# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Turkic replacement of IE languages in Central Asia

## Maciamo

I have written a short summary explaining how the Indo-European speakers of Central Asia came to speak Turkic languages.

----------


## willy

Hello Maciamo ,

I don't understand What you Mean by : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ?

And about "Hungarian, sometimes mistaken for the heir of Hunnic because of its name, is in reality an Uralic language (Magyar)" I have read : The Madjars show evidence of extensive genetic drift, with 24/45 carrying the same 12-STR haplotype within haplogroup G. Genetic distances based on haplogroup frequencies were used to compare the Madjars with 37 other populations and showed that they were closest to the Hungarian population rather than their geographical neighbors . 
source : "Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Information, Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Reference ... Information and research on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) on FindTarget Reference ... of the tested men were G. The Madyars of Kazakhstan were found to be 87% G1"

----------


## Maciamo

> Hello Maciamo ,
> I don't understand What you Mean by : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ?


It means that Turkic people who invaded Europe were predominantly R1a1. Few Turkic speakers are/were C3, O or Q, which is why these lineages are so rare even between Hungary and Bulgaria.

----------


## transmitter

> It means that Turkic people who invaded Europe were predominantly R1a1. Few Turkic speakers are/were C3, O or Q, which is why these lineages are so rare even between Hungary and Bulgaria.




Hungarian and Bulgarian R1A was brought by the Turkic peoples in EUROPE?

----------


## willy

humm.. heu you think really this ?

----------


## Maciamo

> Hungarian and Bulgarian R1A was brought by the Turkic peoples in EUROPE?


I didn't say that. Please read my history of R1a and my post 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe. It explains all the migrations that have brought R1a to Eastern Europe. Turkic people (Huns, Alans, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Turks) were the last waves, only 500 years out of 5000 years of steppe migration. What I meant is that these Turkic people were R1a, but they are not responsible for all the R1a in Eastern Europe, just a part of it (impossible to determine the proportion at present).

----------


## willy

Huns Turks ? and Alans ? Turkic people were R1a ? hummm ... Alans ok but Huns ..

----------


## willy

When you say : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ? There is a big confusion between indo european that is a culture and a langage and Turkic invasion R1a ? Turkic people are not indo europeans !

----------


## Woden

> When you say : "Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones." ? There is a big confusion between indo european that is a culture and a langage and Turkic invasion R1a ? Turkic people are not indo europeans !


Turkic speakers diffused mainly "IE *lineages*" into Europe in so far as they distributed ancient racial lineages that are associated with the historical spread of IE culture. They were predominantly of R1a lineage, indeed formerly spoke IE languages and they entered Europe as a later of many R1a waves, the earlier of which contributed to the spread of IE culture into Europe.

Do you define 'Indo-Europeans' as you put it solely by the language that people presently speak? That would mean that the African slaves in the Caribbean for instance became IEs as soon as they adopted an IE language.

Or do you define it to mean that persons are IE only if none of their ancestors ever spoke a non-IE language? That would exclude all present Europeans AFAIK as we all have non-IE ancestry AFAIK, including ice age I Hg and Near Eastern J2, E3b etc.

So how exactly do you define it?

If its by language then Africans are in, if its by race then Europeans and Africans are all out and if its by both then all are still out.

----------


## willy

Sorry but Turkic people are not europeans ! Indo Europeans are the ancestors of the European people Germanic Celts the Ancient Greeks ... etc There is no Turkish in that team .Under the Ottoman Empire people of European origin were numerous but they were dominated and mixed by a non-European culture and a non-European people.

----------


## Woden

> Indo Europeans are the ancestors of the European people


Are you saying that the ancestors of Europeans were IEs?

That would include Hgs I, J, E, G and all of the other ancestors of Europeans.

So any group that enters Europe becomes IE along with all of its ancestors?

And what about the ancestors of the Indians, were they IEs?

----------


## willy

"Are you saying that the ancestors of Europeans were IEs?" 
Yes the ancestors of Europeans were indo europeans . 


"So any group that enters Europe and adopts an IE language becomes IE and so do all of their ancestors?" 
If I go to Japan and I learn Japanese langage and integrate Japanese culture it does not make me a Japanese .

----------


## Woden

> "Are you saying that the ancestors of Europeans were IEs?" 
> 
> Yes the ancestors of Europeans were indo europeans.


Can you offer any etymology for that use of the term?

As I said, that would include the full E to R of European haplogroups and I am not aware that anyone else uses the term in that way.

Do you get the bit about the spread through Eurasia of IE languages being linked to the diffusion of Hgs. R1a and R1b?

----------


## Woden

> If I go to Japan and I learn Japanese langage and integrate Japanese culture it does not make me a Japanese .


Were the ancestors of Europeans all of one race in your opinion, E to R, so to say?

Were those ancient races already IE in your opinion or did they later become IE when their descendants migrated to Europe and adopted an IE language?

----------


## Wilhelm

> "Are you saying that the ancestors of Europeans were IEs?" 
> Yes the ancestors of Europeans were indo europeans . 
> 
> 
> "So any group that enters Europe and adopts an IE language becomes IE and so do all of their ancestors?" 
> If I go to Japan and I learn Japanese langage and integrate Japanese culture it does not make me a Japanese .


Wrong. Not all ancestors of Europeans are indo-europeans. Before indo-europeans Europe had already a population descended from Cro-Magnon who were haplogroup I, also other european ancestors inlcude Near Easterns who had haplogroups J, E, etc.

