# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Turks with 10 - 25% Mongoloid admixture ( Turkish people autosomal DNA )

## Gurka atla

Hi everyone I'm new and I'm Turk with origins from Ankara and I was raised in Spain now live in in the U.K as a student. 

I want to ask you guys, why is it that DNA results shows many Turks have 10-25% Mongoloid admixture but yet greeks, Armenians or Kurds samples are 0%? that this mean really our ancestors were Mongoloid and if it was will this change the way you look at Turks? I did a DNA test and I came out having 22% Mongoloid ( Siberian 14.7% + 7.3% East Asian ). I really don't understand what's the meaning of this but at first the results surprised me so much that I even doubt if I was a pure Turk and my family told me they are just Turks. So I did a lot genetic research of Turks on the forum and found I'm not the only one with such odd results. Here is what I found while searching for more data.


*Turkish Aydin*







1 Sample 18.5% Mongoloid admixture
2 Sample 18% Mongoloid admixture
1 Sample 17% Mongoloid admixture
3 Sample 15% Mongoloid admixture


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


1 Sample 13.7% Mongoloid admixture
2 Sample 13.5% Mongoloid admixture
1 Sample 12.5% Mongoloid admixture


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


1 Sample 8% Mongoloid admixture
2 Sample 3.5% Mongoloid admixture
1 Sample 2.5% Mongoloid admixture
1 Sample 2% Mongoloid admixture
1 Sample 0% Mongoloid admixture






*Turkish Instanbul*













2 Samples have 15% Mongoloid admixture
1 Samples have 13% Mongoloid admixture
2 Samples have 12.5% Mongoloid admixture


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


1 Sample 8% Mongoloid admixture
2 Samples 6.8% Mongoloid admixture
9 Samples 4.5 - 6% Mongoloid admixture


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


1 sample 0.5%


*Turkish Kayseri*



3 Samples 12 - 13% 
5 Samples 6-7% Mongoloid
10 Samples 4-5% Mongoloid
5 Samples 3.5% Mongoloid

----------


## Gurka atla

MORE DNA RESULTS
-----------------------

Top 5 most Asian Turks

1. Turk from Southern Mediterranean area/Adana (14%)

2. Turk from Central Turkey/Ankara 

3. Turk from Northwestern Turkey/Bolu (12%)

4. Turk from Southwestern Turkey/Aydin (11-12%)

5. Turk from Central Turkey/Konya (9.6%)


I did research and was once again surprised by Turkish non-Caucasoid admixture in some samples. Mongoloid admixture can range from from 5 - 25% in Turkish people. I like to hear Turks explaining these results.



Behar et al. (2010) Turks have 15.4% Central Asian admixture; if we add the 3 Dodecad Project Turks to the sample, this becomes 14.4%.

----------


## Yetos

I was expecting less, about 8-10%

----------


## Gurka atla

> I was expecting less, about 8-10%


In Istanbul it's only about 6.8% or 7% however other parts of Turkey are 10-15%. Some or individual turks have 17% - 25% Mongoloid DNA but they tend to be rare especially those with over 20%.

----------


## Yetos

> In Istanbul it's only about 6.8% or 7% however other parts of Turkey are 10-15%. Some or individual turks have 17% - 25% Mongoloid DNA but they tend to be rare especially those with over 20%.


hmm

if it goes like that I am expecting biggest concentration around north parts Kilikyia and second around Afyon, 
and also a high one in Edirne.
Am I right?

----------


## Templar

It makes sense. I've read somewhere that Arab historians described the original Turks as "full-faced" and "squinty/small eyed". Sounds pretty mongoloid to me. Considering they came from Central Asia, this is no surprise at all. 

One example of this is found in the book _The History of the Prophets and Kings_ by historian Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. 

"Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair."

----------


## LeBrok

> "Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is *handsome of face with beautiful hair*."


Oh, these objective historians. This is actually shockingly funny.

----------


## Templar

> Oh, these objective historians. This is actually shockingly funny.


That is exactly what I thought  :Laughing: 

I showed it to one of my Arab friends, and his only response was: "I am happy, LOL"

----------


## Gurka atla

> hmm
> 
> if it goes like that I am expecting biggest concentration around north parts Kilikyia and second around Afyon, 
> and also a high one in Edirne.
> Am I right?



I really don't know. I'm very confused myself so kept searching for more data but I believe the highest Mongoloid admixture maybe in Southwest Turkey where they settled where Turkic group known as Comakdag who settle the land. They live in todays East Turkey Agean coast and have many odd looks.


http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...66%26bih%3D624




It says there is no information about the origin and history of the name of the village. Even though most of them can look like Turkish some of them seem to look like a Asiatic hybrid Mongoloid/Caucasoid people but someone said their Turkic ancestry is higher than average Turkish.

----------


## Gurka atla

> It makes sense. I've read somewhere that Arab historians described the original Turks as "full-faced" and "squinty/small eyed". Sounds pretty mongoloid to me. Considering they came from Central Asia, this is no surprise at all. 
> 
> One example of this is found in the book _The History of the Prophets and Kings_ by historian Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. 
> 
> "Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair."


So does that mean original Turks were Mongoloid? Are am I not a real Turk? Why doesn't Azeris look like Turks from Central Asia but more Turkish. Actually I think many Turkmen can look like Turkish although I do believe they have heavy Mongoloid admixture in them.

----------


## Goga

> So does that mean original Turks were Mongoloid? Are am I not a real Turk? Why doesn't Azeris look like Turks from Central Asia but more Turkish. Actually I think many Turkmen can look like Turkish although I do believe they have heavy Mongoloid admixture in them.


Original Turks that left their homeland (Turanic URHEIMAT), the Altai mountains, were already Turanic hybrids. That Turanic race was already (ad)mixed with Turco-Mongols and Iranic tribes.

----------


## Gurka atla

> Original Turks that left their homeland (Turanic URHEIMAT), the Altai mountains, were already Turanic hybrids. That Turanic race was already (ad)mixed with Turco-Mongols and Iranic tribes.


So does that mean that Turkish people are not closer to original Turks? 

I though the heavy Asian looking Turkmen is the result of Mongol invasion. Aren't these Mongol descendant?

----------


## Yetos

Actually by historians we know that there 2 kinds of Turks, 

the Seljuk which were consider originally central Asian steppe people (Altaic ogur etc) settled in Kilikyia and then moved west but although they win they stop and settle (second settlements) at Matzikert and nearby areas, 

other Turk tribes are Azheris, Caucasoid etc
Ottomans were considered as locals who adopted Turkish and Islam, 

there is also a historical fact that Edirne (Adrianoupolis) was large scale inhabited by Turks. 

the rest population is previous tribes nations etc who just adopted Ottomans' culture religion and language, and through time they created modern Turkey nation,

that is why I was expecting high Altaic- Central East Asian in Cilicia (Kilikyia) Afyon and Edirne,

----------


## Gurka atla

> Actually by historians we know that there 2 kinds of Turks, 
> 
> the Seljuk which were consider originally central Asian steppe people (Altaic ogur etc) settled in Kilikyia and then moved west but although they win they stop and settle (second settlements) at Matzikert and nearby areas, 
> 
> other Turk tribes are Azheris, Caucasoid etc
> Ottomans were considered as locals who adopted Turkish and Islam, 
> 
> there is also a historical fact that Edirne (Adrianoupolis) was large scale inhabited by Turks. 
> 
> ...


You seem to know about Turk history more than me. I really don't know what's the truth..... on wikipedia it says we are primary Anatolians with some Turkic genes.

Azeris also have Mongoloid admixture, higher even than Turks.

----------


## Goga

> So does that mean that Turkish people are not closer to original Turks? 
> 
> I though the heavy Asian looking Turkmen is the result of Mongol invasion. Aren't these Mongol descendant?


*According to me* ancient 'original' Turanic tribes of 1000 years ago were partly Mongoloid/Iranic. Modern-day Turks are not so far from the 'original' Turks. But modern Turks have also Anatolian (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds) DNA in them.
Ancient Turks = Turco-Mongloid + Iranic
Modern Turks = Turco-Mongloid + Iranic + Anatolian + (Eastern) European (+ a little bit Semitic (Levant Arabs) + African (African slaves from Ottoman era)).
Modern Turks = meltingpot = new modern race of 21st century!

----------


## Gurka atla

> *According to me* ancient'original' Turanic tribes of 1000 years ago were partly Mongoloid/ranic. Modern-dayTurks are not so far from the 'original' Turks. But modern Turks have alsoAnatolian (Greeks, Armenians, Kurds) DNA in them.
> Ancient Turks = Turco-Mongloid+ Iranic
> Modern Turks = Turco-Mongloid+ Iranic + Anatolian + (Eastern) European (+ a little bit Semitic (Levant Arabs)+ African (African slaves from Ottoman era).
> Modern Turks = meltingpot = new modern race of 21st century!


Yeah did I read ottoman empire enslaved million Caucasus, Balkans, and even Nubians of Turkey are Afro-Turks. Were the Ottoman Mongoloid? Surely I don't think so. Many of the authentic paintings of Sultans even look European with green/blue eyes.

----------


## Goga

> Yeah did I read ottoman empire enslaved million Caucasus, Balkans, and even Nubians of Turkey are Afro-Turks. Were the Ottoman Mongoloid? Surely I don't think so. Many of the authentic paintings of Sultans even look European with green/blue eyes.


Sultans were mixed with Persians, Slavs, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs and Armenians. Royalty is not the same as an ordinary population. Royals are/were always much more mixed than average...

----------


## Gurka atla

> Sultans were mixed with Persians, Slavs, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs and Armenians. Royalty is not the same as an ordinary population. Royals are/were always much more mixed than average...


I don't think it has anything to do with mixing we are just diverse. From my experience many Turks have people that can range from looking anyone from anyone from European to anyone with Middle east look, including the occasional weird mongoloid influence Turk. I used to think tis was just a unique trait but now I believe it could be a mongoloid influence on Turkish people. A lot of Turkmen look like us but can't say the same for other extremely chinky looking Turkmen ( some look so chinky like they were Mongols )

One of those occasional weird looking Turks are for example emre gungor a famous Turkish footballer. I never used to think he was that odd looking until I've read genetics of Turks.

----------


## MOESAN

> I really don't know. I'm very confused myself so kept searching for more data but I believe the highest Mongoloid admixture maybe in Southwest Turkey where they settled where Turkic group known as Comakdag who settle the land. They live in todays East Turkey Agean coast and have many odd looks.
> 
> 
> http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...66%26bih%3D624
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says there is no information about the origin and history of the name of the village. Even though most of them can look like Turkish some of them seem to look like a Asiatic hybrid Mongoloid/Caucasoid people but someone said their Turkic ancestry is higher than average Turkish.


_some of them have a mogoloid look, it is true (but the little baby girl has nothing indicating mongoloid features - for old people: caution: the wrinkles, the eyelid fold (but external only = not mongoloid)_,_ the tanned skin and some clothes "artifices" can influence our judgment!!!_ - _as a whole, a mongoloid element is not surprising among Turks and surely the first ones colonizating Turkey were more on this side yet._ _the ones we see in France show very little influence of this eastern type, but maybe a lot of our Turks are Kurds in reality..._

----------


## Gurka atla

> _some of them have a mogoloid look, it is true (but the little baby girl has nothing indicating mongoloid features - for old people: caution: the wrinkles, the eyelid fold (but external only = not mongoloid)_,_ the tanned skin and some clothes "artifices" can influence our judgment!!!_ - _as a whole, a mongoloid element is not surprising among Turks and surely the first ones colonizating Turkey were more on this side yet._ _the ones we see in France show very little influence of this eastern type, but maybe a lot of our Turks are Kurds in reality..._


I honestly don't know but you're right that in France most Turks are Kurds, many Turks are assimilated Kurds. I've seen a few Turks that look like these but I'm not exactly if this is Mongoloid influenced or not.


I've asked somebody before and they think Turks that are like these are West Asian Caucasoid with Mongoloid influences.

----------


## MOESAN

> I honestly don't know but you're right that in France most Turks are Kurds, many Turks are assimilated Kurds. I've seen a few Turks that look like these but I'm not exactly if this is Mongoloid influenced or not.
> 
> 
> I've asked somebody before and they think Turks that are like these are West Asian Caucasoid with Mongoloid influences.


just a personal opinion: the first one (top) could have very well a little bit of mogoloid - the two others do not show it for I think - 
concerning eyelids, the 'mongoloid "bridle" is a peculiar thing, not very common in Occident - but some mornings when I rise up, at first sight, some naive person could think I have mongoloid origins before a good washing and some hours of awakeness give me more "european look"!!!

----------


## Gurka atla

> just a personal opinion: the first one (top) could have very well a little bit of mogoloid - the two others do not show it for I think - 
> concerning eyelids, the 'mongoloid "bridle" is a peculiar thing, not very common in Occident - but some mornings when I rise up, at first sight, some naive person could think I have mongoloid origins before a good washing and some hours of awakeness give me more "european look"!!!


Yeah, I always though that Turks with those looks like are superficial. I honestly don't know what a small Mongoloid influence turk suppose to look like. Another thing I think it could be true is that Turkish who mixed with East Asian always end up looking very East Asian. On the internet I have seen 2 couples who have sons born to Turkish father and Kazakh women both of them look like Kazakh but with some diluted Asian features. I have also seen sons of Kazakh fathers and Russian mother and their sons and daughters all look almost White which is not surprising since Kazakhs are 70% Asian only and 30% Caucasian.


A mixture of pure blood 100% Korean with 7% Mongoloid Turkish will produce a 53.5% Mongoloid.

