values are Siberian+Yamnaya with no AASI, are you gonna argue ancient Turkics were related to Ancient Anatolians next? It does not matter if some Turkic samples were BMAC or not, the recent paper OP linked says enough about the Turkic admixture of current day Turks, you can seethe your way out of this and not believe it by picking EEF Turkic mutt samples but no one is gonna believe you.
Last reply.
There is no such thing as EEF Turkic, you groid dullard. You’re arguing that KAZ_Turk carries AASI (which it doesn’t, it carries BMAC) and that somehow inflates the number even though G25 is supervised and can account for similar ancestries when you add components that would have otherwise arrived using separate routes. So no, no one is arguing for Turks being descended from “EEF Turkics” because there’s no such thing and that your subhuman Black person brain came out with it to obfuscate your brainworms. What I proved is that, Lazaridis’ numbers can be proved with G25 using medieval Turkic samples that carry less than 50% East Eurasian ancestry (on average 22-23% as in the Lazaridis study). However if you remove East Anatolians and Pontians then the number itself is pulled towards approximately 30%.
>What I proved is that, Lazaridis’ numbers can be proved with G25 using medieval Turkic samples that carry less than 50% East Eurasian ancestry (on average 22-23% as in the Lazaridis study). However if you remove East Anatolians and Pontians then the number itself is pulled towards approximately 30%.
I'm not him, but even if you remove Pontians/Eastern-Turks and only factor in for western turks it's still at max 30% by the Laziridis study, even if we go by the least ancient Turkic samples from 41-50% East Eurasian, which is a cherrypick scenario. It is nowhere near 50% that some of you people like to claim.
I have never argued for 50% you illiterate shit. Read the thread.
>KAZ_Turk carries AASI
No they don’t.
ancient turkmen were all over the place, god knows what the study picked
turks are something like 30% central asian if something more akin to an uzbek-turkmen is used, the rest being capapdocian greek (similar to dodecanense with a shift towards caucasus) and caucasus populations
And the regions he picked (southwest and south) are the most turkic admixed in anatolia
Onviously the average is much lower and using a “temporally plausible” source i.e medieval sample you get lazaridis numbers
CopeMAXXed mehmets will keep being try hards in defending their larp instead of accepting it
The pattern is still there in the rest of Anatolia, it just goes for other Turkic ethnicities there. South gives the simplest split.
You can model the Portuguese, for example, as a mixture of Somalis and Swedes, the model will be shit and not reflect historical accounts but you can do it. This is hyperbole but you know I mean.
The distance will be immensely higher, and the calculator would never do that on its own because far closer matches exist.
>Anatolian Turks are equivalent to half-people who larp as Turkmen but in reality are 1/3 turkmen and 2/3 iranian, and half-Greek
You're 3/6 greek 2/6 iranian and 1/6 turkoman
FTFY
>one disputes them being Turkic
Their genes do, since they're less than 50% turkic. They just keep calling themselves like that as a larp
>arguing with copeMAXXed mehmet
Didn't we have already two Ottoman samples from central Turkey from ~500 years ago? IIRC one of them clustered with modern Kazakhs on PCA and the other with modern Turkmens.
>15%
No region reaches that high except some small regions like Mugla, that’s extreme cherrypicking,
Too high
Its like 2 % mongoloid and 15 % turkmen/turkic
You will never be a real Turk. Never ever.
Anyone can be a Turk. But no one wants to be.
Turks are the result of whatever man coomed into proto-Turk womens
IE men then
Many such cases
ancient turks are absolutely all over the place, it can vary a lot depends on who you pick
in fact by this pic you can see he picked people with 100% asian genetics (central asian here probably means fully asian like in many lazaridis studies, he means some of those central asians that are basically completely asian like Kalmyks ) and he picked people with 100% asian genetic profile
but looking at modern turkish samples i strongly doubt that's what the seljuks were like when they invaded turkey, something with 30-40% asian genetics is more likely
Seljuks weren't Iranic mutts as they carry less Ganj_Dareh than Byzantines did. Turks are Turkic-Anatolian where the Turkics were Yamnaya-EA mutts, most ancient samples are Yamnaya-EA Turkic mutts.
you literally didn't answer a single question and moved the goalpost like a butthurt moron once again, filtered.
Keep seething and shitting yourself over Turks, they will never be Hittites.
>still seething
Where did I mention natives? Also name one population close to hittites, Pontic Greeks? kek, the absolute state.
None, the LARP rights are void. No one gets it.
You're really ousting yourself as a moron, do you admit then that Ancient Greeks have nothing to do with Greeks or Italians with Romans then since they aren't 100% admixture wise the same as them?