----------


## willy

It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago . This population is similar in its culture and its genes from the Germanic countries to Ireland from Austria to Sweden whatever is hp G, R or I ..

----------


## Woden

> It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago . This population is similar in its culture and its genes from the Germanic countries to Ireland from Austria to Sweden whatever is hp G, R or I ..


Can you refer us to any peer-reviewed scientific studies that purport to establish that?

You may as well say that Europeans are descended from Adam and Eve and got booted out of the garden of Eden 6000 years ago for stealing apples off the tree and that Adam and Eve were IE.

----------


## willy

just look at the racial unity of the North European and the mixed Turkish people

----------


## Woden

> just look at the racial unity of the North European and the mixed Turkish people


All European nations, including those of northern Europe, are multi-hybrid and made up of a spectrum of distinct ancient Eurasian races that entered Europe at different times, plus the north African E3b, the last to leave Africa.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

There is no IE Adam and Eve there.

Indeed the ice age European I Hg has common ancestry with the Near Eastern J group while the IE R1 groups have common ancestry with the Asian Q group.

The north Eurasian N group is also strong in northern Europe, particularly to the NE and that has common ancestry with the east Asian O group that is common in China.

In other words all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe have closer ancestry with groups that are most common now in Asia than they have with each other.

Where is the especial "racial unity" that you speak of there?

Northern Europe is just as Eurasian as anywhere else?

----------


## Woden

> Sorry but Turkic people are not europeans ! Indo Europeans are the ancestors of the European people Germanic Celts the Ancient Greeks ... etc There is no Turkish in that team .Under the Ottoman Empire people of European origin were numerous but they were dominated and mixed by a non-European culture and a non-European people.


The Greeks are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey, especially the western half and to the people of southern Italy than they are to the Germanics or the Celts.

The map that shows the present distribution of ancient Greek DNA correlates closely with the map of the Byzantine Empire (see below.)

Yes the population of Turkey is predominantly of Anatolian stock but that does not mean that they are "of European origin" as you say. Rather Europe was populated through Turkey though there has of course been a certain amount of back migration and general movement back and forth.

The border between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and essentially political. Political lines have not always been drawn in the same places.

The present distribution of ancient Greek autosomal DNA:



http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/

The Byzantine Empire:

----------


## willy

"In other words of all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe are closer to groups that are most common now in Asian than they are to each other." 

Haplo N O P Q R are from the same family and therefore the populations of northern Europe being R1a are closer genetically Asian haplotypes O N as northern haplotype I1c . 
I do not agree because a haplogroup does not represent the genetic pool of individuals and a Norwegian I1c shared the same Genetic that his cousin R1a 6000 years ago Populations I and R should be more identical to each other than R with O , Y haplogroup does not give the racial type.

----------


## willy

"The Greeks are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey, especially the western half and to the people of southern Italy than they are to the Germanics or the Celts" 

There was on this area a Turkish invasion and Greeks were resigned to the Ottomans.

----------


## Woden

> "In other words of all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe are closer to groups that are most common now in Asian than they are to each other." 
> 
> Haplo N O P Q R are from the same family and therefore the populations of northern Europe being R1a are closer genetically Asian haplotypes O N as northern haplotype I1c . 
> I do not agree because a haplogroup does not represent the genetic pool of individuals and a Norwegian I1c shared the same Genetic that his cousin R1a 6000 years ago Populations I and R should be more identical to each other than R with O , Y haplogroup does not give the racial type.


I did not say that the nations in northern Europe are now closer genetically to Asians but that they have closer ancient racial ancestry.

Anyway each group is generally genetically closer now to the group beside it, such as the Greeks and the Turks. So what is your point?




> Haplo N O P Q R are from the same family and therefore the populations of northern Europe being R1a are closer genetically Asian haplotypes O N as northern haplotype I1c


Forgive me but that is nonsense, even gibberish.

I ask you again for scientific papers that say that "It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago ."

----------


## Woden

> It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago .


Willy, please refer us to *any peer-reviewed scientific papers* that purport to establish what you say.

The ancient ancestors of Europeans were not all IE but they were distinct Eurasian races who entered Europe at different times and mixed at various times, plus the African E3b.

If you cant cite any scientific papers then its all Adam and Eve nonsense, fairy stories.

----------


## willy

> I did not say that the nations in northern Europe are now closer genetically to Asians but that they have closer ancient racial ancestry.
> 
> Anyway each group is generally genetically closer now to the group beside it, such as the Greeks and the Turks. So what is your point?
> 
> 
> Forgive me but that is nonsense, even gibberish.
> 
> I ask you again for scientific papers that say that "It is a mistake to speak of divergent haplogroup I J E G R all were in Europe earlier and have evolved together and those europeans built a common I.E culture more than 7000 years ago ."


So good night and Long live Turkey ! because you love  :Heart:  so much that country

----------


## Woden

> a Norwegian I1c shared the same Genetic that his cousin R1a 6000 years ago


Are you saying that haplogroups I1c and R1a were genetically the "same" 6000 years ago?

Please show us *any* scientific papers that establish that.

Willy, I get the impression that you are making this up as you go along!

Why do you say "6000 years ago", is that supposed to be the time of the garden of Eden or something?