A mixture of pure blood 100% Korean and with 10 Mongoloid Turkish will produce 55% Mongoloid 

A mixture of pure blood 100% Korean and with 20% Mongoloid Turkish will produce 60% Mongoloid 




*This is a theory ( not mine )*

Like for example somebody posted these pictures who are half Turkish/ half Korean other is half Turkish/half Japanese and they all look surprisingly more Mongoloid than the average Eurasian. Although according to some people Asian genes are stronger so their offspring tend to look mostly East Asians but in some cases look mostly Caucasian. However I have yet to see one half Turkish half Asian that doesn't look so Asian. 










aleyna yilmaz




ilayda yilmaz

----------


## uguner

These grandmas look like Udmurt Grannies participated to the Eurovision last year in 2012 


> I really don't know. I'm very confused myself so kept searching for more data but I believe the highest Mongoloid admixture maybe in Southwest Turkey where they settled where Turkic group known as Comakdag who settle the land. They live in todays East Turkey Agean coast and have many odd looks.
> 
> 
> http://translate.google.co.uk/transl...66%26bih%3D624
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says there is no information about the origin and history of the name of the village. Even though most of them can look like Turkish some of them seem to look like a Asiatic hybrid Mongoloid/Caucasoid people but someone said their Turkic ancestry is higher than average Turkish.

----------


## silkyslovanbojkovsky

> So does that mean original Turks were Mongoloid? Are am I not a real Turk? Why doesn't Azeris look like Turks from Central Asia but more Turkish. Actually I think many Turkmen can look like Turkish although I do believe they have heavy Mongoloid admixture in them.


You are definitely a real turk! The original turks were mongoloid people. Why do you think your language is related to tatars and people from Kazakhstan? Have you ever seen those people. They look completely mongoloid. The fact that you show up as having quite a bit, means you have a substantial amount of real Turkic blood. Why would you expect Greece or other balkanic people to have this. They speak Indo-European languages that have nothing to do with mongoloid type people. The genes that turks share with greeks and other balkanic people is due to the native inhabitants who were in Turkey before the original turks came

----------


## Gurka atla

> You are definitely a real turk! The original turks were mongoloid people. Why do you think your language is related to tatars and people from Kazakhstan? Have you ever seen those people. They look completely mongoloid. The fact that you show up as having quite a bit, means you have a substantial amount of real Turkic blood. Why would you expect Greece or other balkanic people to have this. They speak Indo-European languages that have nothing to do with mongoloid type people. The genes that turks share with greeks and other balkanic people is due to the native inhabitants who were in Turkey before the original turks came



If real Turks are Mongoloid than I'm far from being a real Turk. I understand 22% East Asian/Siberian DNA is a lot of a Turk but I'm still 78% Caucasoid.

Kazakhstan look very mongoloid I agree but most Tatars don't, some Tatars look very Mongoloid though.

----------


## Ike

> If real Turks are Mongoloid...


 Yeah, we don't know if they are, and by how much. Maybe if we had one original Turk to test, he'd show 44 % Mongoloid, which could mean that you'd be 1/2 original Turk.

----------


## Templar

> If real Turks are Mongoloid than I'm far from being a real Turk. I understand 22% East Asian/Siberian DNA is a lot of a Turk but I'm still 78% Caucasoid.
> 
> Kazakhstan look very mongoloid I agree but most Tatars don't, some Tatars look very Mongoloid though.


Identities of people change all the time. The most famous and successful Turks were the Ottoman Turks who were mostly Caucasoid. Just look at all the portraits of Sultans like Mehmed and Suleiman. 

Modern Turk identity I think is far more the result of the actions of the Ottomans rather than previous Turks such as the Seljuqs or others.

----------


## Templar

Suleiman


Mehmed the conqueror

----------


## Gurka atla

> Yeah, we don't know if they are, and by how much. Maybe if we had one original Turk to test, he'd show 44 % Mongoloid, which could mean that you'd be 1/2 original Turk.


The first turks look like this they claim

Gokturk empire in 552 AD to 770 AD, this was considered by many as the first empire to identify with name name Turk and they were suppose to be ancestors of Seljuks




Here is a facial reconstruction of Gokturk

----------


## Noman

The "Turkic" people like Ozman should be expected to all be admixed with "mongolians", after all that's where they came into byzantine empire from, central asia. They should be just like you, around 75% caucasoid and 25% mongoloid. So you are pure in the sense that you are likely very similar to the tribesmen who founded ottoman empire and those who still lead a similar lifestyle elsewhere.

----------


## Gurka atla

> The "Turkic" people like Ozman should be expected to all be admixed with "mongolians", after all that's where they came into byzantine empire from, central asia. They should be just like you, around 75% caucasoid and 25% mongoloid. So you are pure in the sense that you are likely very similar to the tribesmen who founded ottoman empire and those who still lead a similar lifestyle elsewhere.


Well I knew if I had the highest Mongoloid admixture that means I could be closer to original Turk than other Turks but still I feel in no way Mongoloid, I do not look nothing like them at all.


*By Russian anthropologists*

The Oghuz turkmen were related with Gokturk, however the different is that Gokturk were predominately Mongoloid to Mongoloid. While Oghuz Turk have both people who are 100% Mongoloid and people were 25-50% Mongoloid and 25-50% Caucasoid.


*Oghuz from Western + Southern Kazakhstan.*

Russian translations.


" Among the Oghuz (mainly in the steppe zone of their resettlement) dominated Mongoloid racial type. "They - wrote about the Aral Oghuz in the tenth century. Al-Masudi, - most of undersized (Turks) and they have very small eyes" [11]. Other medieval authors note poorly defined vegetation on the face and body and Ploskonos Oguz. All of this suggests Mongoloid features that were characteristic of the bulk predominantly steppe Oguz [12]. "





" These written sources of X-XII centuries. the physical appearance of the Oghuz confirm some paleoanthropological materials. Among the found in the Oguz-Pecheneg mounds of western Kazakhstan skulls dominate Mongoloid types with the South Siberian features. However, there are also found the skull Caucasoid and metisnogo appearance. [13]


More intensive process of ethnic assimilation is likely to take place among the Oghuz south-western regions of Central Asia. Quite a few, but very interesting in this respect craniological material is located in southern Kazakhstan. In excavated ANBernshtam Oguz cemeteries Sasyk-Bulak buried dolihokrannye Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloid features. [14] "

----------


## Ike

> 


 This is a very large area to be filled with just one ethnic group. I guess those areas were occupied, and it's inhabitants subjected to Turkish rule, although not all of them were of Turkish origin. I find illustrations on Turkish smart cards similar what I imagine original Turks. And if you look carefully you'll see that not all of them are the same, some are more Mongol, some less, some have Arabic or Caucasian influence. I guess there were a lot of tribes, with different influences. It seems we'd have to trace a lot back from 500 A.D. to get to the kernel of the Turkish ethnicity.


What does being Turk originally meant anyway, it's unclear to me. Wiki says:

1. The ethnonym "Turk" may be first mentioned in Herodotus' work "Targitas"
2. During the first century A.D. Pomponius Mela refers to the "Turcae" in the forests north of the Sea of Azov
3. Pliny the Elder lists the "Tyrcae" among the people of the same area
4. The first definite reference to the "Turks" come mainly from Chinese sources in the sixth century. In these sources, "Turk" appears as "Tujue" which was used to refer to the Göktürks. According to Chinese sources, the meaning of the word Tujue was "combat helmet" , reportedly because the shape of the Altai Mountains, where they lived, was similar to a combat helmet.

Ok, I get the Chinese explanation, but Chinese had a name for tribes in Altaic mountains, and Europeans for a territory near the Black sea, which is more than 2000 km away. Similar terms - same people? Don't know. 


Kemal Ataturk was born near Thessaloniki , and he's got very European face; I'd easily drop him in Hungary or Romania. I've intentionally chosen the pics without a moustache or traditional hat, and in European clothes:

rengin23_116b.jpgMustafaKemalAtaturk.jpgmustafa-kemal-ataturk-1881-1938.jpgmustafa-kemal-ataturk-b9.jpg

----------


## Gurka atla

Kemal Ataturk was a Turk, his face is not necessarily European face, such faces can be seen in Turkish so there is nothing surprising.


Some described Turks as Mongoloid while other described them as Caucasoid

It's all very confusing, some Turks were described as being blonde hair, red hair, blue eyes, green eyes features. This would imply that Turks could have been Caucasoid or at least some of them but than when I see how the Kazakhs and Tuvans in Mongolia look like, it makes me think what what exactly did they mean by red hair, blonde hair, blue eyes? did they mean some who look like Ataturk or did they means Turks that look like this? these looks are not so rare for a Kazakh in western mongolia

----------


## Gurka atla

Another thing is the way how Chinese describe modern Uyghurs and Uzbeks, they honestly think they people are Caucasoid but when you look at genetics it shows they are half Mongoloid.




By believe is original Turks were Mongoloid but mostly Mongoloid/Caucasoid of various degree of admixture

----------


## Gurka atla

See this is a Uyghur turk, one look at him and even I'll think he is Caucasoid. But is he really a true caucasoid or is he Caucasoid looking for the same reason some Eurasians can look very Caucasoid too? 



Here are some 50% Korean and 50% Japanese, mixed with white.

Could these what Chinese mean't when they described some Turks with Caucasoid appearance?

----------


## Ike

Ataturk was of Turkish nationality, great leader and visionary, but I don't think he's got much in common with original Turks.




> Another thing is the way how Chinese describe modern Uyghurs and Uzbeks, they honestly think they people are Caucasoid but when you look at genetics it shows they are half Mongoloid.


Maybe the problem is that people notice the differences first. From Chinese point of view, these kids look odd, and very Caucasian, but it is obvious they have a Mongolian admixture. 

Same goes for this guy:


He looks somewhat Turanid, and from my point of view he's a bit Asian. Chinese would probably say he is 100% Caucasoid?

----------


## Noman

Mongoloid is probably already a mix of east asian and more northern and western influences. Just like in europe there is an undercurrent of more eastern influences throughout almost the whole thing, nobody is fully separated especially by areas that are adjacent.

And doesn't turk comes from turkic languages?

----------


## MOESAN

this thread could perdure a lot of time without any gain: yet, some steppic I-Eans and uralic tribes took components among the same human ancient europid stock - what look had the "first" Turkic people? hard to say! but in the Steppes we KNOW (at least in Kazakhstan) that the admixture of europid and mongolid external traits grew up steadily at the expanse of the two "pure" original stocks since the Iron Age (already a little before some I-Eans (Iranic?) took mongolid females in their eastern areas): mongolid females for I-Eans, and after that mongolid+europid females for "Turks"? only well culturally identified human remnants could tell us what the first "Turks" look like (I bet more on the Mongolid side at first but after...???) - the Uygurs and others are a mix of turkic and I-Ean people, we know that - the same with the "Huns mystery"
everybody can choose the pictures of men or women that fit his theories and write a 3000 pages book -
joke - by the way, even if they had no statistical value, I find theses pictures very interesting - 
have a good Saturday evening and a good Sunday (but a too good Saturday can make a very bad synday

----------


## silkyslovanbojkovsky

> If real Turks are Mongoloid than I'm far from being a real Turk. I understand 22% East Asian/Siberian DNA is a lot of a Turk but I'm still 78% Caucasoid.
> 
> Kazakhstan look very mongoloid I agree but most Tatars don't, some Tatars look very Mongoloid though.


Yes of course you still are going to be hugely Caucasian. Turkey is a big mix of Middle Eastern, European, and Asian dna. You stated though in your previous comment that you began to doubt if you were really Turkish because you had 22% Asian dna. I was just pointing out that having those results would confirm that you are Turkish rather than not. To me its still obvious that tatars have Asian in them, the only reason a lot of them look more European is because they are mixed with Russians.

----------


## Gurka atla

> this thread could perdure a lot of time without any gain: yet, some steppic I-Eans and uralic tribes took components among the same human ancient europid stock - what look had the "first" Turkic people? hard to say! but in the Steppes we KNOW (at least in Kazakhstan) that the admixture of europid and mongolid external traits grew up steadily at the expanse of the two "pure" original stocks since the Iron Age (already a little before some I-Eans (Iranic?) took mongolid females in their eastern areas): mongolid females for I-Eans, and after that mongolid+europid females for "Turks"? only well culturally identified human remnants could tell us what the first "Turks" look like (I bet more on the Mongolid side at first but after...???) - the Uygurs and others are a mix of turkic and I-Ean people, we know that - the same with the "Huns mystery"
> everybody can choose the pictures of men or women that fit his theories and write a 3000 pages book -
> joke - by the way, even if they had no statistical value, I find theses pictures very interesting - 
> have a good Saturday evening and a good Sunday (but a too good Saturday can make a very bad synday


I think Turks took both Caucasoid females like for example the burial of Pazyryk had both Turkic and Iranians.

Craniological studies of samples from the Pazyryk burials revealed the presence of both Mongoloid and Caucasoid components in this population.[4] quoting G. F. Debets on the physical characteristics of the population in the Pazyryk kurgans, records a mixed population. The men would seem to be part Mongoloid and the women Europoid.[5]

----------


## Maciamo

According to the Dodecad K12 and K12b admixtures, there is only about 6% of Mongoloid admixtures among the Turks.

----------


## Ike

> Craniological studies of samples from the Pazyryk burials revealed the presence of both Mongoloid and Caucasoid components in this population.[4] quoting G. F. Debets on the physical characteristics of the population in the Pazyryk kurgans, records a mixed population. The men would seem to be part Mongoloid and the women Europoid.[5]


Where is the border between Asiatic and Europid female mtDNA lines?

----------


## Gurka atla

> According to the Dodecad K12 and K12b admixtures, there is only about 6% of Mongoloid admixtures among the Turks.


That is the average for instanbul and northern turkey but still you have some who are 12-15% Mongoloid other parts of Turkey are 10-15% Mongoloid on average.

----------


## Petter

> According to the Dodecad K12 and K12b admixtures, there is only about 6% of Mongoloid admixtures among the Turks.


My thoughts also. Could it actually vary as much ad Gurk atla suggests? It must be spread very evenly considering that the admixture is between 1500 and 500 years old.

----------


## Alan

Turks with over 15% East Asian Genes are very rare. The average Turk has something around your 10%, some even less. But there are areas, for example Southwest and Central Turkey with almost 15%.