They have minor differences but overall they are still fairly legit, except the weird 50% Slavic Greeks which really do make me think.
>minor differences
Ultra giga cope, Greeks carry heavy Slav-mix, they're not even 30% Ancient Greek, meanwhile Turks can be modeled as 70% Ancient Anatolian + 30% Turkic, really impressive logic there.
>Italians
None can be modeled as 80%+ Roman, you're mentally ill.
I literally call out the Slavic admixture in Greeks you fricking moron
>None can be modeled as 80%+ Roman, you're mentally ill.
The Roman average sample is fricking moronic and includes countless Levantines, most of the individuals are identical to modern Central and South Italians
Kazakhs are actually like 50%
>Kazakhs are actually like 50%
no, they are something like 25% while mongols are 5% at best
>0.38
anon
>These are the mentally ill morons who can't even understand a basic calculator teaching you about genetics
never change IQfy
Also, Turks are mostly native anatolian, one literally just has to see one to see they're barely Turkic.
>obsessed whining about MUH IDENTICAL IF WE CHERRYPICK X
have a nice day
>30 % turkic
Bro even literal turks say that its impossible to find 30 % turkic peoples in turkey
Its 15 % at best and only in some regions
I meant Turkic as in Ancient Turkic admixtures, It's at max 30% Ancient Turkic, there are average samples for Karluks, Karakhanids, Kipchaks etc and they are Yamnaya-EA mutts for the most part. If being generous and cherrypick samples you can reach 35-40% Turkic with the most Turkic Turk, otherwise It's on average 75% Ancient Anatolian 25% Ancient Turkic i'd say.
>It's on average 75% Ancient Anatolian 25% Ancient Turkic i'd say.
yes, more or less, with peaks of 30% in west turkey and lows of 10% in the east
East is actually 0% and I'm the guy who's been arguing the 50% Turkmen angle, those are purely linguistically Turkified
>yes Italians are 50% Germanic
Is this what you believe? That's what comes out if you use that average.
>East is 0%
Inbred moron, only Trabzon Turks are Turkified. You've been coping since the beginning of this thread, did a Turk frick your daughter or something?
>again muh 50% turkmen
obsessed
It generally also depends on who we count as Turk, if all Turk samples are accounted for I'd say average 20-25% with the Karluk/Kipchak average samples are a good estimate.
Now you're arguing Turks are more Turkic, what kind of schizo are you? Sure, East is mildly more.
How else would you model it? The numbers for Amerindians are widely accepted.
>again using automated vahaduo bullshittery with modern samples
>Amerindian modeling
you're legit a schizo, morons like you should be banned from using these tools.
Thanks for admitting that your take is moronic, I was presenting agreeing evidence.
Its not 100 % but minor difference
Meanwhile turks are 15 % turkic at best in some rare regions
This mean like 90 % of the country is zero % turkic
Nope, Turkic% cannot be objectively quantified
>Seljuks weren't Iranic mutts as they carry less Ganj_Dareh than Byzantines did. Turks are Turkic-Anatolian where the Turkics were Yamnaya-EA mutts, most ancient samples are Yamnaya-EA Turkic mutts.
the ottoman samples carry iran_n, as well as many turkic samples
and yes the turks that went to turkey were probably something like 40% asian, this study is using people that are up to 100% "central asian", that most likely means asian
Modern day Turks are less Iran_N than the Ancient Anatolians, Byzantines or Hittites were, it dropped heavily in Western Turkey and thus points to Iran_N not being carried by Turkics that much.
No suprise here, they carry on average around 8% pure east-asian, depending on what ancient Turkic sample one uses it can reach up to 30% Turkic heritage if you pick the most Turkic Turk. However, those are the most cherrypicked scenarios, it's likely much lower, they're still no matter how much they wish to be Turkic...anatolian.
Its 3 % pure east asian and 9 % turkic and thats only in some places
Those are heavily mongol'd like kazakhs
The original turkics were hapas/quapas
We Turks are proud Anatolo-Arabs.
What I generally wonder more is if there was any slavic, thracian or balkan influx considering they have heightened Yamnaya compared to original Anatolians, it can't be purely Turkics unless they were outright scandinavian-asian mutts.
Turkics are IE rapebabies
Anatolians turks have slavic, celtic and probably even germanic DNA due to varangians and foedaratis (vandals were resettled into anatolia after their defeat to the romans for exemple)
The same result can be replicated using G25 but if you remove Pontians and Eastern Anatolians (which is historically not Anatolia, west of Euphrates is) the number is pulled to 30%. Then what does this make the pontic “”””bulls”””” in question? Literal cucks who got buckbroken so bad they switched languages without any hesitation whatsoever. A slave race, if you will.