----------


## willy

Scandinavian racial type (with 50 % haplo I) is the same as caucasian mummies Shin-Chiang tall blond 
About the Indo european the Urheimat the most widely accepted theory places the Indo-European homeland in the steppes north of the Black Sea, proposing the following routes for the spread of Indo-european languages and peoples . Caucasian type appeared in that glacial refuge of Black Sea.

----------


## transmitter

> I didn't say that. Please read my history of R1a and my post 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe. It explains all the migrations that have brought R1a to Eastern Europe. Turkic people (Huns, Alans, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Turks) were the last waves, only 500 years out of 5000 years of steppe migration. What I meant is that these Turkic people were R1a, but they are not responsible for all the R1a in Eastern Europe, just a part of it (impossible to determine the proportion at present).


Ok 
Thanks for this :

(impossible to determine the proportion at present)

its is a pity ... :Disappointed: 
*


*

----------


## Tautalos

> In other words all of the ancient races that are common in northern Europe have closer ancestry with groups that are most common now in Asia than they have with each other.


Actually, there is more closeness between all Europeans than between any European and any non European people, generally speaking.





> Where is the especial "racial unity" that you speak of there?


Here:

All the populations are quite similar, but the differences are sufficient that it should be possible to devise a forensic test to tell which country in Europe an individual probably comes from, said Manfred Kayser, a geneticist at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
The map shows, at right, the location in Europe where each of the sampled populations live and, at left, the genetic relationship between these 23 populations. The map was constructed by Kayser, Dr. Oscar Lao and others, and appears in an article in Current Biology published on line on August 7.
The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map. The major genetic differences are between populations of the north and south (the vertical axis of the map shows north-south differences, the horizontal axis those of east-west). The area assigned to each population reflects the amount of genetic variation in it.
Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago.
The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Kayser said.
The map also identifies the existence of two genetic barriers within Europe. One is between the Finns (light blue, upper right) and other Europeans. It arose because the Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.
The other is between Italians (yellow, bottom center) and the rest. This may reflect the role of the Alps in impeding free flow of people between Italy and the rest of Europe.
Data for the map were generated by gene chips programmed to test and analyze 500,000 sites of common variation on the human genome, although only the 300,000 most reliable sites were used for the map. Kayser's team tested almost 2,500 people and analyzed the data by correlating the genetic variations in all the subjects. The genetic map is based on the two strongest of these sets of correlations.
The gene chips require large amounts of DNA, more than is available in most forensic samples. Kayser hopes to identify the sites on the human genome which are most diagnostic for European origin. These sites, if reasonably few in number, could be tested for in hair and blood samples, Kayser said.
Genomic sites that carry the strongest signal of variation among populations may be those influenced by evolutionary change, Kayser said. Of the 100 strongest sites, 17 are found in the region of the genome that confers lactose tolerance, an adaptation that arose among a cattle herding culture in northern Europe some 5,000 years ago. Most people switch off the lactose digesting gene after weaning, but the cattle herders evidently gained a great survival advantage by keeping the gene switched on through adulthood.

----------


## Tautalos

The beginning of the previous article says this: 

«Biologists have constructed a genetic map of Europe showing the degree of relatedness between its various populations.»

----------


## Tautalos

The source: www

nytimes.com/2008/

08/14/health/14iht-13visual.15267344.html?_r=1

----------


## Tautalos

Some more:

www

isteve.com/realityofrace

htm

«This is Cavalli-Sforza's description of the map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics: "The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."»

See the map at the above given site.

----------


## Tautalos

And more:
www
continuitas.com/intro
pdf
«(A) *the areal distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of the world languages* (Cavalli Sforza et al. 1988, 1994, Menozzi et al. 1978 etc.);
(B) language differentiation must have proceeded step by step with the
dispersal of humans (probably Homo sapiens sapiens) (idem).
(C) *Independent geneticists working on DNA have recently ascertained that
that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic* (e.g. Sykes 2001, 240 ff).»

----------


## Tautalos

An interesting map:

http

2.bp.blogspot.com/_suD1pzsRnwE/SwRPeU3qo_I/AAAAAAAADWs/28hogfr7eas/s1600

/EuropaAriana.gif

taken from here:

http

://

books.google.pt/books?id=zdeWdF_NQhEC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=Indo-European+people+languages+Cavalli&source=bl&ots=wb HfHLizyU&sig=Pg2V8IkWqtuzJykaSOgm74MnulE&hl=pt-PT&ei=5qYFS7ulJIiz4Qbyu5m9Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&c t=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Ind o-European%20people%20languages%20Cavalli&f=false

----------


## willy

Tautalos : no easy links

----------


## Tautalos

> The Greeks are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey, especially the western half and to the people of southern Italy than they are to the Germanics or the Celts.


Not a proper analysis...

It is not the Greeks who are much closer genetically to the people of Turkey than they are to the Germanics or the Celts.

It is the Turks of contemporary Turkey that are much closer genetically to the people of Greece, and Europe, than they are to other Turkic people of Asia.

The European peoples cluster more tightly than any other race, according to The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza. However, even within the European clustering, some ethnic groups are found closer to the center. A study of Table 5.5.1 on page 270 of HGHG shows that the Belgians have the smallest total genetic distance to all the other White groups, and moreover they continue to have the smallest total distance as you lop off the more peripherial groups. So the Belgians are probably the most centrally located ethnic group within the White race cluster. 