Udmurts are Uralic speakers and their genetic data and looks indicates a Caucasian origin. (~80-90%)

----------


## Gurka atla

> My thoughts also. Could it actually vary as much ad Gurk atla suggests? It must be spread very evenly considering that the admixture is between 1500 and 500 years old.


Well I've talked with many who had their DNA sampled and 2 of them had between 20-25% Mongoloid admixture. Some part of Turkish province since to retained higher mongoloid admixture.

----------


## Gurka atla

> Turks with over 15% East Asian Genes are very rare. The average Turk has something around your 10%, some even less. But there are areas, for example Southwest and Central Turkey with almost 15%.
> 
> Udmurts are Uralic speakers and their genetic data and looks indicates a Caucasian origin. (~80-90%)


15% is not rare compared to those with 17 - 25% Mongoloid admixture. Those are very rare although they exist individually.

Depends on what Uralic tribe. Some have 16%, some 20% and some 35%.

----------


## Alan

> 15% is not rare compared to those with 17 - 25% Mongoloid admixture. Those are very rare although they exist individually.
> 
> Depends on what Uralic tribe. Some have 16%, some 20% and some 35%.


Yes I said above 15% so 16-25%.


Most Uralic tribes have 10-20% but some can have higher. But the point is that Uralics generally have +70% Caucasian genes so a Caucasian origin makes sense.

----------


## Gurka atla

> Yes I said above 15% so 16-25%.
> 
> 
> Most Uralic tribes have 10-20% but some can have higher. But the point is that Uralics generally have +70% Caucasian genes so a Caucasian origin makes sense.


Udmurt have Mongoloid 35.1% on average

----------


## Alan

> Udmurt have Mongoloid 35.1% on average


Interesting you have a link to this percentage?

----------


## Gurka atla

> Interesting you have a link to this percentage?


Udmurts


Sayomedic 29.6%
North Siberian 3.7%
East Siberian 1.8%



= 35.1%




I believe these DNA can seen on their face

----------


## Alan

> Udmurts
> 
> 
> Sayomedic 29.6%
> North Siberian 3.7%
> East Siberian 1.8%
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now the Question is, what is Sayomedic. I somehow doubt that it is entirely East Asian.

The photo below is anyhing but Asiatic looking. They could even pass as Irish.

Edit: As I thought Samoyedic component is not typical East Asian. 

The People called Samoyed are Uralic speakers and the Uralic speakers themselves are taken as reference population.

And as we know Uralic speakers are far from being East Asian.

So 30% Samoyedic ≠ 30% East Asian.

----------


## Gurka atla

> Now the Question is, what is Sayomedic. I somehow doubt that it is entirely East Asian.
> 
> The photo below is anyhing but Asiatic looking. They could even pass as Irish.
> 
> Edit: As I thought Samoyedic component is not typical East Asian. 
> 
> The People called Samoyed are Uralic speakers and the Uralic speakers themselves are taken as reference population.
> 
> And as we know Uralic speakers are far from being East Asian.
> ...


Nenets have 77% Samoyedic components and look extremely Mongoloid





And among the ethnic groups on the graph I posted it shows that Mansi have the highest samoyedic components among all the western uralics, they are almost 40% Mongoloid. Some of them sometimes appears East Asian.

----------


## Gurka atla

I can also say the same for someone who is 25% Korean and 75% White, she can easily pass for Irish.






*Now check out this famous Udmurt women*

----------


## Alan

@Gurka Atla

No generally you can't say that a 25% East Asian and 75% West Eurasian turns Irish looking because most of the cases the Asian genes are more dominant in appearance. See Kazakhs or Uzbeks though being 50% West Eurasian they turn out looking very much East Asian on average. 

So an individual case is not a proof of the opposite but on the photo of the Udmurts you posted all the visible individuals on the group photo could easily blend in Northwest Europe.

Even if the Sayomedic component was only 50% (most likely 75%) East Asian this would turn the people to look more Asian but than as a matter of fact the Nenets who are 77% of the "Sayomedic" component would most likely belong to 23% of other sorts of East Asian genes.


So even if we considered the Sayomedic component being 2/3 EA there is still 23% to add from various other East Asian genes which would end up being something around 80% East Asian in total for them. So their look is not surprising at all. But the Udmurts look by far too West Eurasian to be genetically more than 25% East Asian on average. Just my 2 Cents.

----------


## Gurka atla

9/10 of 25% East Asian + 75% Caucasian always look like a Caucasian. Asian genes are only dominant when is a evenly 50/50 mix otherwise this won't be case.



*Genetic of Turks
*
Kazakhs are genetically 70-75% East Asian/Siberian



Uzbeks are genetically 43- 46% East Asian/Siberian




Chuvash people are 20-25% East Asian/Siberian




Chuvash 



*50% are between 25% - 27% Mongoloid*




2 samples: 27% Mongoloid
3 Samples: 26% Mongoloid
3 Samples: 25.5% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 25% Mongoloid


-----------


*38.88% are between 21% Mongoloid to 24.8% Mongoloid*


1 Sample: 24.8% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 24% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 23.5% Mongoloid
3 Sample: 22% Mongoloid
1 sample: 21% Mongoloid




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


*5.55% are 6% Mongoloid*


1 Sample: 6% Mongoloid


Chuvash people ( not sure if these ones are pure, someone from the forum said intermarriage with Russians )






Some Chuvash do look more Mongoloid.

----------


## Gurka atla

Kazakhs can range from 60 - 82% East Asian/Siberian but on average they are 70-75% East Asian/Siberian




While Uzbeks can range from 27 to 56% East Asian/Siberian but the average is 40-45% East Asian/Siberian.






It's not like 35% East Asian/Siberian can make the majority of Uralic to look more East Asian. East Asian appearance are only dominant when there is a 50/50 equivalent mixed however even that doesn't stop many Eurasians in America or Canadia who are 50% Mongoloid from looking like this.


Mike shinoda, Japanese father and American mother



Rachel Chung, 3/4 Chinese father and British mother



Julian Kang, Korean father and Canadian mother








Chuvash 



*50% are between 25% - 27% Mongoloid*




2 samples: 27% Mongoloid
3 Samples: 26% Mongoloid
3 Samples: 25.5% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 25% Mongoloid


-----------


*38.88% are between 21% Mongoloid to 24.8% Mongoloid*


1 Sample: 24.8% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 24% Mongoloid
1 Sample: 23.5% Mongoloid
3 Sample: 22% Mongoloid
1 sample: 21% Mongoloid




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


*5.55% are 6% Mongoloid*


1 Sample: 6% Mongoloid


Chuvash people ( not sure if these ones are pure, someone from the forum said intermarriage with Russians )





Some Chuvash do look more Mongoloid.

----------


## Gurka atla

I don't agree that every Udmurt can pass for European

----------


## Petter

The Siberian admixture is small in West Finns and Estonians, and largely missing in Veps and Latvians, who descend from Uralic-speaking peoples (Livonian in the case of Latvians). We also know from linguistics that early Uralics had close contacts with proto-Indo-Europeans, of which very few groups today show Siberian admixture. All this would lead me to believe that the original Uralic people were at least mostly Caucasoid, and that the Siberian admixture has come later.

At least in the case of Finns, it is a fairly accepted theory that the 6% Siberian admixture came from the proto-Saamis, who had in turn picked it up from a Siberian people. Finnish Saami have about 10-15% Siberian admixture.

Of course, Finnic peoples living close to the Volga urheimat have more Siberian admixture, so the original people may have been close to modern Mordvins.

This sets Uralics apart from Turks. While Turks descend from a mostly mongoloid population which has been diluted among Caucasoid, the reverse is true for Uralics.

----------


## Gurka atla

> The Siberian admixture is small in West Finns and Estonians, and largely missing in Veps and Latvians, who descend from Uralic-speaking peoples (Livonian in the case of Latvians). We also know from linguistics that early Uralics had close contacts with proto-Indo-Europeans, of which very few groups today show Siberian admixture. All this would lead me to believe that the original Uralic people were at least mostly Caucasoid, and that the Siberian admixture has come later.


Russians claim this what what the original Uralic look like from 6000 BC




Later Uralic expanded to the western part siberia and mixed with some Dnieper culture

And in 2000 BC they became predominately Caucasoid with some Mongoloid admixture








> At least in the case of Finns, it is a fairly accepted theory that the 6% Siberian admixture came from the proto-Saamis, who had in turn picked it up from a Siberian people. Finnish Saami have about 10-15% Siberian admixture.
> 
> Of course, Finnic peoples living close to the Volga urheimat have more Siberian admixture, so the original people may have been close to modern Mordvins.
> 
> This sets Uralics apart from Turks. While Turks descend from a mostly mongoloid population which has been diluted among Caucasoid, the reverse is true for Uralics.


Finns have 6.15% Siberian/Mongoloid admixture on average, another study with 9.3% and with some samples having 12.5% Siberian admixture. The Saami have 6-8% Siberian/Mongoloid admixture with some having from 12% to 16.5%

In less than 7 generation A Finnish Mongoloid blood can disappear with less than 1%

1 generation 50%
2 generation 25%
3 generation 12.5%
4 generation 6.25%
5 generation 3.12%
6 generation 1.66%
7 generation 0.75%

----------


## Petter

> Russians claim this what what the original Uralic look like from 6000 BC...


I dont know what research that is that you are referring to, but according to current theories, Uralics began expanding from their Urheimat in the Volga-Ural region as recently as 4000 BC. The Samoyedic groups were the first to depart, going East.

Of course, where the proto-Uralics came from, no one knows, because the proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Volga Urheimat. They might have originated from the East, and in that case were originally mostly Mongoloid, just as Turks (although the proto-Uralic migration is far more ancient). That is just speculation though. 

The Uralic family was very expansive and I doubt that the original Uralics were completly assimilated into the existing populations, given how wide-spread the family is. If the Urheimat-Uralics were mongoloids, I would at least expect a lot more Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians. Of the Finnic peoples, only the Saami can be said to have a clear Siberian component (which they have donated to the Finns, in particular the East Finns). Even a Komi or Chuvash-like origin seems a bit unlikely to me, a Mordvin-like origin not being impossible though. 

Even though any kind or origin is of course possible, the most plausible is probably an origin rich in caucasoid the NE-Europe component present in the region.

----------


## Gurka atla

> I dont know what research that is that you are referring to, but according to current theories, Uralics began expanding from their Urheimat in the Volga-Ural region as recently as 4000 BC. The Samoyedic groups were the first to depart, going East.
> 
> Of course, where the proto-Uralics came from, no one knows, because the proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Volga Urheimat. They might have originated from the East, and in that case were originally mostly Mongoloid, just as Turks (although the proto-Uralic migration is far more ancient). That is just speculation though. 
> 
> The Uralic family was very expansive and I doubt that the original Uralics were completly assimilated into the existing populations, given how wide-spread the family is. If the Urheimat-Uralics were mongoloids, I would at least expect a lot more Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians. Of the Finnic peoples, only the Saami can be said to have a clear Siberian component (which they have donated to the Finns, in particular the East Finns). Even a Komi or Chuvash-like origin seems a bit unlikely to me, a Mordvin-like origin not being impossible though. 
> 
> Even though any kind or origin is of course possible, the most plausible is probably an origin rich in caucasoid the NE-Europe component present in the region.


I woudn't say that's the current theory if I was you. The Uralic people were associated with the comb culture and the people their were mongoloid and the exact people who inhabit the culture colored in purple are Mongoloid Uralic tribes like Nenets, Khanty and Nenets

As even wikipedia don't agree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat#Uralic_homeland





No you shouldn't expect so much Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians because DNA shows they are a mixture of Finns and Slavic people, in fact their mtDNA are exactly the sames as Russians, Ukranians with heavy frequencies of R1a at 32% and haplogroup I 15%

On the hand Finns are mixture of Saami tribes and people related with haplogroup I which is dominant in northern Europe. While the Saami ancestors were the Uralic from western Siberia who have 16.5 to 35% Mongoloid DNA, and the ancestors of these people are Nenets and they live where the Comb ceramic culture is located today.




" With regard to the Y-chromosome, the most common haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (58%), I (29%), R1a (7.5%) and R1b (3.5%).[41] Haplogroup N1c, which is found only in a few countries in Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Russia), is a subgroup of the haplogroup N (Y-DNA) distributed across northern Eurasia and estimated in a recent study to be 10,000–20,000 years old and suggested to have entered Europe about 12,000–14,000 years ago from Asia.[42]

----------


## MOESAN

> The Siberian admixture is small in West Finns and Estonians, and largely missing in Veps and Latvians, who descend from Uralic-speaking peoples (Livonian in the case of Latvians). We also know from linguistics that early Uralics had close contacts with proto-Indo-Europeans, of which very few groups today show Siberian admixture. All this would lead me to believe that the original Uralic people were at least mostly Caucasoid, and that the Siberian admixture has come later.
> 
> At least in the case of Finns, it is a fairly accepted theory that the 6% Siberian admixture came from the proto-Saamis, who had in turn picked it up from a Siberian people. Finnish Saami have about 10-15% Siberian admixture.
> 
> Of course, Finnic peoples living close to the Volga urheimat have more Siberian admixture, so the original people may have been close to modern Mordvins.
> 
> This sets Uralics apart from Turks. While Turks descend from a mostly mongoloid population which has been diluted among Caucasoid, the reverse is true for Uralics.


