Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
Topic: Y-DNA Turkey Turks = Y-DNA Central Asian Turks Posted: 12-Sep-2015 at 15:20
''You are not a Turk, that is a fact now, in fact i can see you are a true Turk hater, ...''
I have seen no objective evidence of the above.
Rather I have seen evidence of a ultra nationalistic fervor on your part. A violation of the Coc. I have warned members before of 'unwarranted' accusatory counter diatribe; when their positions were challenged. You will be no exception. You are now warned.
And this thread is closed.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 12-Sep-2015 at 15:21
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
You are not a Turk, that is a fact now, in fact i can see you are a true Turk hater, because you dont even know the obvious sayings of the Azerbaijan Turks, in which they clearly establish the the origin of the Azerbaijan Turks and the Türkiye Turks : "BIR MILLET, IKI DOVLET", which means "ONE TURK NATION, AND TWO STATES(AZERBAIJAN AND TURKIYE)".
Accept it or not, the Türkiye Turks, Azerbaijan Turks, Turkmenistan Turks, Uzbek Turks
and Kazakh Turks are the SAME SINGLE TURK NATION, they are NOT different
nations. Your hate crime feelings do not have any value in the mind of a neutral academician, end of the point! Copying and pasting meaningless graphics within 2 seconds will not give you any kind of bargain in our discussion. Please do not act like you are a Turk, you are not obviously.
As you fail to understand, the Türkiye Turks, Azerbaijan Turks, Turkmenistan Turks, Uzbek Turks and Kazakh Turks are the SAME SINGLE TURK NATION, they are NOT different nations.
Is this what you understood from my posts? I told you a million times, there is nocertain border between East Eurasian and West Eurasian. Some nations have to be somewhere between them and some of them have to be more close to one them from another.
Example:
Greeks 100% West Eurasian
Turks 95%
Azeris 80%
Turkmens 75%
Uzbeks 60%
Kazakhs 40%
This is it so it is not ignoring West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakhs.
But if you ignore the all population and focus on tribes, of course you can find a tribe which is more Uralic then averange Fins or which is more West Eurasian then a Caucausia nation
Focusing on some tribes is wrong method to talk about entire nations. They can be just side source after the research which bases all popuulation.
E, G, I, J, L, R, T"
As you fail to understand, the Türkiye Turks, Azerbaijan Turks, Turkmenistan Turks, Uzbek Turks and Kazakh Turks are the SAME SINGLE TURK NATION, they are NOT different nations.
Where do you base your frequencies on, did you make them up? You are being blind for results that dont interest you, please try to accept the obviously drawn facts.
And i mentioned about the 13,3% of East Eurasian Haplogroup Q among a group of Afshar Turks, where to put these results? Not to forget the fact that Türkiye has a population number more then 70 million, so is it possible to draw a healthy picture of all Turks with a couple hundred of participants of which the historical family line is not known?
Look i am not saying this, read and accept this quotation:
"Kazakhs, carrying C(25%) and J(18%) lineages in relatively high frequencies"
Study Name: Genetic Landscape of the Central Asia and Volga-Ural Region Study Author:E. K. Khusnutdinova Study Link: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-68656-1_26
Where to put the equally West(J) and East Eurasian(C) haplogroup frequencies among the Kazakh Turks found in this study? Closing your eyes on these obvious facts wont change anything, but you are free to do anything you wish.
If you really want to know the exact genetic structure of the Kazakh Turks, then feel free to test all 20-30 millions of them. Otherwise, your arguments are not valid. Each study result should be taken seriously, and each study results indicates to facts.
You can ignore the West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakh Turks
Is this what you understood from my posts? I told you a million times, there is nocertain border between East Eurasian and West Eurasian. Some nations have to be somewhere between them and some of them have to be more close to one them from another.
Example:
Greeks 100% West Eurasian
Turks 95%
Azeris 80%
Turkmens 75%
Uzbeks 60%
Kazakhs 40%
This is it so it is not ignoring West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakhs.
But if you ignore the all population and focus on tribes, of course you can find a tribe which is more Uralic then averange Fins or which is more West Eurasian then a Caucausia nation
Focusing on some tribes is wrong method to talk about entire nations. They can be just side source after the research which bases all popuulation.
What if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians like Andras Biro Zsolt, and for example what if these future studies will find dominating high frequencies of West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups J1, J2, R1a, R1b, T1a among many of the Kazakh sub tribes?
What if for example a group of 100 Botbay Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup J2? What if for example a group of 100 Altyn Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup R1a? What if for example a group of 100 Kyzylkurt Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup T1a? What if for example a group of 100 Karasakal Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup G1?