Most closely related to the Belgians, in order of increasing genetic distance, are: Dutch, Swiss, Germans, English, Austrian, Danish, Norwegian. The French and the Italians are also fairly central. The Hungarians are not far off, either. 

Just to give an idea of the differences involved here, let me give you the genetic distances from the Belgians. 

Ethnic group Genetic 
Distance 
Belgians 0 Center 
Dutch 12 Core Group 
Swiss 14 Core Group 
Germans 15 Core Group 
English 15 Core Group 
Austrian 16 Core Group 
Danish 21 Core Group 
Norwegian 24 Core Group 
Italians 30 Core Group 
Portuguese 31 Core Group 
French 32 Core Group 
Swedish 34 Core Group 
Poles 40 First Ring 
Spanish 42 First Ring 
Czech 43 First Ring 
Yugoslavian 50 First Ring 
Russians 51 First Ring 
Hungarians 52 First Ring 
Scots 59 First Ring 
Fins 63 First Ring 
Irish 75 Second Ring 
Iceland 78 Second Ring 
*Greeks 103 Second Ring* 
Basques 107 Second Ring 
Iranians 197 Periphery 
Sardinians 256 Periphery 
Lapps 333 Exception? 

Now, using the same scale, where are the other races in terms of distance from, say, the English? (Refer to Table 2.3.1A on page 75 in HGHG.) 

*North Turkic 866* 
N Amerindians 947 
Koreans 982 
Filipinos 1117 
S Chinese 1152 
Japanese 1244 
S Amerinds 1300 
Nilo-Saharans 1767 
Bantu 2288 
Mbuti 2373 


Source: http

://

indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/9469.html?1036517048

----------


## willy

This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .

----------


## Woden

> This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .


What does it even mean to say "opposed genetically"? Do you even understand that this is science and not a game of checkers for kids?

In reality, not your little WN imaginary world, Turkic is a language group that includes various populations in the same way that Indo-European does.

The Turkic speaking populations in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans and not with Turkic speaking Asians. You will notice that the people of Turkey cluster with Europeans while Turkish Cypriots cluster closely with Thracian Greeks.



Associated with: Population history of the Dniester-Carpathians: evidence from Alu markers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387576

Genetic studies show that the ancient Greek genetic signature is as strong in western Turkey (less so in the Kurdish east) as it is in Greece.



http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/

Compare with map of Byzantine Empire



The border between Europe and Turkey is a religio-political construct of the last 500 years and it has no bearing on race.

It is now becoming clear that the 'Turkic' invasions of Europe were later waves of R1a ex-IE speakers from central Asia, which is why geneticists have been surprised with regard to Hungarians and Bulgarians. All R1a came to Europe from central Asia. R1b came through Anatolia and R1b is still present at over 25% through most of Turkey, which is a higher R1b level than anywhere SE of Austria.




> It appears that Turkic quickly replaced the Scythian and other Iranian dialects all over Central Asia. Other migratory waves brought more Turkic speakers to Eastern and Central Europe, like the Khazars, the Avars, the Bulgars and the Turks (=> see 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian steppes to Europe). All of them were in fact Central Asian nomads who had adopted Turkic language, but had little if any Mongolian blood. Turkic invasions therefore contributed more to the diffusion of Indo-European lineages (especially R1a1) than East Asian ones. 
> 
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#Turkic

----------


## Wilhelm

> 



I don't see Turkey clustering with european countries . Turkey is way south in the map, of europeans

----------


## Woden

> I don't see Turkey clustering with european countries . Turkey is way south in the map, of europeans


You are misrepresenting the map that I produced. The whole purpose of the map is to show that speakers of Turkic languages in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans. Do you get that bit?

I repeat, the people of Turkey cluster with Europeans and the Turkish Cypriots cluster closely with the Thracian Greeks as the detailed study that I cited above shows and with which the map above is associated.




> *Population history of the Dniester-Carpathians: evidence from Alu markers.*
> 
> Varzari A, Stephan W, Stepanov V, Raicu F, Cojocaru R, Roschin Y, Glavce C, Dergachev V, Spiridonova M, Schmidt HD, Weiss E.
> 
> The area between the Dniester and the eastern Carpathian mountain range is at a geographical crossroads between eastern Europe and the Balkans. Little is known about the genetics of the population of this region. We performed an analysis of 12 binary autosomal markers in samples from six Dniester-Carpathian populations: two Moldavian, one Romanian, one Ukrainian and two Gagauz populations. The results were compared with gene frequency data from culturally and linguistically related populations from Southeast Europe and Central Asia. *Small genetic differences were found among southeastern European populations (in particular those of the Dniester-Carpathian region). The observed homogeneity* suggests either a very recent common ancestry of all southeastern European populations or strong gene flow between them. Despite this low level of differentiation, tree reconstruction and principle component analyses allowed a distinction between Balkan-Carpathian (Macedonians, Romanians, Moldavians, Ukrainians and Gagauzes) and *eastern Mediterranean (Turks, Greeks and Albanians) population groups.* *The genetic affinities among Dniester-Carpathian and southeastern European populations do not reflect their linguistic relationships.* The results indicate that the ethnic and genetic differentiations occurred in these regions to a considerable extent independently of each other.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17387576

----------


## Wilhelm

> You are misrepresenting the map that I produced. The whole purpose of the map is to show that speakers of Turkic languages in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans. Do you get that bit?