_I have already posted about the formation of first uralic people, basing me on a Hungarian scientists work: the first uralic tribes seemingly were first of europoid types, mostly 'proto-nordic' and 'cro-magnon' (these last maybe with a tendancy to meso-sub-brachycephaly) with a mixture with siberian people of more or less affirmed mongoloid traits like Sayanians-Toungids people - 
after that proto-Hungarians take more 'Cro-magnoid elements when proto-Voguls, proto-Ostiaks and others got more on the siberian side, but not purely mongoloid- they did not speak to deeply about the Finnic speakers types, more focused on the ugrian ones -
I agree with you for the most concerning modern shifts -_

----------


## MOESAN

> I don't agree that every Udmurt can pass for European


the girl on the central picture as almost nothing of a mongoloid phenotype!
and I think the first europoids of Paleolithical times have this kind of eyelids, higher in external corners than close the nose BUT WITHOUT THE TRUE MONGOLOID EYELID BRIDLE (it is easy to see yet among some Europeans from Portugal to N-Scandinavia - what I suspect to be the Brünn type would have the same eyelids model, with the inferior eyelid almost rectiligne, what is rarer in southern Europe "old types": but all that is based I reckon, on intuitive conclusions

----------


## MOESAN

a possible innocent cause of some disaccords here: are we speaking about the first geographially north-siberian types accultured by uralic speakers or about the first speakers of proto-finnic-ugric languages near the Urals??? maybe the so called "uralic" phenotype given by the Russians corresponds to the first case and is correct? but it is not the the most common type of the first "uralic languages" speakers?

----------


## Gurka atla

> _I have already posted about the formation of first uralic people, basing me on a Hungarian scientists work: the first uralic tribes seemingly were first of europoid types, mostly 'proto-nordic' and 'cro-magnon' (these last maybe with a tendancy to meso-sub-brachycephaly) with a mixture with siberian people of more or less affirmed mongoloid traits like Sayanians-Toungids people - 
> after that proto-Hungarians take more 'Cro-magnoid elements when proto-Voguls, proto-Ostiaks and others got more on the siberian side, but not purely mongoloid- they did not speak to deeply about the Finnic speakers types, more focused on the ugrian ones -
> I agree with you for the most concerning modern shifts -_


I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid

Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC



( Russian translation to English)


*FACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY*

There has been an act of invasion of the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern origin in the territory inhabited by Caucasians. Dnieper-Donets culture has developed Caucasians, after which it mingled with the Finno-Ugric tribes. This is confirmed by the data from the repository and Yasinovatka, which (like the Vasiljevka II) is the most ancient among the other cemeteries of the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, it contains the burial of non-simultaneity and divide the period of 500 years (between A and B).


Since culture comb-ceramic spread anthropological type, bearing the features of a "relaxed Mongoloid." In the anthropological literature, it is named laponoidnogo. From the point of view of anthropologists, "there is every reason to believe that the origin of anthropological traits media cultures comb-ceramics associated with the eastern parts of Russia." In particular, male and female skulls from graves 19 and 20 (Sahtysh II), belonging to the comb-culture and dating con. 4th - early. 3rd millennium BC. e. have pronounced Mongoloid appearance - "brain structure of the skull, face and horizontal profile morphology of the nose in two sahtyshskih skulls undoubtedly confirm their membership of the Mongoloid race.

----------


## Gurka atla

> the girl on the central picture as almost nothing of a mongoloid phenotype!
> and I think the first europoids of Paleolithical times have this kind of eyelids, higher in external corners than close the nose BUT WITHOUT THE TRUE MONGOLOID EYELID BRIDLE (it is easy to see yet among some Europeans from Portugal to N-Scandinavia - what I suspect to be the Brünn type would have the same eyelids model, with the inferior eyelid almost rectiligne, what is rarer in southern Europe "old types": but all that is based I reckon, on intuitive conclusions


The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.

If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.

----------


## LeBrok

> The first europoids actually had much *larger eyes* than modern day human, their *noses was also much more prominent* and physically larger.


These are Neanderthal's traits. Ancient Europeans (Otzi) carried much more of Neanderthal genome than modern do.

----------


## MOESAN

> I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid
> 
> Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_read what I wrote: WHAT IS URALIC PEOPLE for these russian scientists??? here is the problem!
geographic dwelling ones or so called uralic (more correctly 'finno-ugrian') languages speakers: I repaet: here is the problem and misundertsanding will perdure a lot of time!!!_

----------


## MOESAN

> The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.
> 
> If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.


what is 'mongoloid' typical traits for you???
her nose is not mongoloid, her *apparent* cheekbones can be found in some europoid subtype (she is smiling: modifying effect), her eyes are half closed by smiling: at first sight (and I'm interested by phenotypes since a lot of time) I can't see any mongoloid trait in her - maybe, if we had a better pictures or more than a side of picture we could decide?

----------


## Gurka atla

> _read what I wrote: WHAT IS URALIC PEOPLE for these russian scientists??? here is the problem!
> geographic dwelling ones or so called uralic (more correctly 'finno-ugrian') languages speakers: I repaet: here is the problem and misundertsanding will perdure a lot of time!!!_


( Russian translation to English )

*Ural race (western siberia )*

Ural race - a race , which occupies an intermediate position between the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. Characterized by straight dark hair, average development of tertiary hair , moderate pigmentation of the skin, predominantly brown eyes, sometimes flattened face , strongly developed fold of the upper eyelid , narrow , moderately prominent nose with a concave back . Distributed in the Urals (Bashkiria ) and West Siberia ( Khanty, Mansi, northern Altai and Khakassia , some groups [1].

*West Siberian Ural race*


Recently, for the trans-Ural race options instead of the concept of " Ural race," suggested the concept of " West Siberian race" [ 12]. In this case, the Western Ural race options are Caucasoid race , but as part of the West Siberian race remains a population with slightly more Mongoloid appearance, common among the Khanty , Mansi , Narym Selkup Tomsk Tatars and Chulyms [ 13]. West Siberian race consists of two physical types - Urals and the Ob - Irtysh [ 14].

Urals type are Uralic with the Mongoloid/Caucasoid look

Ob Irtysh are Uralic people were Caucasoid appearance with slight Mongoloid influence, this is the most dominant type.

----------


## Gurka atla

> what is 'mongoloid' typical traits for you???
> her nose is not mongoloid, her *apparent* cheekbones can be found in some europoid subtype (she is smiling: modifying effect), her eyes are half closed by smiling: at first sight (and I'm interested by phenotypes since a lot of time) I can't see any mongoloid trait in her - maybe, if we had a better pictures or more than a side of picture we could decide?


Her eyes is very small and slanty, not typical of Europeans. Her nose and cheekbones are Europoid subtype but those traits can be found in nearly 50% of Europoid/Mongoloid hybrid aswell.

----------


## Alan

> The first europoids actually had much larger eyes than modern day human, their noses was also much more prominent and physically larger.
> 
> If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her.


 much larger eyes than this girl in the picture and you will become an alien. It's not the size but their is indeed something small Asian about the shape of her eyes. Maybe this might change when she is older He nose and Check bones are also Caucasian. Also Caucasian does not mean huge noses, compared to on average broader and flatter East Asian or Sub Saharan African noses (this is not meant to be a assessment of their looks) almost all Caucasian noses appear prominent.

Take into account that she is children, and children have generally less prominent features.

----------


## Templar

Using pictures of children is really misleading and sly. Children have infantile facial features similar to Mongoloid ones (like wide-set eyes, low nose bridge, etc). Always use adult pictures when comparing different ethnic/racial groups, it will lead to less confusion.

----------


## Petter

> I woudn't say that's the current theory if I was you. The Uralic people were associated with the comb culture and the people their were mongoloid and the exact people who inhabit the culture colored in purple are Mongoloid Uralic tribes like Nenets, Khanty and Nenets


The comb-ceramic culture is today considered to have arrived in Europe before Uralic languages. We dont know what language or genes the bearers of the culture had, but it would be a huge coincidence if it was just one language and one gene profile. Archeological cultures cannot be seen as proof of any race or language. 

And by the way, the people in purple on the map most certainly are not all mongoloid, it covers Finland, the Baltic states and Northern Russia as well.




> No you shouldn't expect so much Siberian admixture in Estonians and Latvians because DNA shows they are a mixture of Finns and Slavic people, in fact their mtDNA are exactly the sames as Russians, Ukranians with heavy frequencies of R1a at 32% and haplogroup I 15%


You dont consider it odd that the presumed Siberian admixture has disappeared from so many Uralic speakers?




> As even wikipedia don't agree
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat#Uralic_homeland


Sure it does. That article is poorly sourced, but it still gets it right. The Urheimat is in the Volga-Ural region, where for example Mordvin and Mari people live today. Those people only have minor Siberian admixture. 

Speaking of Wikipedia, the Swedish article has featured article status, and goes through the commonly accepted theories on Uralic origins. The Samoyedic people are seen as the first to leave the Urheimat, going East. Commonly Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) are then considered to have left East, but some claim that it was Finnic-Permic who left the Urheimat first. I see no reason not to trust academics here. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraliska_spr%C3%A5k




> On the hand Finns are mixture of Saami tribes and people related with haplogroup I which is dominant in northern Europe. While the Saami ancestors were the Uralic from western Siberia who have 16.5 to 35% Mongoloid DNA, and the ancestors of these people are Nenets and they live where the Comb ceramic culture is located today.


Not entirely true. Linguistic evidence shows that Finns and Saami were one people living in proximity to the Baltic-speaking peoples. Saami were thus not a Samoyedic people, and if you want to claim that, I think you are pretty alone with your theory. As they migrated north by a more Eastern route than the Finns, they picked up genes from a Siberian people now gone. They then donated these genes in turn to the Finns.

----------


## Petter

> I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid
> 
> Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC


As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so *any* theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.

Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.

Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?

----------


## Gurka atla

> Using pictures of children is really misleading and sly. Children have infantile facial features similar to Mongoloid ones (like wide-set eyes, low nose bridge, etc). Always use adult pictures when comparing different ethnic/racial groups, it will lead to less confusion.


That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.

Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.

----------


## Gurka atla

> The comb-ceramic culture is today considered to have arrived in Europe before Uralic languages. We dont know what language or genes the bearers of the culture had, but it would be a huge coincidence if it was just one language and one gene profile. Archeological cultures cannot be seen as proof of any race or language.


Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?




> And by the way, the people in purple on the map most certainly are not all mongoloid, it covers Finland, the Baltic states and Northern Russia as well.


Yes it does cover Finland but the Mongoloid people were not in finland is the culture that was spread to Finland.





> You dont consider it odd that the presumed Siberian admixture has disappeared from so many Uralic speakers?


No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.

1 generation 50%
2 generation 25%
3 generation 12.5%
4 generation 6.25%
5 generation 3.12%
6 generation 1.66%
7 generation 0.75%





> Sure it does. That article is poorly sourced, but it still gets it right. The Urheimat is in the Volga-Ural region, where for example Mordvin and Mari people live today. Those people only have minor Siberian admixture.


That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.





> Speaking of Wikipedia, the Swedish article has featured article status, and goes through the commonly accepted theories on Uralic origins. The Samoyedic people are seen as the first to leave the Urheimat, going East. Commonly Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) are then considered to have left East, but some claim that it was Finnic-Permic who left the Urheimat first. I see no reason not to trust academics here. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraliska_spr%C3%A5k


Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.





> Not entirely true. Linguistic evidence shows that Finns and Saami were one people living in proximity to the Baltic-speaking peoples. Saami were thus not a Samoyedic people, and if you want to claim that, I think you are pretty alone with your theory. As they migrated north by a more Eastern route than the Finns, they picked up genes from a Siberian people now gone. They then donated these genes in turn to the Finns.


Except that Saami have much more Mongoloid admixture the Finns and are genetically similar to North Europeans rather than western Uralic people.

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

They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.

*But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.


*

----------


## Gurka atla

> As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so *any* theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.
> 
> Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.
> 
> Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?


The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic


I've got it from Russian wikipedia but it's cited in several accademic Russian studies.

----------


## Templar

> That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.




You implied here that she did:


"If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. _Even this_ 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."




> Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.




Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).

----------


## Gurka atla

> You implied here that she did:
> 
> 
> "If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. _Even this_ 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."




Well not really, I said she look whiter than her, the fact is that Uralic girl also look predominately white herself with some mongoloid influence and this 1/4 Korean looks completely white with slight mongoloid.





> Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.
> 
> Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).


 [/quote]

I have found that in paleo-Mongoloid people although they still look distinguishable Asians.

----------


## Petter

> Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?


And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.

The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.

There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.




> No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.
> 
> 1 generation 50%
> 2 generation 25%
> 3 generation 12.5%
> 4 generation 6.25%
> 5 generation 3.12%
> 6 generation 1.66%
> 7 generation 0.75%


Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid. 


Where Uralics came from before they reached their Urheimat is pure speculation, something which your unnamed Russian source apparently does. Nothing wrong with speculation, but dont call it fact.




> That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.


There is no "Slavic" or "Uralic" DNA in the sense you are suggesting. 




> They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.
> 
> 
> [SIZE=3][B]But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.



N is simply one gene, it has nothing to do with language or race. Latvians are very N-rich but have virtually no Siberian admixture. N in Eastern Europe is too old to give any information on recent migrations of Asian peoples.

----------


## Petter

> Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.


Why wouldn't one believe scientific consensus on something as non-controversial as Uralic Linguistics?




> The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic


The original language spoken in Lapland is usually considered to be the substrate for non-Uralic, non-Indo-European words in Saami. The region was inhabited before the Saami-speakers arrived, and modern Saamis mostly have those genes. In the Fennoscandia project you can read about how the La Braña samples are close to Finns/Saami.
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.fi/

----------


## Gurka atla

> And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.
> 
> The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.
> 
> There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid. 
> ...


Latvians have only 35% N with only 0.7 to 1.5% Siberian admixture. They also have 40% R1a.

Latvians are mixture of Slavic and already low mongoloid admixture finnic tribes so I don't expect them to have high Mongoloid admixture.

*I just knew N was a Mongoloid marker.*




> Now here is the question can you explain why Nenets have 75% Mongoloid Y-DNA but with 63% Caucasian maternal DNA and still look full blooded Mongoloid to predominately Mongoloid??? one should expect nenets to look like Caucasoids







Nganasa extremely Mongoloid as hell with only 7% Caucasian maternal DNA but have 95% N, one should expect they look mix or slightly closer to Caucasoid.