So when did Anatolian Greeks start considering themselves Turkish?
No such thing as anatolian greeks besides pontic and aegean ones
Anatolians.... are anatolians
First you need to define what a Turk from Central Asia is. Turkic peoples from Central Asia are themselves of diverse heritage.
Oghuz so like a turkmen
>PIE from the near east
>Illyrians were almost identical to ancient and modern Greeks
>0% steppe Mycenaean elites
No wonder everyone is seething about this, even monkeydonians came crawling out of the woodwork
This confirms another study by turkish geneticists
They found around 10-15%
>Turkish geneticists
No, they have cherrypicked Turkic samples and Anatolian ones. Lazaridis paper states east-asian admixture of Ancient Turkics varied from 41% to 100% while modern day Turks on average have 9%. If we were to pick the most Turkic Turk who only exist in few numbers near the Mugla region at 15% and then use the least east-asian admixed ancient Turkic, he is still only 36% Ancient Turkic, the rest anatolian, and this is the most cherrypicked scenario you can go for from this paper report.
It's likely Ancient Turkics were 60% east-asian, modern day Turks having 9% average leads to 9/60 -> only 15% Turkic DNA carried over, insignificant to the native anatolian one.
Ancient turkics in the beginning were 50 % east eurasian by the time they arrived in anatolia they were like only 20 % and modern turks are like 3 % east eurasian
East eurasian DNA ≠ Turkic
But that's what the turkish geneticists found too, more or less. ~15% central asian component
No, they were arguing that by modeling with some mutt samples like DA89 Turks were descended 50% from Ancient Turkics, atleast that's what Turkish DNA Project report gave out.
Turkish dna project is a blogger. I'm talking about the study posted here
Which is from turkish geneticists
I haven't red that study but 15% is plausible and makes sense rather than silly 50% numbers some Turanists keep shilling all the time.
They have to justify the language and imagery somehow, otherwise they feel like cucked conquered people
>otherwise they feel like cucked conquered people
that's what they are
Today I will remind them
25% of turks are Greeks and the other 75% is Armenians
Turkic dna is so negligible in them that it doesn't even affect their positions
You got it wrong, they are majority Anatolians, the one shifted towards Iranians are the Armenian ones while the ones shifted towards Greeks Thracians/Bulgarians mixed with Anatolians.
Modern day Greeks carry slavic DNA and aren't related to anatolians.
He stated "pure" east-asian in his text, but the fact still remains that the "Turkic" inprint in modern day Turks is minimal.
Yeah this is what i said
Anatolians turks arent turkic (90 % of the country have 0 % turkic DNA) but old turkics were in majority West eurasian (like 80 %)
that study kinda proves that they have a pretty big central asian component, a lot of people post it without knowing the study
that green and that brown are respectively east asian and CNA(north central asian, that peaks in very heavily asiatic populations used in that study like altaians, mongolians and so on)
and you can see that brown+green is something like 10% in turks, that means that if you use something like an uzbek they would have 25% central asian admixture, with a turkmen they would have something like 30%
Turkmen/Uzbeks are themselves mutts, the Laziridis study referred to Ancient Turkics of which it never goes beyond 22% in the most cherrypicked scenario. You can argue their admixture changed in other ways than just east-asian, but it only changed in terms of Yamnaya/PIE, the rest of their admixture decreased or stayed the same which is why they are able to be modeled as 70% native anatolian if not more.
>Turkmen/Uzbeks are themselves mutts, the Laziridis study referred to Ancient Turkics of which it never goes beyond 22% in the most cherrypicked scenario. You can argue their admixture changed in other ways than just east-asian, but it only changed in terms of Yamnaya/PIE, the rest of their admixture decreased or stayed the same which is why they are able to be modeled as 70% native anatolian if not more.
the lazaridis study says the the average goes from 9% to 22%, not that turks have between 9% and 22%, big difference, if the average is something inbetween that like 15% that could very well mean 30%+ for western turks and 5% for eastern turks, that is in accordance with the samples
but we have to see what turkic he's using, there are turkic samples that are more asian than modern mongols
but that is beyond the scope of my comment, what i was saying is that that study you posted does not search for actual central asian admixture, the green is pure east asian and the "brown" is CNA(central north asian) that includes and peaks in mongola, even, yakut and the likes, so it's basically almost pure asian too, so that study is modeling turks with some 10% pure/almost pure asian admixture on average, and that is in line with the samples
The samples he used were ancient Turkic oriented ones. It is clear it is majority Anatolian, even with the older samples The roman anatolian samples are RMPR(43,44,66,74,71,72,78,128). When the new samples are out one could reach a better conclusion, but to improve accuracy a stronger Yamnaya source is needed, the Turkic input if being generous and using very late mixed Turkic samples is at max 30%, (still above 41% east-asian that was the lowest limit for lazaridis study).