Small tribes can't change anything, just show that they faced a Turkification.
However, if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians and say that old analysis are wrong, majority of all Kazakh nation have haplogroup R1b genes (as Turkmens), I can believe you and I put them into West Eurasian Category.
Kazakhs are not red(East Asian) or yellow (West Asian). They are orange but slightly more East Asian
You can ignore the West Eurasian genetic components among the Kazakh Turks, but
neutral researchers will see truth among the data i have presented.
For example of the 178 Karkaralinsky Kazakh Turk participants, Y-DNA G1 is found with 52,8%(94 participants). This has nothing to do with small sample set.
Also, the final image you reshared of Kazakhstan Dna Project, if you were to be looking neutrally, you would have seen the fact that there are participants of 17 tribes at the associated study. Out of these 17 tribes, 6 tribes have clear majority of West Eurasian haplogroups. The remaining 11 tribes also contain minority of West Eurasian haplogroups.
The study Genetic Landscape of the Central Asia and Volga-Ural Region, of E. K. Khusnutdinova, has done a genetic study on the Kazakh Turks, this is a quote of the associated study:
"Kazakhs, carrying C(25%) and J(18%) lineages in relatively high frequencies"
Another quotation from the same E. K. Khusnutdinova study:
"There is an increasing evidence that Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b3 is not specific to west Europe but rather represent a genetic legacy of ancient widely spread population of Eurasia."
What if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians like Andras Biro Zsolt, and for example what if these future studies will find dominating high frequencies of West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups J1, J2, R1a, R1b, T1a among many of the Kazakh sub tribes?
What if for example a group of 100 Botbay Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup J2? What if for example a group of 100 Altyn Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup R1a? What if for example a group of 100 Kyzylkurt Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup T1a? What if for example a group of 100 Karasakal Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup G1?
Small tribes can't change anything, just show that they faced a Turkification.
However, if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians and say that old analysis are wrong, majority of all Kazakh nation have haplogroup R1b genes (as Turkmens), I can believe you and I put them into West Eurasian Category.
Kazakhs are not red(East Asian) or yellow (West Asian). They are orange but slightly more East Asian
As you see, majority of C + O which are not related with West Eurasian. Of course I can have genetic material from the first Central Asia but majority is not
And as you can see, i presented you 5 projects done by different academic groups. Why are you being blind for the other studies where obviously clear high West Eurasian frequencies are presented?
According to sources the Kazakh Turk population number in the world is approximately 20 million. There are dozens of Kazakh Turk tribes. Each Kazakh tribe has tens of thousands of families with many sub tribes.
Look at the following image to see a list of Kazakh Turk tribes together with their unique Tamga's/Damga's.
What if a new project will be performed by honoust, reliable and honourable academicians like Andras Biro Zsolt, and for example what if these future studies will find dominating high frequencies of West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups J1, J2, R1a, R1b, T1a among many of the Kazakh sub tribes?
What if for example a group of 100 Botbay Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup J2? What if for example a group of 100 Altyn Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup R1a? What if for example a group of 100 Kyzylkurt Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup T1a? What if for example a group of 100 Karasakal Kazakh Turks will have a dominating frequency result of Y-haplogroup G1?
As you see, majority of C + O which are not related with West Eurasian. Of course I can have genetic material from the first Central Asia but majority is not
Yes "majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types
but current Kazakhs are not West Eurasian
Then were do you put the high frequencies(see below) of Y-DNA haplogroup G, J, R, T among specific groups of Kazakh Turks? Are they not Kazakhs? I mean, just until the genetic/anthropological study of Andras Biro Zsolt, no one knew about the dominating Haplogroup G frequencies among the Kazakhs.
-Among the Karkaralinsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 52,8%(94/178),
-Among the Amangeldinsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 25,5%(36/141),
-Among the Akzharsky Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 55,6%(50/90),
-Among the Magzhan Zhumabaev Kazakh Turks, G1 is found with 25,5%(30/87),
-Among the Madjar tribe of the Kazakh Turks, Y-DNA haplogroup G1a is found with 86,7%.
-Among the Argin tribe of the Kazakh Turks, Y-DNA haplogroup G1a is found with 65,0%.
-Among the Kazakh Turks in the South-West region of the Altai Republic, Y-DNA haplogroup G2a is found with 6,7% and G1 is found with 10,0%
-Among a group of Kazakh Turks, the Y-DNA Haplogroup J is found with a frequency of 18%.
-In the Altai Republic, among the Kazakh Turks, Haplogroup K*(xL, N, O, P) is found with a frequency of 38,8%(19/49).