*Now let's look at the autosomal DNA study.... this destroys your argument that N was not mongoloid.*


15 testes samples




10 samples are = 100% pure Mongoloid /Siberian


1 Sample = 100% Mongoloid with different Siberian admixture


2 sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid Siberian groups with small Caucasoid admixture


2 Sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid siberian groups with 36% Caucasoid admixture.


*
Nganassan are pure Siberian Mongoloid*, there is another study that gives them 5% R1a and 14% Caucasoid maternal DNA but that's it

----------


## Petter

I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.

N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages. 

I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.

----------


## Gurka atla

> I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.
> 
> N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages. 
> 
> I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.


Latvians and Finns have a separate branch of N haplogroup but the original was Mongoloid.

----------


## Petter

So what was your long argument for? Do you want to speculate that because of N, pre-proto-Uralics were Mongoloid? Personally, I think that is OK speculation, as long as you call it speculation. I dont think its any more likely than that they were Causaoid before reaching the Urheimat. In the Urheimat however, they were most likely Caucasoid, similar to present day Mordvins. Perhaps this debate is finished.

----------


## angelkiss888

Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.

----------


## Gurka atla

> Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.



This is such a stupid bullshit claim. Original Central Asians were Caucasoid that means it has nothing to do with mixing with Russians. Mongols invaded and raped the Central Asians Iranic women and Turkic women that is why Mongoloid DNA had increased from 50% extra. compared to the past Caucasoid numbered 90% and Mongoloid mixed only 10% .Central Asian Caucasoid DNA have nothing to do with Russians Caucasoid, their DNA is West Asians. You can find Turkish people and Pakistani with red hair but they have nothing to do with Europeans. Red hair can be found in people who are genetically 90% West Asian like the Kashimiris and Kulash.


Green = West Asian admixture
Dark blue = European admixture
Light blue = Caucasus admixture
Light Yellow = Siberian admixture
Dark yellow = East Asian admixture


The graph as shown here clearly shows Uzbeks, Uyghurs are half Mongoloid ( or 40-60% on average ) but their Caucasoid DNA is totally different.
Central Asians have 10-25% European DNA not because of Russians is because Central Asia was between Europe, Middle east, Siberia but still closer to Middle east. Russians also have west Asian and Mongoloid DNA.

----------


## Alexandros

Try the DIY Dodecad bat calculator (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/09/...ia-turkic.html) with your raw data. It is best suited for Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Cypriots, etc. I think it will help.

----------


## Icebreaker

> Mongoloid admixture but yet greeks, Armenians or Kurds samples are 0%?


Kurds are 2% mongoloid. Based on studies they have even more Siberian Q than Turks. Those are probably Kurdified Turkmens. Also Greeks with anatolian ancestry do have some east asian input. It was probably way more before they left Anatolia.

----------


## Petter

> But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.


That's the most plausible, but I dont think its possible to ever know for certain. The Turkic family branched into todays languages quite recently and some groups, such as Uyghurs, are partly caucasoid.

----------


## Peace365

i am so so dissapointed to see here only oppinions and sided unscientific claims which are made and produced with western and turkophobic point of view. its just one of them,which has no any relation with facts of sciense of human history in general.

"But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid."

To use "original" term to point a nationality or ethic group is means there is "fake" ones.so its sounds much more racistical. By the way people who sends comments here are missing that point Turkic ethnicity and culture is very very ancient prevalent from mongolian. so to try to describe and define Turkic population with mongoloid or mongolian terminology is very wrong and anachronistic.





[/I][/COLOR]

----------


## Peace365

Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.

And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.

----------


## Peace365

http://burningaquarium.files.wordpre.../01/bjork4.jpg

http://www.theplace2.ru/archive/bjork/img/Bjork_02.jpg

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs30/f/20...ceirmaklar.jpg

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/593...skin3kuau3.jpg

http://tuub.net/deg/550/550/pictures...-resimleri.jpg

http://cdn1.memuruz.net/wp-content/u...3/11/02533.jpg

http://www.televizyondizisi.com/wp-c...A7ivit-017.jpg

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/ima..._1319_1650.jpg

http://i.milliyet.com.tr/YeniAnaResi...mf3165840.Jpeg

http://cdncms.zaman.com.tr/2012/06/11/bengu.jpg

----------


## Peace365

bengu.jpg

just some examples



yalin-i-kacirdilar-3951662_9611_300.jpg
1909.jpg10cfe-umut-bulut-transferinde-son-durum.jpgAhmet-Davutoglu-5.jpg

----------


## Peace365

Attachment 6181Attachment 6182

http://media.sinematurk.com/person/c...n%20mansiz.jpg

http://imgkelebek.hurriyet.com.tr/Li...Z/SNN_4477.jpg

Attachment 6183

Attachment 6184Attachment 6185

http://www.vanradikal.com/wp-content...%C3%A7elik.jpg


http://www.dipnot.tv/wp-content/uplo...avutoglu-5.jpg

----------


## Peace365

cc578_o.jpg
people_farmers3_copysvga.jpgGirl_in_Turpan,_Xinjiang,_China_-_20050712.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Akhmetov_Rinat_Leonidovich.jpg

http://images.chinahighlights.com/tr...r-minority.jpg

http://galeri.uludagsozluk.com/19/marat-safin_32800.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.
> 
> And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.


Peace, please use "Reply with Quote" button when replying to someone's post, otherwise we don't know who you are talking too.
Welcome to Eupedia.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.
> 
> Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).


Interesting comment, epicanthic eye-folds are not exclusive to Asia and mongoloid is a term that is used to describe non-Asians too. 

Khoisan.jpgimages.jpgindex.jpg

----------


## Alan

> Interesting comment, epicanthic eye-folds are not exclusive to Asia and mongoloid is a term that is used to describe non-Asians too. 
> 
> Attachment 6239Attachment 6240Attachment 6241



Khosains as closest to Proto Humans, would have allot of the characteristic things. lighter skin than average Sub Saharan African, eye-folds, lower fat on cheeks and more prominent chin and brow ridge.

----------


## KA-EL

Which haplogroup are Mongoloid ? The Q and the N ?

----------


## Gurka atla

Even in a country like Turkey ( between west Asia/Europe) have some individuals with strong Mongoloid traits. The percentage of most provinces usually only ranges 1% - 10% or 5% - 17% Mongoloid admixture however a few province from the southeast apparently have much higher Mongoloid admixture than the Turks can be as low as 1.5% to as high as 24.5% Mongoloid

----------


## Gurka atla



----------


## Gurka atla

> i am also turkish anatolian. slanted eyes very rare to see in turkey but we can have because mongolian invasion


Well however rare it is, it's still most common in Turkey and Azeris among all middle eastern nations

----------


## Boreas

Even in Turkey, we associate slanted eyes with Tatars, not Turks. 

During the Ottoman Period, there is no nationalism and after that Ataturk nationalism aimed to create Turkish nation from different muslim people as in melting pot system. It wasn't successfull just in Kurd case. (Maybe a little bit succesfull, example current leader of Kurdish movement is Selahattin Demirtaş and his mothertongue is Turkish.)

But it is dramatically succesfull between Albanian, Bosnian, North Caucausian , Muslim Georgians and Tatars. Populations statistics about them are just funny guess.

Wiki says
it says 150 000 - 6 000 000, as you see, there is a huge difference. It is really hard to find real population statistics about these populations. 

6 million means nearly 7% of Turkey Population. 

And As you can guess, Tatar people has more strong Mongolid feather such as slanted eyes.

----------


## LeBrok

> Even in Turkey, we associate slanted eyes with Tatars, not Turks. 
> 
> During the Ottoman Period, there is no nationalism and after that Ataturk nationalism aimed to create Turkish nation from different muslim people as in melting pot system. It wasn't successfull just in Kurd case. (Maybe a little bit succesfull, example current leader of Kurdish movement is Selahattin Demirtaş and his mothertongue is Turkish.)
> 
> But it is dramatically succesfull between Albanian, Bosnian, North Caucausian , Muslim Georgians and Tatars. Populations statistics about them are just funny guess.
> 
> Wiki says
> it says 150 000 - 6 000 000, as you see, there is a huge difference. It is really hard to find real population statistics about these populations. 
> 
> ...


It all depends on how strongly original Turks mixed with locals. They could have lost their mongoloid features by now. It might be the same case as with Tatar minority in Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. They look exactly, or almost exactly like surrounding local folks. You wouldn't even guess they used to look like Mongolians 500 years ago.
You would need to look into some secluded villages where Turks settled in great numbers. They might still sport some Mongolian features.

----------


## Arame

Gurka_atla

I think this mean one thing. You are the descendant of original Turks. Original Altaian people had some 30-40% Asiatic Mongoloid component + 30 % Central Siberian component. Plus some 20-25 % European.

Screenshot from 2015-05-09 08:58:16.jpg

Fig.1. Admixture results for K=6 showing the approximate location of the populations
included in this study. The names of the populations are coloured according to their
linguistic affiliation as follows: red = Mongolic, blue = Turkic, dark green = North
Tungusic, light green = South Tungusic (Hezhen) and Manchu (Xibo), brown = Ugric,
orange = Samoyedic, black = Yenisseic, azure = Yukaghirs, maroon = Chukotko-
Kamchatkan, pink = Eskimo-Aleut, purple = Indo-European, teal = Sino-Tibetan and
Japonic. Where two subgroups are from the same geographic location, only one of the
subgroups is shown (full results are presented in Fig.S1). Note that for reasons of space the
location of the two distinct Yakut subgroups does not correspond to their true location.
Each color indicates a different ancestry component referred to in the text as "(light) green”
or European, "yellow" or Western Siberian, "blue" or Central Siberian, "pink" or Asian,
"red" or Far Eastern, "dark green" or Eskimo.

This is from this study about Siberians 

http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestre...0/018770-1.pdf

----------


## Arame

One of the reasons that the East Asiatic component is low in today's Turkey is not only the fact they mixed heavily with locals but also the fact that Ottoman Empire was fighting and eradicating the original Turkic tribes because they became Shias. In the big war between Ottomans and Safavids, Turkic tribes who became Shia supported Safavid against Sunni Ottomans. 
All Shia Turkomans were forced to move to Iran's Azerbaijan from Anatolia. Most of them were killed during battles. 
So if You look at Azerbaijanis in Iran You will find that they have higher Mongoloid component than Turks in Anatolia. But even in Iranian Azerbaijan the original Iranian component is higher than the Eastern. The northern Azerbaijan (the Republic) is another story.
Iraqi Turkmens are for example the remnant of this struggle. Half of them are Shia.
In overall in Turkey the original East Asiatic components will not exceed 10 % in my opinion.

----------


## AnatoliansNotTurk

> İ am from central anatolia i never seen people with slanted eyed or turanid face. their ancestor is raped. Asiatic people in turkey is nogais and tatars they sre immigrant we are original anatolian descend


If you are an original anatolian then you are not turkish.

The Turkish people invaded Anatolia

So you are Greek or Armenian

----------


## Nikolay Iliev

What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.

----------


## Sile

> What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.


I would agree

As per the latest doco I saw yesterday (on Byzantium) which investigated the Turk history, even the Turks acknowledge (via their literature and bards ) that they arrived in firstly in eastern Anatolia in 1079 AD from central asia

----------


## Boreas

> One of the reasons that the East Asiatic component is low in today's Turkey is not only the fact they mixed heavily with locals but also the fact that Ottoman Empire was fighting and eradicating the original Turkic tribes because they became Shias. In the big war between Ottomans and Safavids, Turkic tribes who became Shia supported Safavid against Sunni Ottomans.


Good analysis but partly true. Yes there was a rivalry between Ottomans and Shia Safavids but also there were Sunni Crimea Khanate which was ally. 




> So if You look at Azerbaijanis in Iran You will find that they have higher Mongoloid component than Turks in Anatolia. But even in Iranian Azerbaijan the original Iranian component is higher than the Eastern.


Another good analysis 




> In overall in Turkey the original East Asiatic components will not exceed 10 % in my opinion.


Adsız.jpg

Totally right  :Good Job:  Mine says 7%




> If you are an original anatolian then you are not turkish.
> 
> The Turkish people invaded Anatolia
> 
> So you are Greek or Armenian


Greeks ??? Greeks are not Anatolian and Armenoid name is just a name which include also all Caucausian, so your words doesn't make sense.






> there is no such thing as a "real" turk.


Yeap, no pure blood nations, espeacially in Turk case.




> As per the latest doco I saw yesterday (on Byzantium) which investigated the Turk history, even the Turks acknowledge (via their literature and bards ) that they arrived in firstly in eastern Anatolia in 1079 AD from central asia


1079 AD, what is that? 

Manzikert Battle was in 1071 AD. Even this is not the date of first arrival. If we don't count the looting attacks, first arrival could be capturing of city Ani in 1064 AD

----------


## Sile

> 1079 AD, what is that? 
> 
> Manzikert Battle was in 1071 AD. Even this is not the date of first arrival. If we don't count the looting attacks, first arrival could be capturing of city Ani in 1064 AD


have an arguement with this series

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1c...es-2of3_travel

2nd video..................better still , watch all 3

----------


## Sile

> Greeks ??? Greeks are not Anatolian and Armenoid name is just a name which include also all Caucausian, so your words doesn't make sense.


Where did you get this map from?

----------


## MOESAN

> What's the purpose of this? It is not a secret that mixed households are rather common in Turkey. So you get people with russian, bulgarian, tatar, west-european and who knows whatever else heritage. Oh, and forgot kurds. Sorry, there is no such thing as a "real" turk.


_So today Turks are a mix of the whole planet earth? theyre a mix, yes, but with some historical basis, and some recent weddings with foreign people are not eough to change the anatoolian Turcs basis: Anatolians of diverse origin (Greeks, Armenians, Anatolian I-Eans and others like Kurds) + Steppes people for the most dating from the Turkic extension, of turlicized Iranians and genuine Turcs (this last ones a Central Steppes mix of 'europoids' plus at first a strong 'east-asian' imput from S-E Altay - at last in the terminal point it gives us a very light 'east-asian' or 'mongoloid' imput in Anatolia, perhaps varying according to regions._

----------


## Boreas

> Where did you get this map from?