The results are very clear, the only way one can toy around this is by speculating the EEF drop or Yamnaya increase until some new more clear study.
add the other turks from the east and trabzon (that he probably includes in his turkish average since he claims it's representative of the entire country) and you more or less get an average between 9% and 22%
In the model above it's also artifically higher due to the lack of PIE, the calculator is trying to balance out the higher PIE as Roman Anatolians had very little to none PIE admixture while the Turk sample carries around 30%. Modern day western anatolian Turks are around ~20%, if one were to add some yamnaya extra source, the Turkic would end up quite a bit lower, possibly max 20%.
All-in-all it's speculation until a deep-dive study is done with historical events accounted for e.g Balkan/Crimean tatar migrations, but the most Turkic Turk is unlikely to reach above 30% Ancient Turkic, even if using a Turkic sample dropping as low as 41% east-asian if we go by laziridis study.
So now we have Byzantine, medieval Turkic and Ottoman samples, how do the ancestry models of modern Turks look like using them as sources?
29% kebab 50% armenian 11% dog
oh and 10% arab
Byzantine-Medieval Turkic: 75/25 normalized
Byzantine-Ottoman Turkic sample: 65/35
Give or take a few +/-, It's a given fact that the Ottoman sample already carries anatolian admixture.
Byzantine samples is basically the same as modern day Turks, you only drop EEF from 55% to 40% ish, Yamnaya from 5% to 20% ish and East-asian from 0% to 9% ish and you got modern day Turk.
In which area though. There's a cline
Probably west = more EEF, east = more Iran
If you mean Byzantine samples, the differences are minor, they're 50-60% EEF all over the place. If you mean Turks they're about 40% until you hit the East where Ganj_Dareh + CHG starts to rise by quite a lot. However Western Turks have more East asian + Yamnaya influence at the same time compared to the east.
In short, Western Turks have higher Yamnaya, lower EEF, lower CHG, equal or less Iran and a new admixture (East-asian) going up to 11% at max to the previous rulers. The differences are quite minor except that East-asian has been introduced.
Eastern Turks are basically mostly the same Chalcolithic Armenians with minor Yamnaya-East asian shift.
What modern populations do the Byzantine samples cluster closest to?
Same.
>What modern populations do the Byzantine samples cluster closest to?
The Anatolian Greeks that do barely exist anymore, Cypriots, Island Greeks and Southern Italians, not Mainland Greeks though.
Southern Italians is only Basilicata and Apulia, the other Italians don't really cluster that close to them.
>What modern populations do the Byzantine samples cluster closest to?
Depends on the area
Anatolian ERE would be like greek islanders and south in general
Constantinople/Istanbul ERE looks bulgarian from the leaked Biomuse pca
>Constantinople/Istanbul ERE looks bulgarian from the leaked Biomuse pca
Modern day Istanbulites cluster closer to them than Greeks as well, they are Thracians with minor Turkic influence.
Here's a central-west anatolian Byzantine, Turks sorta disappear except Kayseri Turks, but they're not far off, it's their east-asian influence pushing them off a bit. Overall It's Greek Anatolian-Cypriot-Greek Islander dominated and some south italians.
>Greek Anatolian
Hellenized Phrygian tbh
Here's a eastern sample from the 19th century pre population displacement, overall Greek Anatolian-Armenian-Turkish central oriented.
how are those distances even real? This guy in the middle of anatolia is closer to people from my own region than me
It's unscaled coordinates.
The scaled version is here, however it pushes off Italians and Turks because it filters away lower PC components which generally makes actual ancestry lost in transmission.
Im not a genecist, but even using unscaled coordinated that guy is closer to the mean of my own region (italy) than me, you gotta admit that would be pretty weird. Scaled makes the most sense here
Scaled filters low PC components, if you care about actual geneflow then scaled is a bad idea to use.
Scaled version of the Byzantine sample, Turks sorta disappear probably because east-asian influence pushes them out on the PCA.