No, because it's not true. It does not cluster with the other european countries, plus there are only a few represented european countries. There are no Western nor Northern countries. And stop repeating posts. You have an exactly the same post in another thread.

----------


## willy

> What does it even mean to say "opposed genetically"? Do you even understand that this is science and not a game of checkers for kids?
> 
> In reality, not your little WN imaginary world, Turkic is a language group that includes various populations in the same way that Indo-European does.


 Alans (mostly R1a1) Indo-European horsemen were swept away by the invaders hunno-Turkish-Mongol, came from a Siberian region north of Manchuria, their original homeland. The Alans were pushed to the Caucasus Mountains, the current North Ossetia or "Alania". 
In recent history, Armenians another Indo euopéen was massacred by the Turks. Europeans in the Ottoman Empire were killed or subjected they had no choice and were mixted to the Turkish so Siberians haplogroups are not europeans R1a1 is not a siberian haplo so I am not WN the Spaniards have done the same thing in South America: forced conversion or killing native americans

----------


## Thracian

> This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .



You can be right,but still i have a few quesitons about Turks.Even Uyghur Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?

On the other hand,I'm confusing about me.I know my forefathers came from Bulgaria(3/4) and Greece(1/4).Just my mothers mother came from Greece.(my family came to Turkey 1920's).So many people saying you all are not Turks.They are saying just a few thousands Turks came.But Anatolia and Thrace population were 25 Million,then how can we still speaking Turkic language?Culturally and genetically we are not belong to Asia,you know too.

And can someone explain me DNA of Thracian people.We are belong to where?

----------


## R. Beiter

_Thracian : "Even Uyghurs Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?" 
_
Indo-european migrations. 
An early wave around 3,500 BC at the origin of the Afanasevo culture, apparently coming from the north of the black sea (it could be at the origin of the tocharian language), then later some Indo-iranian addition.

----------


## secherbernard

The Tarim mummies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies of european features are the link between Afanasevo culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture and Tocharian in Tarim Basin. They are another proof of the Indo-european homeland in Steppes.

----------


## Thracian

Thank you all so much.

I watched a tv programme on discovery channel,riddle of the desert mummies,than i was thinked wrong.I was thought they could be Turkic,and that makes Turks as white(i thinked Turks were white and some of them mixed with Mongolian and Chinesse,lol.).But when i see a Turk who live in Asia their face's look like Japanesse or Chinesse.Most of them are slant eyed.Than i take my answer about Uyghurs.But still i have quesitons about Anatolia and Thrace.

----------


## Joro

I wouldn't say most Turks look like Chinese or Japanese, although they show some affinities.

----------


## Thracian

I was talking about Turks from Kyrgzistan,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan etc..

----------


## Caneker

> The Tarim mummies: of european features are the link between Afanasevo culture and Tocharian in Tarim Basin. They are another proof of the Indo-european homeland in Steppes.


Could you please explain this...
Tocharians belong to Afanasevo culture. Afanasevo came from? Anatolia? And when?

----------


## secherbernard

> Could you please explain this...
> Tocharians belong to Afanasevo culture. Afanasevo came from? Anatolia? And when?


Afanasevo culture is an IE culture who came from Pontic Steppes about 3.500 BC.

----------


## Caneker

So, i guess thats why today's Turkey has only %9 Asian Y-DNA? 
All turkish population can not be asimilated from greeks or other nations, Uyghurs were Ottoman's relatives, so some asimilated and some IE uyghurs turks. 
Any clue from where and when did they come in Pontic Steppes?

----------


## Caneker

There are two famous turkish myth about ancient turkish history. Its interesting.
Very shortly:

Bozkurt Legend:

Their ancestors lived in the west of the caspian sea (Seems like its talking about Pontic Steppes). Enemy massacred all of their nation, only one child left, he was raised and breastfeeded by a wolf and saved their race.(seems like this part is legend :) But Enemy sought the baby and tried to kill him, wolf took the baby and ran to the Altai Mountains to protect him. Boy growed and married. Nation created once again.(Seems like Andronovo Culture)

Ergenekon Legend:

New nation became powerful once again, enemies envied them and they attacked all together on this nation. Enemies massacred most and took some prisoners (end of Andronovo Culture). One of the princes and one of his nephew escaped with their wifes. They went in some mountains and lost their way, they were traped in mountains. And lived in this trap for centuries, created the nation once again. One day they decited to leave that place and tried to find a way out, and then a wolf appeared, wolf showed them the way out... They fought and conqured lands of those who is hostile against them...

----------


## LeBrok

Ah these legends, how much truth is in them? I guess wolf should be a symbol of Turks, maybe it is, I'm not familiar. Funny thing is that Turks are not only nation with legend about wolfs saving humans. How far fetched is this? We know that it's impossible for kids to rebuilt a culture and language without adult care and supervision. They won't even remember their tribe history, so why would ancient people invent stories like that? I shouldn't even analyze stories like this, lol.
Do you have a legend about Turk's migration? There should be one why Turks moved and settled in Anatolia.

----------


## secherbernard

> Any clue from where and when did they come in Pontic Steppes?


From David Anthony, "The wheel, the horse and the Language" page 305:



> the Repin culture of the Volga-Ural region threw off a subgroup that migrated across the Kazakh steppes about 3700-3500 BCE and established itself in the western Altai, where it became the Afanasievo culture.