It is Eickstedta's map

----------


## Drac II

> It is Eickstedta's map


Not quite. Someone has been tampering with that map and putting his own conceptions in. Eickstedt did not label any "Europid" race as "Berberid", he considered North African populations to basically be a composite of Mediterraneans ("Westische"), Alpines ("Ostische") and "Orientals" ("Orientalide"; meaning in this context Near Easterners, not East Asians), with Nordic ("Nordische") and Negroid ("Sudanide") minorities:

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bild...kstedt-eur.jpg

----------


## ukaj

> So does that mean that Turkish people are not closer to original Turks? 
> 
> I though the heavy Asian looking Turkmen is the result of Mongol invasion. Aren't these Mongol descendant?


These people look like the huns.But from what i have learned that old turkic people look very asian.amazing I thought turks came from asia minor,I have never seen this before would like to learn more about it,,

----------


## ukaj

> Good analysis but partly true. Yes there was a rivalry between Ottomans and Shia Safavids but also there were Sunni Crimea Khanate which was ally. 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good analysis 
> 
> 
> 
> Adsız.jpg
> ...


Their were greek speakers in anatolia im sure..

----------


## Chubby5

Interesting thread. I've seen blogs of turks who studied Korean and found so much similarity it has with Turk regarding language structure and a few basic words. Maybe that's why linguists categorize turk korean Mongolian languages to the same lineage. There are websites that dedicate itself to finding similar vocabulary but that's like trying to find similarity between German and english...

----------


## Chubby5

I wouldnt think they would be considered Mongolian descendents since Asiatic looking people from central Asia has been painted centuries before the Mongolian invasion. (look up some ancient paintings) I think it had more to do with border mixture and nomad travels rather than invasions....

----------


## Boreas

> Their were greek speakers in anatolia im sure..


There are still, but it doesn't make the Greeks, Anatolian. It is like saying German and English are American

----------


## Sile

> There are still, but it doesn't make the Greeks, Anatolian. It is like saying German and English are American


but we say......many Americans are German and English descent

we can say many Anatolians are of Greek descent , considering there where Greeks in ancient times in Traboz, ( pontic area ).........also the Mycenaean colonies in western Anatolia .

----------


## Boreas

> but we say......many Americans are German and English descent
> 
> we can say many Anatolians are of Greek descent , considering there where Greeks in ancient times in Traboz, ( pontic area ).........also the Mycenaean colonies in western Anatolia .


Many Anatolians are of Greek descent is a thing

and

Many Greeks are of Anatolian descent is another thing. I am the supporter of second one.

----------


## Alan

> These people look like the huns.But from what i have learned that old turkic people look very asian.amazing I thought turks came from asia minor,I have never seen this before would like to learn more about it,,


Amazing how you are the only one on planet earth who knows how the Huns exactly looked like.

----------


## cylnlts

I am a turkish but I do not have mongoloid admixture

----------


## cylnlts

My results by my origin:
Asia Minor % 70
Eastern Middle East %6
Western and central Europe %15
Eastern Europe %3
Northeast Asia %4
Central Asia %3
am I turkısh, Tatar, Azeri ?????? Mongoloid ??????

----------


## DNZ

> My results by my origin:
> Asia Minor % 70
> Eastern Middle East %6
> Western and central Europe %15
> Eastern Europe %3
> Northeast Asia %4
> Central Asia %3
> am I turkısh, Tatar, Azeri ?????? Mongoloid ??????


Where are your family from in Turkey?You are mostly Caucasian.Your mongoloid results are coming from Northeast Asia.The other results are Similar to the Central Anatolia and some of Blacksea regions.Upload your autosomal results to the Gedmatch.Then,You can try the other calculators.

----------


## Seanp

> My results by my origin:
> Asia Minor % 70
> Eastern Middle East %6
> Western and central Europe %15
> Eastern Europe %3
> Northeast Asia %4
> Central Asia %3
> am I turkısh, Tatar, Azeri ?????? Mongoloid ??????


It seems you're a "turkified" Laz or Armenian with some Central Asian Turkic admixture based on that result just like Native Americans with European blood.


edit:

Most Turks i've seen score below 10% only the most outliers with recent Tatar ancestry like those from Aydin, Southwestern Turkey scores over 10%.

----------


## DNZ

> My results by my origin:
> Asia Minor % 70
> Eastern Middle East %6
> Western and central Europe %15
> Eastern Europe %3
> Northeast Asia %4
> Central Asia %3
> am I turkısh, Tatar, Azeri ?????? Mongoloid ??????


I saw your other comments.Firstly,You can't find your nationality with these results.But,I can say easily,You have Central Asian roots,too.But,Your results are so similar to the other Anatolians."Anatolian+Anatolian Turk ones".You are the results of these admixtures,with the different components.If You use gedmatch,You can do more logical comparisons.Have a good researchs.

----------


## DNZ

> It seems you're a "turkified" Laz or Armenian with some Central Asian Turkic admixture based on that result just like Native Americans with European blood.
> 
> 
> edit:
> 
> Most Turks i've seen score below 10% only the most outliers with recent Tatar ancestry like those from Aydin, Southwestern Turkey scores over 10%.


@Seanp Have you got a gedmatch results Szekely from Romania?I see two of them.They look a like so similar to the mine.

----------


## Boreas

> My results by my origin:
> Asia Minor % 70
> Eastern Middle East %6
> Western and central Europe %15
> Eastern Europe %3
> Northeast Asia %4
> Central Asia %3
> am I turkısh, Tatar, Azeri ?????? Mongoloid ??????


I bet that your are not a muhacir from Balkan.

----------


## DNZ

> I bet that your are not a muhacir from Balkan.


Prof.Boreas Muhacıroglu.
Profession:Balkan Turks and their myorigin results:)

----------


## Boreas

> Prof.Boreas Muhacıroglu.
> Profession:Balkan Turks and their myorigin results:)


Call me a Prof. is an insult for real experts in the forum. You will see that reaching lvl 16 is not too hard  :Grin:  

Btw way I am waiting your results for 

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...587#post500587

*@cylnlts
*
This is mine and my brother results. You can click the same link, follow the orders. 

Then we can compare ourselves. I believe, DNZ is more close to Blue's, and you are Oranges's



Is your nick name related with your name? ceylan altaş???  :Good Job:

----------


## cylnlts

My family is also from Cappadocia in central Anatolia but we are from the North Caucasus ...cylnlts: Caylan ulutaş My mitochondrial DNA According to there is a mother who is native Anatolian

----------


## cylnlts

What calculator do you recommend and can you help me to write the results

----------


## LeBrok

By my calculations it is closer to 10%. They brought all Siberian, NE Asian, Beringian and some Baloch admixtures. That's about 10% of average Turk genome, in HarappaWorld run.


S Indian
Baloch
Caucasian
NE Euro
SE Asian
Siberian
NE Asian
Papuan
American
Beringian
Mediterranean
SW Asian
San
E African
Pygmy
W African

Turkey
 1
 15
 44
 11
 0
 4
 3
 0
 0
 1
 11
 9
 0
 0
 0
 0

----------


## cylnlts

Kit Num: T220060
Threshold of components set to 1.000
Threshold of method set to 0.25%
Personal data has been read. 20 approximations mode.
*Gedmatch.Com**HarappaWorld 4-Ancestors Oracle*This program is based on 4-Ancestors Oracle Version 0.96 by Alexandr Burnashev.
Questions about results should be sent to him at: [email protected]
Original concept proposed by Sergey Kozlov.
Many thanks to Alexandr for helping us get this web version developed.

23 April 2013 - Oracle reference population percentages revised.

*Admix Results (sorted):*

*#*
*Population*
*Percent*

1
Caucasian
39.44

2
Baloch
14.37

3
Mediterranean
13.89

4
SW-Asian
11.74

5
NE-Euro
10.46

6
NE-Asian
2.68

7
S-Indian
2.20

8
Beringian
1.78

9
Siberian
1.37




Finished reading population data. 377 populations found.
16 components mode.

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

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 turk-kayseri @ 7.651587
2 turk-istanbul @ 7.653186
3 turk-aydin @ 7.767722
4 turkish @ 8.824174
5 turk @ 9.285530
6 armenian @ 11.905169
7 azeri @ 12.057047
8 uzbekistan-jew @ 14.820162
9 kurd @ 15.110064
10 lebanese @ 15.264257
11 lebanese-muslim @ 15.303683
12 cypriot @ 15.349828
13 ashkenazy-jew @ 15.399670
14 iraqi-arab @ 15.537961
15 north-ossetian @ 16.303885
16 sephardic-jew @ 16.317814
17 iranian @ 16.476582
18 palestinian @ 16.639181
19 syrian @ 16.753130
20 kurd @ 16.832850

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% ashkenazy-jew +50% azeri @ 3.283274


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% cypriot +25% tajik +25% turk-aydin @ 2.098772


Using 4 populations approximation:
1 ashkenazi + georgian + morocco-jew + turkmen @ 1.670837
2 ashkenazy-jew + georgian + morocco-jew + turkmen @ 1.803299
3 druze + turkish + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.870414
4 druze + turkish + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.875345
5 armenian + lebanese-muslim + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.920042
6 armenian + lebanese-muslim + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.920232
7 ashkenazi + cypriot + turkish + turkmen @ 1.932068
8 armenian + lebanese + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.939520
9 druze + turkish + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.948603
10 armenian + italian + lebanese-druze + turkmen @ 1.962133
11 armenian + lebanese-muslim + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.963442
12 armenian + lebanese + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.965451
13 armenian + syrian + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.970183
14 armenian + lebanese-muslim + turkmen + tuscan @ 1.987924
15 ashkenazi + azeri + cypriot + turkmen @ 1.991716
16 armenian + lebanese-muslim + turkmen + tuscan @ 2.006990
17 armenian + syrian + turkmen + tuscan @ 2.015513
18 armenian + lebanese + turkmen + tuscan @ 2.023961
19 armenian + syrian + turkmen + tuscan @ 2.034332
20 lebanese-druze + turk + turkmen + tuscan @ 2.035268

Done.

Elapsed time 2.1482 seconds.

----------


## unamuno

> we can say many Anatolians are of Greek descent , considering there where Greeks in ancient times in Traboz, ( pontic area ).........also the Mycenaean colonies in western Anatolia .


Most of the rums (citizen of Rome, not greek!!!) in trabzon don't have the greek ancestor, their ancestors were autochtones people of the area. They might have mostly caucasian and indo-iranic origins. After the colonization of the region by teh Empire of (Roma), they were coerced to be christians. In this process, their language shifted to greek. By the same token, this is valid for some of the people in the region who speak armenian and turkish language.

Finally, we can clearly say that, most of them do not have greek, armenian and turk origin, but have caucasian and iranic origin.

----------


## Boreas

> Most of the rums (citizen of Rome, not greek!!!) in trabzon don't have the greek ancestor, their ancestors were autochtones people of the area. They might have mostly caucasian and indo-iranic origins. After the colonization of the region by teh Empire of Trebizond (Roma), they were coerced to be christians. In this process, their language shifted to greek. By the same token, this is valid for some of the people in the region who speak armenian and turkish language.
> 
> Finally, we can clearly say that, most of them do not have greek, armenian and turk origin, but have caucasian and iranic origin.


Greeks history in Trabzon is older then Chrisitanity. You can read "Anabasis" (Xenophon) to learn more about that it.  :Good Job: 

There was Capadoccian Rum in the forum, but there is no Rum from Pontus. Logically, they should have more Caucausian admixture as you said.

----------


## cylnlts

The Greek colonies in the black sea region began to dry up before the 8th century, but never as active as the Aegean region. However, Tbilisi has established an intermediate station for ships going to northern Caucasus cities such as Batumi gi. For the Greeks, the Black Sea remained a strange foreign geography for a long time. This situation changed later and progressed to the independence of the Pontus region. The destiny of the Cappadocia region is mostly dependent on the pontus region, which means that it is an ethnic and cultural union between the two regions. For example, if I am Cappadocia, the effect of the Eastern Black Sea on genetic engineering is consistent with the history of the region.

----------


## Sakattack

> Greeks history in Trabzon is older then Chrisitanity. You can read "Anabasis" (Xenophon) to learn more about that it. 
> 
> There was Capadoccian Rum in the forum, but there is no Rum from Pontus. Logically, they should have more Caucausian admixture as you said.


I think you are referring to me :) 

What you say is indeed true, the Pontus region received Greek settlements long time ago, since the 2ng Greek Colonisation (8th-6th cBC). 

The area - like the whole Anatolia - received massively settlers after Alexanders era and was completely Hellenized (both genetically but mostly linguistically and culturally) at some point, around the 1st century AD. 

Pontus is indeed connected with Cappadocia, because of proximity. 

As for genetics, I've seen some results of Azov Greeks and they tend to score more Caucasian. They plot somehow in the middle of the other Anatolian Greeks and the Caucasian modern people. That means that of course they absorbed a very significant amount of local genes and also probably intermarried with Armenians, who where also Christian and lived really close. They lack also completely, the Turkish admixture (east and central Asian components) like the vast majority of Anatolian Greeks.

----------


## Boreas

> I think you are referring to me :) 
> 
> What you say is indeed true, the Pontus region received Greek settlements long time ago, since the 2ng Greek Colonisation (8th-6th cBC). 
> 
> The area - like the whole Anatolia - received massively settlers after Alexanders era and was completely Hellenized (both genetically but mostly linguistically and culturally) at some point, around the 1st century AD. 
> 
> Pontus is indeed connected with Cappadocia, because of proximity. 
> 
> As for genetics, I've seen some results of Azov Greeks and they tend to score more Caucasian. They plot somehow in the middle of the other Anatolian Greeks and the Caucasian modern people. That means that of course they absorbed a very significant amount of local genes and also probably intermarried with Armenians, who where also Christian and lived really close. They lack also completely, the Turkish admixture (east and central Asian components) like the vast majority of Anatolian Greeks.