Can anyone re-upload the paper somewhere else? I can't get access
Reading some genotyping from the Lazaridis papers
It looks like Iron age Croatia, Illyrians, are all like north italians. Low iran/chg
Medieval croatia is very greek-like and not even north greek both central, south (peloponnese) or south (island)
What happen, colonization?
balcanites used to mirror italy north to south before getting SLAVD
Nah bronze age samples from croatia are like swiss and french. Long distances tho
During the IA perhaps this changed with interactions with greeks
>before getting SLAVD
I think these sample are after the date of the slavic migrations
Maybe the route was different or the initial migration was small genetically and involved many slavicized balkanites and greeks
Then perhaps later on actual slavs migrated to croatia/yugoslavia
>I think these samples
Not the bronze age ofc. The medieval ones
the antiquity paper seems to argue that the "imperial roman" ancestry is from Anatolia. It argues that the Roman colonization of Anatolia resulted in major geneflow from Anatolia into the empire. It goes as far to suggest it was a major demographic source for the empire
So I imagine that may explain it in Croatia.
The pre-roman Croatian samples are very interesting. No confirmed z2103 in these samples. Cetina L51 so probably related to Beaker and a lot of U152 from the mid bronze age onward (and obviously a lot of J2b in all sites).
Some of the samples could possibly be Adriatic Veneti but as a whole it looks to be less "paleo-balkan" that we would imagine.
Oh good point. Not actual greeks, just this urnfield/anatolia mix resulting in greek-like autosomal
A good number of greek colonies in italy were from ionians, until we have a good picture what classical greeks and magna graecians were like, this is all speculation
So the Turks somehow convinced the ethnic greeks of anatolia to just give up greek and learn a foreign language from a bunch of illiterate horse frickers from Central Asia? How the frick did they pull this off
How did this not result in a Manchuria situation where the invading Manchurians got assimilated by the chinese?
Turks had a strong army, and ERE was decadent. Also they didn't really have an identity to begin with, like imperial romans
>How did this not result in a Manchuria situation where the invading Manchurians got assimilated by the chinese?
They did, its obvious genetically, It's just that in the chinese scenario the chinks absorb everything and turns it into chinese, while in European history there's the "ruler culture" above all, which is a lot of European identitites and languages are not genetically related.
I'm a Turk with J-Z1884 which apparantly comes from ancient anatolians, but my modern day DNA is not really anatolian :s
your tuncoat ancestors joined the barbarian islamic horde and started fricking muslim pussy left and right
They probably fricked Balkanoids because I my results are closer to them than MENA
Muslim ≠ mena
Its a religion, not a race
There was ton of muslim balkanoids
Around 40% of it is
If you focus on the bronze and iron age then around 60-70% of it is
>60-70%
More like 80%
Nah, central asian takes a 10-15% and another 5-15% would be from people all over the empire, even iran-rich ones
The average would be 65-80% but for some yoruks it is lower
>Nah, central asian takes a 10-15% and another 5-15% would be from people all over the empire, even iran-rich ones
Agreed, but Iran influence is only in the East, the western regions carry significant Yamnay admixture, likely some part of it is related to slavs/thracians/paleo-balkanoids or the Ottoman collapse and Turks fleeing from Balkan to Turkey, even though they are genetically quite Balkan.
what's up with Reich modeling myceneans with very significant levant PPN? I
Yeah I didn't get that either. Maybe it's something new. We'll know in future papers I guess
They are Yamnaya and slightly East-asian shifted Greek Anatolians, Eastern turks are nearly similar to ancient Armenians.
The steppe larp was always a meme.
I don´t know why they call those anatolians as greek anatolians, they are literally anatolians, not like the greeks (of mainland historical greece - Thessaly, Peloponnese etc
Because of Hellenic Anatolia and the byzantines, duh. Even the Turks differentiated between them, the Anatolian Greeks were called Rüm (from Roman), while the actual Mainland Greeks were called Yünan.
Because Anatolian greeks are literally a mix of native anatolians and greeks
What?No.
Turks started calling Greeks yunan only when they won their independence
It was only then when Turks called greeks from Europe yunan and greeks from Anatolia rum
Before that greeks from the European part of the empire were called rumlar
IIRC weren't the Greeks living in Anatolian referred to as actual Romans in Turkish while Balkaners were referred to as "Rumelians" as in people living in that vilayet?
I'm just a passerby on these threads, but I'm honestly curious.
Do the haploschizos have any kind of technical background? I'm coming from applied math and having a hard time ascertaining whether this is like TAschizos on IQfy finding animals in the stars or something more legit.
>Do the haploschizos have any kind of technical background
Depends who you are referring to.
Most of the people here and on anthrogenica rely on calculators with overlapping components (think the Celt vs Germanic admixture threads). So a lot of it is useless.
Some of the bloggers have a background like Razib but a lot of them are also amateurs (but at least are more careful than here).
Uniparental analysis is actually a lot harder to screw up doing than autosomal but that requires people to actually have a grasp of the sample database and phylogeny.
why do turks have such a low frustration tolerance and get aggressive quickly ?