----------


## Caneker

> Ah these legends, how much truth is in them? I guess wolf should be a symbol of Turks, maybe it is, I'm not familiar. Funny thing is that Turks are not only nation with legend about wolfs saving humans. How far fetched is this? We know that it's impossible for kids to rebuilt a culture and language without adult care and supervision. They won't even remember their tribe history, so why would ancient people invent stories like that? I shouldn't even analyze stories like this, lol.
> Do you have a legend about Turk's migration? There should be one why Turks moved and settled in Anatolia.


Its legend and myth, judging it with pure reality is not sensible. Perhaps the legend tries to tell us that it was an existence war, they were weakend like a defenceless baby, but survived because they had a warrior soul and wolf represents that. 
Yes wolf is turkish symbol. There is a wolf head on Gokturk(583-603) flag. 
Anatolia migration started with Seljuks, there is no myth about it. If you want to learn why, just read history. I have a better question, why did they move and settle in Asia before?

----------


## LeBrok

> Its legend and myth, judging it with pure reality is not sensible. Perhaps the legend tries to tell us that it was an existence war, they were weakend like a defenceless baby, but survived because they had a warrior soul and wolf represents that. 
> Yes wolf is turkish symbol. There is a wolf head on Gokturk(583-603) flag. 
> Anatolia migration started with Seljuks, there is no myth about it. If you want to learn why, just read history. I have a better question, why did they move and settle in Asia before?


 
We are all descendants of the best warriors, and successful tribes. The peaceful and unsuccessful are all gone.

Usually there are always the same reasons for the move: wars, overpopulation, climate change.

----------


## Segia

> We are all descendants of the best warriors, and successful tribes. The peaceful and unsuccessful are all gone.
> 
> Usually there are always the same reasons for the move: wars, overpopulation, climate change.


Really curious taking into account that at least since the bronze age slavery was the common rule. It's been calculated a total amount of 60 milions of slaves in the roman empire. Those "unsuccessful" were the demographic base of many ancient societies. Your and my -partially- grandparents (yes, they had children)

----------


## LeBrok

It's hard to be sure of these figures. Consider the fact though that the tribe which the slave came from was successful for centuries till he or she got captured. Most likely more slaves died without many off springs or even at all. Their luck and success ran out. Same with Roman empire or Italy itself, at the end population shrunk drastically, the less successful and mostly poor died of starvation or were in first line to be killed. Their DNA pool got wiped out.
Off course I'm generalizing the whole thing. On individual bases even most pathetic human being can survive just because he's lucky, and vice versa.
Find me one nation on earth that is and always has been peaceful and survived millenia.
Also some ancient and transitional haplogroups are missing. It means in some way they were not successful.

----------


## Segia

> It's hard to be sure of these figures. Consider the fact though that the tribe which the slave came from was successful for centuries till he or she got captured. Most likely more slaves died without many off springs or even at all. Their luck and success ran out. Same with Roman empire or Italy itself, at the end population shrunk drastically, the less successful and mostly poor died of starvation or were in first line to be killed. Their DNA pool got wiped out.
> Off course I'm generalizing the whole thing. On individual bases even most pathetic human being can survive just because he's lucky, and vice versa.
> Find me one nation on earth that is and always has been peaceful and survived millenia.
> Also some ancient and transitional haplogroups are missing. It means in some way they were not successful.


Slavery was accumulative, exterminions were execptional. Roman slaves had children because it was a garantee to "produce" new slaves (hereditary slavery) Slaves use to live longer -worse, but longer- than warriors. Humans are overall survivors, nor warriors or slaves (circumstantial fatcs)

I can't find one nation that has been "always" peaceful because societies aren't 100% peaceful neither 100% warlike. Humans carry both sides of the coin. Submission can lead you to survive, violence can lead you to die. And, of course, viceversa. History is plenty of examples in all senses (black americans, for example)

----------


## LeBrok

You would be right if there was always status quo. Real life is not that pretty. Every 50 years or so there were great disasters, failed crops, starvation. Guess who dies first from hunger master, or slaves and their family?
Surely submission is vital in surviving too, but victory increases survival of your tribe and allows you to feed more kids than submissive people.
One can also claim that nothing really vanishes in nature. Even though Neanderthals were wiped out, some old haplogroups, Huns in europe, Illyrians, Prussians, Veneti, etc, there are some of their gens living still in us. So maybe it's all statistical after all. Few gens are left but their language, culture, believes, distinctive look, etc gone for ever.

----------


## Segia

> You would be right if there was always status quo. Real life is not that pretty. Every 50 years or so there were great disasters, failed crops, starvation. Guess who dies first from hunger master, or slaves and their family?
> Surely submission is vital in surviving too, but victory increases survival of your tribe and allows you to feed more kids than submissive people.
> One can also claim that nothing really vanishes in nature. Even though Neanderthals were wiped out, some old haplogroups, Huns in europe, Illyrians, Prussians, Veneti, etc, there are some of their gens living still in us. So maybe it's all statistical after all. Few gens are left but their language, culture, believes, distinctive look, etc gone for ever.


A slave owner rarely had hunger...Lots of slaves lived better than many roman citizens. Humans are useful for humans, we don't (use to) kill the golden eggs hen without a serious reason. You take care of your production instruments -servi aka instrumenta vocalis-.