I have skipped that. Now I remember that you were also Greek. Please send some Azov Greeks result with yours of course. Capadoccians are a bit similar with Greeks in Cypres. What about Azov and Pontus, How similar are they?

----------


## Sakattack

> I have skipped that. Now I remember that you were also Greek. Please send some Azov Greeks result with yours of course. Capadoccians are a bit similar with Greeks in Cypres. What about Azov and Pontus, How similar are they?


By Azov Greeks, I mean Pontic Greeks. I have no drafts of their results, but it's easy to access them in some forums etc. They score high caucasus, that's for sure. 

As for Cappadocian Greeks, I have not seen anyone elses results except mine, unfortunately (I mean 100% Cap. Greek). In fact I plot closer to Cretans than Cypriots (which are usually my second best reference pop).

----------


## Sile

> I think you are referring to me :) 
> 
> What you say is indeed true, the Pontus region received Greek settlements long time ago, since the 2ng Greek Colonisation (8th-6th cBC). 
> 
> The area - like the whole Anatolia - received massively settlers after Alexanders era and was completely Hellenized (both genetically but mostly linguistically and culturally) at some point, around the 1st century AD. 
> 
> Pontus is indeed connected with Cappadocia, because of proximity. 
> 
> As for genetics, I've seen some results of Azov Greeks and they tend to score more Caucasian. They plot somehow in the middle of the other Anatolian Greeks and the Caucasian modern people. That means that of course they absorbed a very significant amount of local genes and also probably intermarried with Armenians, who where also Christian and lived really close. They lack also completely, the Turkish admixture (east and central Asian components) like the vast majority of Anatolian Greeks.


*The supposed origin of the Cimmerians north of the Caucasus at the end of the Bronze Age loosely corresponds with the early Koban culture (Northern Caucasus, 12th to 4th centuries BC), but there is no compelling reason to associate this culture with the Cimmerians specifically.[6]

The first record of the Cimmerians appears in Assyrian annals in the year 714 BC. These describe how a people termed the Gimirri helped the forces of Sargon II to defeat the kingdom of Urartu. Their original homeland, called Gamir or Uish desh, seems to have been located within the buffer state of Mannae. The later geographer Ptolemy placed the Cimmerian city of Gomara in this region. The Assyrians recorded the migrations of the Cimmerians, as the former people's king Sargon II was killed in battle against them while driving them from Persia in 705 BC.

There are no further mentions of them in historical sources, but it is likely that they settled in Cappadocia.[1]


*http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cimmerians-nomads

----------


## Sakattack

True that Sile. 

Cimmerians, Hittites probably Sumerians and some Gauls were some of the known pops of the area before the Greeks.

----------


## unamuno

> Greeks history in Trabzon is older then Chrisitanity. You can read "Anabasis" (Xenophon) to learn more about that it. 
> 
> There was Capadoccian Rum in the forum, but there is no Rum from Pontus. Logically, they should have more Caucausian admixture as you said.


I have read anabasis million times :), and i saw that there were only minor greek colonies on the shore and in the castles. But, most of the people lived there, mountainous and inner part of the region, were not ethnically greek...

By the way, have you seen the admixture or ydna results of current trabzon? What do they tell you, do they look like greek?

----------


## Boreas

> I have read anabasis million times :), and i saw that there were only minor greek colonies on the shore and in the castles. But, most of the people lived there, mountainous and inner part of the region, were not ethnically greek...
> 
> By the way, have you seen the admixture or ydna results of current trabzon? What do they tell you, do they look like greek?


After the population exchange, Basicly 20% of Greece became Anatolian.


So you can find similar modern Greek people in Greece with Trabzon people.

But Ofcourse Ancient Greeks admixture is limited.

If you have some Trabzon people result, please share :Good Job:

----------


## unamuno

Dear Boreas,
When you compare a result of a person from trabzon, who has rum origins (not greek), with a real greek from greece (not an immigrant from trabzon), you will see that pontic rums more Caucausian than all other definitions. If you wonder the results of trabzon, please visit the trabzon group in ftdna...

----------


## Boreas

> Dear Boreas,
> When you compare a result of a person from trabzon, who has rum origins (not greek), with a real greek from greece (not an immigrant from trabzon), you will see that pontic rums more Caucausian than all other definitions. If you wonder the results of trabzon, please visit the trabzon group in ftdna...



Why you try to show that I said something more different then you???  :Confused: 

My words from previous post
"they should have more Caucausian admixture as you said."

and not just Pontus Greeks also Cappadocian Greeks are more Caucausain then Mainland Greek types.

Btw I can't join all groups in different genetic website, if you know something, share. Otherwise, your words will be letters on the water.

----------


## unamuno

İt is not about only caucasian admixture. When you compare a Pontus rum with a greek, you will realize that they are genetically completely different. And may be you can realize that, they are autochtone people of the region, not greek.

----------


## Sakattack

> İt is not about only caucasian admixture. When you compare a Pontus rum with a greek, you will realize that they are genetically completely different. And may be you can realize that, they are autochtone people of the region, not greek.


When you realize that you should cross around 1500km west from Trabzon just to enter the modern far north East Greek border, when you realize how far is this area from mainland Greece, when you just take a moment and think for how many centuries these people lived there, with almost no contact to the mainlanders, when you realize that this dialect that they STILL speak is the oldest Greek dialect alive with many many ancient elements in it, when you take in consideration that the mainlanders went though other kind of genetic influence all these centuries (Slavs, Vlachs, Arvanite, Venetians, Genoans, Franks, Jews etc) and in the meantime they absorbed genetic material from the locals and their neighbors... etc etc

then MAYBE you realize what are you taking about. Of course they gonna have genetic distance with the mainlanders, what do you expect? 

You can't just label people as you... wish. These people born and raised for more than 2,5 THOUSAND years like Greeks, speaking the Greek language and embracing the Greek culture. They self-identify as Pontic Greeks. And you are coming now to tell them what? "Hey, guys, you look kinda different with some other Greeks that had been living 2 thousand km southwest for circa 2 thousand years?". Wow, what a blowup!

The term Greek, is in any case very wide. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

> You can't just label people as you... wish. These people born and raised for more than 2,5 THOUSAND years like Greeks, speaking the Greek language and embracing the Greek culture. They self-identify as Pontic Greeks.


Yes, you should be careful,though, when you say these people historically greek. First, their mainland is not greece, and their dialect is not ancient dialect of greek. Their homeland is south caucasia and their language is a mixture of greek with their natıve caucasian languages. Just like their current turkish dialects. And they began to speak this dialect in a more recent time compared to 2,5 thousand years. They learned and began to speak this language after they had been christianized. If this is enough to say that these people are historically and genetically greek, we can also say these people are turk. 

Counsciousness of a nation is a thing, history and genetics are different things.

----------


## Sakattack

> Yes, you should be careful,though, when you say these people historically greek. First, their mainland is not greece, and their dialect is not ancient dialect of greek. Their homeland is south caucasia and their language is a mixture of greek with their natıve caucasian languages. Just like their current turkish dialects. And they began to speak this dialect in a more recent time compared to 2,5 thousand years. They learned and began to speak this language after they had been christianized. If this is enough to say that these people are historically and genetically greek, we can also say these people are turk. 
> 
> Counsciousness of a nation is a thing, history and genetics are different things.


There was no Greece before 1830. So the... mainland argument is invalid. 
"Greece" was where Greeks were living. 

Their language is Greek 101% and retained many archaisms till nowadays. It is not any kind of mix. They have some Turkish nouns though. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## cylnlts

IMG_3339.jpgMy photos caucasoid turkic georgian or armenian

----------


## unamuno

> There was no Greece before 1830. So the... mainland argument is invalid. 
> "Greece" was where Greeks were living. 
> 
> Their language is Greek 101% and retained many archaisms till nowadays. It is not any kind of mix. They have some Turkish nouns though. 
> 
> Sent from my Robin


:))))

1) thesis of common language and its so called ancient dialects are not enough and suitable criteria to talk about historical facts and genetics. Because language shifting due to converting religion is a common phenemona during the history.

2) in fact, you say that "greece was where Greeks invaded." while ignoring the effects of autochtone people of the region.

----------


## Seanp

> İt is not about only caucasian admixture. When you compare a Pontus rum with a greek, you will realize that they are genetically completely different. And may be you can realize that, they are autochtone people of the region, not greek.


Genetic and identity are two different things. People first and foremost identity themselves based on cultural traditions and historical knowledge. There's no evidence those people living in Greece are more or less Greek than anyone living in the diaspora regions. Hellenes since the beginning were heterogeneous in terms of origin. 
Some tribes came from the North while some were native to Asia Minor and those people likely the direct ancestors of Pontians.

If Turks didn't invade Anatolia and "Turkify" the millions of natives including Greeks then most parts of Anatolia would be part of the Greek state as most Turks in the Western part at least are straight descendants of Greeks, Trojans and other Greek related ethnic groups who all share a similar linguistics and genetic origin and barely has any "Mongol" heritage unlike the leaders of Turks who invaded and raped the natives.

----------


## Sakattack

> :))))
> 
> 1) thesis of common language and its so called ancient dialects are not enough and suitable criteria to talk about historical facts and genetics. Because language shifting due to converting religion is a common phenemona during the history.
> 
> 2) in fact, you say that "greece was where Greeks invaded." while ignoring the effects of autochtone people of the region.


1) We are not talking only about language though. Language is very important cretirium to tag "ethnicity" to some pop though, but it's not the only one in the case of the PonticGreeks. Historical events such as the 2nd Greek colonisation, the establishment of many Greek cities in the area, the conquer of the whole Anatolia by Alexander, the subsequent - Greek based- Byzantine empire are hard facts in their case. They have long long journey through the Greek history. 
To come back to the language issue, you are wrong if you think that their language shifted (by whom?) through... relegion. No. These people are Greek speaking form the very beginning and they still are. Their language had been influenced and of course changed through time, but it's incredible how close it is to ancient Greek, by retaining many archaisms, that are extinct in all the other Greek dialects. 

2) As for invasions: I said ""Greece" was where the Greeks used to live". And Greeks used to live in many places, from South Italy to Cyprus and from Egypt to Pontus. Mainland Greece and Asia Minor had been for the most period their core lands though. The only "invasion" that the Greeks made in their long history, is the one of Alexander's (there is also the Trojan war which is mythologically based and in any case was only a war and not a conquer). 

There are some other neighbors with a long tradition in invasions, imperialistic wars, destructions, undoing and pillage. Better ask them. 


Oh, wait... 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

> Genetic and identity are two different things. People first and foremost identity themselves based on cultural traditions and historical knowledge. There's no evidence those people living in Greece are more or less Greek than anyone living in the diaspora regions. Hellenes since the beginning were heterogeneous in terms of origin. 
> Some tribes came from the North while some were native to Asia Minor and those people likely the direct ancestors of Pontians.
> 
> If Turks didn't invade Anatolia and "Turkify" the millions of natives including Greeks then most parts of Anatolia would be part of the Greek state as most Turks in the Western part at least are straight descendants of Greeks, Trojans and other Greek related ethnic groups who all share a similar linguistics and genetic origin and barely has any "Mongol" heritage unlike the leaders of Turks who invaded and raped the natives.


Dear seanp;

Sorry, but this is hypocrisy. Today, almost all of people living in Trabzon, identify themselves as Turk. As far as I know, they are more turkish nationalist compared to ethnic turks. According to your post, nobody claim that they are pontic greek, most of them speak turkish as mother Tongue, and their culture closer to the peoples of the region, Lazs, hemsinites, georgians and turks, compared to a greek. Should we say, pontic turk? 

Finally, have you ever read something about ancient history of the region, except anabasis? Do you have some info about christianization process of the region? When you have, you may not blame others for the things what you had done before...

----------


## Sakattack

> Dear seanp;
> 
> Sorry, but this is hypocrisy. Today, almost all of people living in Trabzon, identify themselves as Turk. As far as I know, they are more turkish nationalist compared to ethnic turks. According to your post, nobody claim that they are pontic greek, most of them speak turkish as mother Tongue, and their culture closer to the peoples of the region, Lazs, hemsinites, georgians and turks, compared to a greek. Should we say, pontic turk?


If you consider that more than a million of Pontic Greeks have been extermited by Kemal and that around 500.000 thousand have been flown to Greece at 1922-24, it's a miracle that there are still some (few) Greek speakers in the area, even if they are Muslims.

So, no, when we are taking about Pontic Greeks now, we are talking about people who reside in modern day Greece via refugia, don't mess it up. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

> If you consider that more than a million of Pontic Greeks have been extermited by Kemal and that around 500.000 thousand have been flown to Greece at 1922-24, it's a miracle that there are still some (few) Greek speakers in the area, even if they are Muslims.
> 
> So, no, when we are taking about Pontic Greeks now, we are talking about people who reside in modern day Greece via refugia, don't mess it up. 
> 
> Sent from my Robin


My first message is about so called anatolians of greek descent. And my assertion is that their ancestors were not greek, they had been living in the region before Greeks came to the region.

So do not mess it up.

----------


## Sakattack

> My first message is about so called anatolians of greek descent. And my assertion is that their ancestors were not greek, they had been living in the region before Greeks came to the region.
> 
> So do not mess it up.


And you are wrong. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

> And you are wrong. 
> 
> Sent from my Robin


:))) According to what/whom? To you and your nationalistic viewpoint?

----------


## unamuno

> If you consider that more than a million of Pontic Greeks have been extermited by Kemal and that around 500.000 thousand have been flown to Greece at 1922-24, it's a miracle that there are still some (few) Greek speakers in the area, even if they are Muslims.


1- they were not exterminated by the kemal, it was the result of a mutual aggrement. This aggrement also included the turkish natıve speakers who were orthodox Christian. 
2- 500.000 thousand :)))
3- special knowledge for you. Most of the Greek speakers who live in the region today called themselves as Turk. It would not be false to say that they are the most turkish nationalist people of the turkey..