All those groups you have quoted were integrated in other societies. Their gens survived, their culture -or part of it- didn't to. I'm a spaniard and you are possibly a canadian of french origin, we don't speak gaulish, iberian, aquitanian or celtiberian, we speak romance. The romans had a hard work conquering our lands, but finally the survivors -masters and slaves- were latinized. The succesful warriors -romans in this case- settled here, but I bet you don't think you descend mainly from them even despite the high number of casualties among the gaulish warrior class.

----------


## LeBrok

Yes Segia, I don't argue that these elements of survival you describing don't have an effect on population. In future, it will be fairly quickly proved by comparing DNA of recent and ancient inhabitants of these areas. We need another 10 years and will know the truth, or be closer to it.
What I see now, judging by men's infatuations with certain sports, games (first shooter and other war games are in first place), how easy it is to get young men to war and kill enemy, seeing constant wars in history of man kind, etc, it tells me that we are descendants of successful warriors. I don't need to wait for genetic tests to see it and know it's true. I don't have an agenda, I don't care if it's good or bad, right or wrong, just it is what it is, that's all.
Once again I'm not saying that there is no truth in your version of events, there is, but not to the effect you're expecting. I'm a little bit surprised that it comes from you living in country which is 90% R1b dominant. You don't expect it came from peaceful, submissive, slaves do you?
So Romans conquered you, you lost few battles. It doesn't mean you guys weren't great warriors, it doesn't negate 2 thousand years of success. Later there were hard times with Moors too, but afterwords you conquered most of the new world and more, spreading the successful warrior genes. 

PS I'm polish.

----------


## Segia

> Yes Segia, I don't argue that these elements of survival you describing don't have an effect on population. In future, it will be fairly quickly proved by comparing DNA of recent and ancient inhabitants of these areas. We need another 10 years and will know the truth, or be closer to it.
> What I see now, judging by men's infatuations with certain sports, games (first shooter and other war games are in first place), how easy it is to get young men to war and kill enemy, seeing constant wars in history of man kind, etc, it tells me that we are descendants of successful warriors. I don't need to wait for genetic tests to see it and know it's true. I don't have an agenda, I don't care if it's good or bad, right or wrong, just it is what it is, that's all.
> Once again I'm not saying that there is no truth in your version of events, there is, but not to the effect you're expecting. I'm a little bit surprised that it comes from you living in country which is 90% R1b dominant. You don't expect it came from peaceful, submissive, slaves do you?
> So Romans conquered you, you lost few battles. It doesn't mean you guys weren't great warriors, it doesn't negate 2 thousand years of success. Later there were hard times with Moors too, but afterwords you conquered most of the new world and more, spreading the successful warrior genes. 
> 
> PS I'm polish.


Well, it's 90% R1b in some places, in others is around 50% and so on...We also sholud study subclades and all that stuff related. But I can tell you how the roman conquest went -it's written-. The guys defeated by the romans -it's true that it took two centuries- were the warrior class. Not all ancient spaniards were warriors and not all the spanish tribes fought against the invaders at the same level. Some cities were completely destroyed -Numantia- while others allied to the romans. And yes, we come from warriors, slaves....all of them.

By 89 b.C -more than one century since the beggining of the roman conquest- most of the anthroponymia is indigenous, but we can observe a few latin names (these horsemen were recruited in my city from near places):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7135125m2r26h46/

Only one century after lots of "spaniards" have roman names. But society is still slavist, it's the kind of society that existed before the romans' arrival. I'd bet slaves' hg's were not very different from their masters' ones. And, as you know, a military defeat could lead a master or free man to become a slave. Very quickly. One of the roman strategies was to enslave the whole population of a city (you surrend or you become a slave)

30% of the inhabitans of the empire were slaves, hereditary or not. Most of the numantines prefered to die than to be enslaved. Heroic. But don't look for their offspring...We descend from both dominant and submissive people, it's a matter of circumstances. It doesn't sound heroic or romantic, but we can experience both sides of human behaviour in our current lives.

----------


## Alpakut

Every single key position, be it linguistically, archaeologically or genetically, which European scholars need to defend their narrow-minded IE worldview, is completely occupied by Turkic characteristics. By following the current western mainstream logic: either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.

----------


## Taranis

> Every single key position, be it linguistically, archaeologically or genetically, which European scholars need to defend their narrow-minded IE worldview, is completely occupied by Turkic characteristics. By following the current western mainstream logic: either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.


Let me ask you something: if the Scythians-as-Indo-Europeans is supposedly the product of European scholarship (which in itself amounts to some kind of conspiracy theory in academia, which I find just silly...), you could tell us why exactly the ancient Chinese and ancient Persian sources _also_ record Indo-Iranic names with the Scythians, and not Turkic ones? Evidently, Achaemenid Persia and Han China were also part of the conspiracy of the European academia...

----------


## Alpakut

> Let me ask you something: if the Scythians-as-Indo-Europeans is supposedly the product of European scholarship (which in itself amounts to some kind of conspiracy theory in academia, which I find just silly...), you could tell us why exactly the ancient Chinese and ancient Persian sources _also_ record Indo-Iranic names with the Scythians, and not Turkic ones? Evidently, Achaemenid Persia and Han China were also part of the conspiracy of the European academia...


I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... _ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..._" ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.

----------


## Taranis

> I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... _ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..._" ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.


No, you don't seem to understand. You're talking about reinterpreting the material. But you should ask yourself the question first if the Turkic languages could be even that old in the first place, which they obviously couldn't. All the Turkic languages are very similar to another (if I compare Kazakh and Turkish words, they're kind of comparable to each other like Spanish and Italian), do you think that, had Turkic languages expanded into the Pontic-Caspian steppe already in the early 400s BC (I'm picking that date because that's the time when Herodotus recorded Scythian names), do you think that they could have kept up the level of similarity and unity for such a long time? Why is the Turkic names for Central Asian rivers (like the name "_Atil_" for the Volga) only start to show up in medieval Muslim sources?

----------


## Alpakut

> No, you don't seem to understand. You're talking about reinterpreting the material. But you should ask yourself the question first if the Turkic languages could be even that old in the first place, which they obviously couldn't. All the Turkic languages are very similar to another (if I compare Kazakh and Turkish words, they're kind of comparable to each other like Spanish and Italian), do you think that, had Turkic languages expanded into the Pontic-Caspian steppe already in the early 400s BC (I'm picking that date because that's the time when Herodotus recorded Scythian names), do you think that they could have kept up the level of similarity and unity for such a long time? Why is the Turkic names for Central Asian rivers (like the name "_Atil_" for the Volga) only start to show up in medieval Muslim sources?


Step by step. First the so called Indo-Iranic names in ancient Chinese and Persian sources, then eastern European river names. I want to give you accurate answers.

----------


## Fluffy

> I understand. It would be nice if you could list these Indo-Iranic names from the ancient Chinese and Persian sources. The East Iranian part of the Scythians itself shouldn't be denied here at all. It's rather the blind classification scheme and the unproportional method which should be denounced. Because the Scythian-Iranian theory follows the logic: Ossetians speak the Northern branch of the Iranian language, Ossetians are Alans, Alans are Sarmatian tribe, Sarmatians are akin to Scythians, hence Scythians were Ossetian speaking, hence linguistically the Scythians belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. A brilliant logic that, in the not less brilliant words of V.I. Abaev, "... _ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science..._" ( V.I. Abaev, Ossetian language and folklore, 1949, page 148). But exactly this conclusion of axiom was adopted by the modern historical science, resulting that the ethnogenesis of all European nations does not find an intelligible and logical explanation. In accordance with the concept of the modern historical science, all of these (Scythian) tribes are considered to be Iranian speaking (more accurately, Persian speaking). To the contrary a number of scientists and experts provably state for already quite a long time that all Scythian and Sarmatian peoples were Turkic-lingual.


Aren't Alans haplogroup G? Or are they R1a?

----------


## Alpakut

> Aren't Alans haplogroup G? Or are they R1a?


As I know Alans had the haplogroup G2.
This is the paper (in Russian) ->

Афанасьев Г.Е., Добровольская М.В., Коробов Д.С., Решетова И.К. О культурной, антропологической и генетической специфике донских алан //
Е.И. Крупнов и развитие археологии Северного Кавказа. М. 2014. С. 312-315.

----------


## Goga

> either Turks are IE or IE's are Turks. That's it.


Turks are not Indo-European speakers and NEVER have been. And there's no such thing as 'Indo-Europeans' or 1 IEan race. There are only 'Indo-European' speakers.

'Indo European' speakers do not belong only to 1 race. Spanish Indo-European speakers are genetically totally different than Indo-European speakers in India. Indo-European speakers belong to many 'races'.


Are Turks the same as people in Mumbai or Delhi, India? People who live in Mumbai speak an Indo-European language. Even East Iranians are not the same as West Iranians, or East Slavs are not the same as SouthWest Slavic nations.


Turkic is an 'Altaic' language, related to Finno Ugric and Sino-Tibetan (Chinese languages), but do all those people belong to the same race? I don't think so. Turks are not even 'pure Mongoloid' people.


Turks are Eurasian Steppe people and are a product of many races. They do belong to own, unique 'NEW' race. Turks are NOT ancient people at all, but very recent 'new world' people compared to others, like Chinese or West-Iranians.

----------


## Fluffy

> As I know Alans had the haplogroup G2.
> This is the paper (in Russian) ->
> 
> Афанасьев Г.Е., Добровольская М.В., Коробов Д.С., Решетова И.К. О культурной, антропологической и генетической специфике донских алан //
> Е.И. Крупнов и развитие археологии Северного Кавказа. М. 2014. С. 312-315.


Thanks!! Will read up on it.

----------


## Goga

Turks are still babies compared to the ancient Chinese people/race

----------


## gyms

http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2015/02/...pth-204bc.html

From the paper:
*The regular-sound-change tree estimates a mean divergence time between the outgroup Chuvash and other Turkic languages of 204 BCE, with a 95% credible interval of 605 BCE to 81 CE.* This compares to proposals from glottochronological analyses that suggest dates of 30 BCE to 0 CE [21] and 500 BCE to 50 CE from historical data [18, 21 and 22]. The sporadic-sound-change model estimates the mean age of the tree to be more than two millennia older (2408 BCE, 95% CI = 3994–1279 BCE), because it wrongly assumes that the many occurrences of regular sound change along the outgroup Chuvash branch are multiple instances of independent phonological change.

----------


## Ike

> We know that it's impossible for kids to rebuilt a culture and language without adult care and supervision.


A bit off topic, what about this? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

----------