----------


## Angela

Fewer insults, gentlemen, or I'm going to have to intervene.

@unamuno,
I'd also mention that opinions unsupported by data aren't at all persuasive. We try to keep discussions here fact based.

----------


## Seanp

> Dear seanp;
> 
> Sorry, but this is hypocrisy. Today, almost all of people living in Trabzon, identify themselves as Turk. As far as I know, they are more turkish nationalist compared to ethnic turks. According to your post, nobody claim that they are pontic greek, most of them speak turkish as mother Tongue, and their culture closer to the peoples of the region, Lazs, hemsinites, georgians and turks, compared to a greek. Should we say, pontic turk? 
> 
> Finally, have you ever read something about ancient history of the region, except anabasis? Do you have some info about christianization process of the region? When you have, you may not blame others for the things what you had done before...


Most people in Eastern Turkey doesn't identify as Turkish, even if by political correctness they will call themselves as "Turkish" as long as they have the pressure upon them. Most will identity as Kurdish and other minorities. 

Turkey was only able to maintain it's borders by open aggression and still does it against minorities, despite being part of the UN. Turkey sympathizes with Israel to defend Kurdish militants from the South in order to prevent the possibility that Eastern Turkey lose it's dependence and become a Kurdish state which it should be.

----------


## Sakattack

> 1- they were not exterminated by the kemal, it was the result of a mutual aggrement. This aggrement also included the turkish natıve speakers who were orthodox Christian. 
> 2- 500.000 thousand :)))
> 3- special knowledge for you. Most of the Greek speakers who live in the region today called themselves as Turk. It would not be false to say that they are the most turkish nationalist people of the turkey..


1. It's another thing the pop exchange (500.000 Pontic Greeks sent as refugees to the Greek State) and another thing the extermination. The Genocide of the Greeks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gree...de?wprov=sfla1) by the Neoturks targeted all the Greeks in Anatolia but had a bigger impact on the Pontians, who counted more than 500.000 victims. 
2. Typo. Very funny to point that out. Congrats. 
3. It's not certain, apply to some, don't apply to some others. But in any case, I repeat that when we are taking about Pontic Greeks, we are referring to the Pontians that came after the population exchange in Greece. If you want to talk about the people of PonticGreek descent in modern day Turkey, it's a completely different subject. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

> 1. It's another thing the pop exchange (500.000 Pontic Greeks sent as refugees to the Greek State) and another thing the extermination. The Genocide of the Greeks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gree...de?wprov=sfla1) by the Neoturks targeted all the Greeks in Anatolia but had a bigger impact on the Pontians, who counted more than 500.000 victims. 
> 2. Typo. Very funny to point that out. Congrats. 
> 3. It's not certain, apply to some, don't apply to some others. But in any case, I repeat that when we are taking about Pontic Greeks, we are referring to the Pontians that came after the population exchange in Greece. If you want to talk about the people of PonticGreek descent in modern day Turkey, it's a completely different subject. 
> 
> Sent from my Robin



"According to George W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office, by 1918 "...over 500,000 Greeks were deported of whom comparatively few survived." In his memoirs, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire between 1913 and 1916 wrote "Everywhere the Greeks were gathered in groups and, under the so-called protection of Turkish gendarmes, they were transported, the larger part on foot, into the interior. Just how many were scattered in this fashion is not definitely known, the estimates varying anywhere from 200,000 up to 1,000,000."

Where is the m. Kemal? This refers to pre m.kemal era...

Don t say typo again :)))

----------


## Sakattack

> "According to George W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office, by 1918 "...over 500,000 Greeks were deported of whom comparatively few survived." In his memoirs, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire between 1913 and 1916 wrote "Everywhere the Greeks were gathered in groups and, under the so-called protection of Turkish gendarmes, they were transported, the larger part on foot, into the interior. Just how many were scattered in this fashion is not definitely known, the estimates varying anywhere from 200,000 up to 1,000,000."
> 
> Where is the m. Kemal? This refers to pre m.kemal era...
> 
> Don t say typo again :)))


Read the wiki article that I posted above. It's about the Greek Genocide by the Neoturks of Kemal. It started around 1908 and exterminated about a million Greeks. It was part of the "cleansing" of the infidels inside Turkey (new term at that time). The Armenian Genocide happened at the same period. 

In the meantime and before 1922 we have the Greek campaign in Asia Minor, several treaties and border changes and finally we end to the Catastrophe of Smyrna at 1922. After that the population exchange agreement. 

The population exchange, also, included about 1,5 million Greeks in Anatolia (and about 500,000 Muslims in Greece). You can read about it everywhere, easily accesible. But that's another story, which you mess up. Obviously history was not one of your strengths. What you posted is about the first pogroms (after 1908 as I said) which lead to early refugia of many people, especially of the west coastal Greeks and the East Thrace ones. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## Yetos

there are 3 acts against pontic Greeks,
and one minor

1rst is 1870-80's

2nd is 1908-1916

3rd is 1922-24

and the minor is at 1950's
Pontic greeks who devastet to Con/polis at 1923 were not exchanged due to treaty
but were hunted at 1950's pogrom at Con/polis

the numbers are strange enough,
at 1870's pontic Greeks are mentioned as 3-3.5 000 000, and majority of area, and much bigger than population of Greece of 1860's (Makedonia Thrace Epirus not included)
but we have islamization after Russo-Turkish war and mass exile
leaving to 1 500 000 around end of WW1
and only about 500-600 000 left area at 1923
via the Neutral forces ships

some Historians say that analogy at Oinoe Ortu and Fatsa before 1860 was 5 Greeks 3 Turks 1 Armenian 1 other (Laz Iranian Russian etc)
and at Kars was 5 Armenians to 2 Greeks to 2 Turks
the less Analogy for Greeks was at Kastamone and Sevasteia/Ceasareia (Kastamonu Sivas Kayseri)
at Sevasteia and kaisareia there were 2 Greeks per 6 Turks

The Sultan's firman of 1855 of religious freedoms etc etc if remember correct gave number at 1860-70 that strangely were not expected.

from the Pontic Greeks that live here in my area
major loses were not by Topal Osman, 
but mainly due to working camps the *Amele taburu* (Taburlari)
around 250 000 Greeks Lost their lives at these camps,

2 cases that must mentioned are the case of Tamama-Eleni,
that become a movie,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyuDeLpiKxc

and the other is Konstantinos or Murat,
who Become Turkish military officer to a high degree
both were found kids abandoned and adopted by Turks
and learn their origin at 1970's -80's.
The adapted kids that Andreadis found are many,
and only he knows the number.
He spend a lot part of his life cooparating with Internaional organisations, and Turkish Authorities to find lost Kids
the 2 most interesting become books and movie

----------


## Sakattack

Yes Yetos, forgot to mention the 1870's and to a smaller extent the 1950's in Constantinople, incidents.

They cannot be included though to what is called, Pontic Greek Genocide. 

Sent from my Robin

----------


## unamuno

These are my last words my friend. Because you are constantly jumping from a topic to another topic. It is impossible to reach an aggrement via this approach.

I did not mention that pogroms did not happen in the history of the anatolia. Unfortunately, it happened. (Not only in anatolia by the way, balkans, caucasus etc. This is another topic) Firstly you wrote that kemal had done this, then you changed your assertion as "Neoturks of kemal". I would like to ask, who were these Neoturks? and who gave order to them? Your answer is m kemal? Is this your strong history knowledge :)))

This headline is relevant with turkish identity in general, not about Pontic greek identity in Greece. Thus, ı think ı wrote my posts to correct place. Who messes up? :)))

Finally, i can say that ı recognize the history as a world of facts. My only aim is to understand more and more. I have no revanchist feelings or thoughts to a nation or people. Can you say the same?

I do not bother people here, so please send me personal message, i tried but ı could not. I am a freshman in this forum :))

----------


## Sakattack

> These are my last words my friend. Because you are constantly jumping from a topic to another topic. It is impossible to reach an aggrement via this approach.


Nobody "jumps". You wrote sth wrong and historically inaccurate about the PonticGreeks - about whom I hope you learned sth after this discussion - and I replied. When people discuss about such subjects, it's kind of normal for the comvo to turn into other relevant topics too. This is what happened here. I never tried to change topics. I was just answering and I was posting arguments. 




> I did not mention that pogroms did not happen in the history of the anatolia. Unfortunately, it happened. (Not only in anatolia by the way, balkans, caucasus etc. This is another topic) Firstly you wrote that kemal had done this, then you changed your assertion as "Neoturks of kemal". I would like to ask, who were these Neoturks? and who gave order to them? Your answer is m kemal? Is this your strong history knowledge :)))


Yes, my answer is still "the Neoturks of Kemal". I think is completely accurate, since the Turkish National Movement who caused and executed the slaughters and the mass murders, had Kemal Atatürk as it's leader. 




> This headline is relevant with turkish identity in general, not about Pontic greek identity in Greece. Thus, ı think ı wrote my posts to correct place. Who messes up? :)))


Yes, that's why it's better not to post irrelevant stuff, such as "Pontic Rums are not Greeks" several times, before somebody just reply to these inaccurate statements. I am in to keep discussion on topic, but it went off topic by you, before I interfere. 




> Finally, i can say that ı recognize the history as a world of facts. My only aim is to understand more and more. I have no revanchist feelings or thoughts to a nation or people. Can you say the same?


100%. I try to keep bias out of history. I am not sure if I manage to do it, but I really try. I love history. 



> I do not bother people here, so please send me personal message, i tried but ı could not. I am a freshman in this forum :))


I have not anything else to add. It's indeed better to continue - if any of us has the will to do so - via PM's. This forum is hospitable, but better not take full advantage of it.  



Sent from my Robin

----------


## Boreas

> İt is not about only caucasian admixture. When you compare a Pontus rum with a greek, you will realize that they are genetically completely different. And may be you can realize that, they are autochtone people of the region, not greek.


Sorry, but I won't realize until you or somebody share info, some sample dna etc.

----------


## Freshavacado

Hm. I'm Greek, and my results showed 3% Central Asian 1.24% East Asian 0.5% Oceanian 0.5% Siberian.

----------


## NiceIllustrator

I'm Turkish as far as I know, my family tree tells me my fathers mothers fathers side was from the balkans, my mothers side of the family circassians and the rest from the anatolia region. I turned out 0% east or central asian.

55% Western Asia
40% Balkans

----------


## Lenab

My Mum is Turkish she has Greek some Slavic Balkan and some Armenian Caucasus ancestry her admixture was some North African and South Indian but together the total of that was less than 5 percent. 

This was my admixed result 

http://hellas2010.proboards.com/thre...enetic-results

----------


## Lenab

> I'm Turkish as far as I know, my family tree tells me my fathers mothers fathers side was from the balkans, my mothers side of the family circassians and the rest from the anatolia region. I turned out 0% east or central asian.
> 
> 55% Western Asia
> 40% Balkans


My Mum got a similar result but less West Asian and more Balkan but there is not that much in it...Btw did you get Italy in any of your admixed results or just Greek?

----------


## NiceIllustrator

> My Mum got a similar result but less West Asian and more Balkan but there is not that much in it...Btw did you get Italy in any of your admixed results or just Greek?


I did actually get a couple of precentages Italian(2-3% on 23andme), but I disregarded it since it's so little, myheritageDNA gave me 15% Italian for some reason, but I don't trust them as much as 23andme, although the gedmatch tests with Italian in them also estimaed a 9-15% Italian, but I'm not techy enough to analyze what they actually mean by that. 

23andme also states my great great great(?) grandparent was a 100% Italian guy, but 23andme is really weird with their guesses on that grandparent timeline. What I do know for sure is that every website gives me that ~50/~50 Anatolia/Balkan split, with most of them guessing the Balkan is Greece and some state a little bit of Italy.

----------


## Lenab

I personally think when they say Italy they just just mean South Italians with Greek ancestry...

But the Turks did go to South Italy and Sicily. I am not sure if you know that

----------


## Lenab

You have a very interesting maternal haplogroup I personally only trust the K36 cal on GED match all the rest just seem like flimsy guesses

----------


## Lenab

I was thinking of doing 23andMe at some point also as they have other good features like risk of diseases and stuff to do with eye colour etc

----------


## canadienne

How can i find our Mongoloid score? Can you please help me? I'm a Balkan Turk.

----------


## Zé Kalanga

> How can i find our Mongoloid score? Can you please help me? I'm a Balkan Turk.


Did you uploaded any DNA test to Gedmatch?

----------


## canadienne

> Did you uploaded any DNA test to Gedmatch?


Yes i did. T337705 is my kit number. Sorry i dont post because i'm a new member.

----------


## Zé Kalanga

> Yes i did. T337705 is my kit number. Sorry i dont post because i'm a new member.


At Eurogenes K15 you get 3.60 Siberian and 0.59 SE Asian.

MLDP K23b - 4.76 Tungus-Altaic

Dodecad K12b - 2.84 Siberian, 2.08 East Asian, 0.51 SE Asian

Ancient Eurasia K6 - 4.92 East Asian

---

Seems normal since you're Turkish, at 4%-5% range.

----------


## canadienne

> At Eurogenes K15 you get 3.60 Siberian and 0.59 SE Asian.
> 
> MLDP K23b - 4.76 Tungus-Altaic
> 
> Dodecad K12b - 2.84 Siberian, 2.08 East Asian, 0.51 SE Asian
> 
> Ancient Eurasia K6 - 4.92 East Asian
> 
> ---
> ...


I'm a balkan turk. is this results normal for me?

----------


## Zé Kalanga

> I'm a balkan turk. is this results normal for me?


Hmmm...seems a bit high, but not that weird or even impossible IMO.

But I think some people would disagree with me about it.

----------


## Pelaska

I'm from Turkey, my Turkic/Mongoloid admixture doesn't exceed 4% and usually I get Turkish as first place on the calculators, my mother side is Circassian-Balkan mix, my father side some Alawi Kurdish afaik.I believe these 4% Turkic admixture comes from my Circassian background(mtdna).

----------