What if new studies on different Kazakh populations, will be made by neutral and reliable academic groups, where they will find many other dominating high frequencies of other West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups? All the results i have presented in here, show that the Kazakh Turks have equally West and East Eurasian Y-DNA genetic structure.
The same genetic structure is also present in the Türkiye Turks. There is yet not enough and reliable studies performed. During each genetic study, the historical background of each participant should be determined first. Majority of studies until now, do not take these important steps.
To give an example, at the Gökçümen et. al. 2011 study named "Biological Ancestries, Kinship Connections, and Projected Identities in
Four Central Anatolian Settlements: Insights from Culturally
Contextualized Genetic Anthropology", among a group of Afshar Turks, 13,3%(4/30) of East Eurasian Haplogroup Q was found. What if future studies find higher frequencies of other East Eurasian Haplogroups among the Türkiye Turks?
As a conclusion, the genetic structure of the Central Asian Turks is 100% the same as the genetic structure as the structure of the Turks of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, Balkans, Caucasus, Upper Crimean(Chuvashes, Bashkirs, etc...) regions.
You seem to claim every Y-DNA haplogroup as Turks.
Didn't you know since history Turks would turkified all their conquered inhabitants? this is why regions like central Asia, West Siberia, Caucasus who were historically of Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Caucasus ethnicites have people who have haplogroup native to the region. And the reason why haplogroup of Turks from Central Asia, Middle east, Turkey, west Siberia, Caucasus are all different from eachother.
I don't know where this source comes from but it seems more legit than fake data where it added proto-Turks as proto-Europoid
As you can see all Turks have large percentages of mtDNA and Y-DNA of Mongoloid, Caucasian and even south Asian origin to a extend. So we can all conclude there is so thing as pure West or East Eurasian haplogroup DNA.
1. The Haplogroups found among the Central Asian, Middle Eastern, Caucasian, Balkan and Siberian Turks are the same.
2. Among ALL MODERN NATIONS, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE NATION WHICH HAS ONLY ONE HAPLOGROUP.
Want to give an example of the Germanic modern nation:
-Napoleon is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA E1b. -Louis XVI is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA G2a. -15th century AD Martin Luther is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA I2a. -The House of Wettin is of Germanic ethnic origin, and belongs to Y-DNA R1b.
So, the presence of multiple haplogroups is present among all modern nations.
3. Among ALL ACNIENT POPULATIONS, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE POPULATION WHICH HAS ONLY ONE HAPLOGROUP.
4. Genetic Mutations did start/happen/occur TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. The History of the Majority of the Modern Nations do not go further than 3000-4000 Years ago. The Only Exception is the Modern Turk Nation, their history goes back to at least the Sumerians, whom are Proto Turks whom spoke the Proto Turk Language, which dates to approximately 7000 Years Ago (5000 BCE).
5. Comparing the Genetic Mutations which occurred tens of thousands of years DIRECTLY WITH Modern Populations can only be done by people with bad intentions, or by people with low IQ.
Simple example to help you understand:
Haplogroups R and T both occured out of the root K*-M9 mutation.
-Lets say that 20.000 years ago, there were 1000 people of the same nation and culture whom belonged to Y-Haplogroup K-M9.
-After this, a couple of thousands of years later, the mutations of the Haplogroups R and T are occurred out of the M9 mutation.
-Two persons of the same nation and culture whom had earlier K-M9 genes, now belong to the new mutations of haplogroups R and T. The two persons do not know anything about the occurence of the new genetic mutations, because the scientific branch of genetics was not discovered yet. The families of the two persons still live together as people of the SAME NATION, and continue to live like this until modern AD times.
-So if we now find the results of haplogroups R and T among the people of the same modern nation, are these people of different races? No, they are not!
There are 3 main anthropological types that define the human races. Each of these anthropological types are equal to multiple Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups. And the Proto Turks were people with Skull Types of a majority of West Eurasian types, and a minority of East Eurasian types.
The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan. The source from the graph never mentions those proto-European were proto-Turks yet this person deliberately added fake data.
It seems turks do not only claim Ancient Egyptian and the nomadic berber tribes of North Africa as Turks but even claim the original people of Kazakh who were Iranic speaking Indo-European people. Andronovo people.
Please read before try to answer. I used that graph to show kuzzer that mental irony by using his source. There is no need to be smart to understand that it is not an orginal graph
There is no such a thing like that
"The Iron Age is equal to the Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the modern Kazakh Turks"
Originally posted by kuzzar
The Iron Age is equal to the Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the modern Kazakh Turks. So, empty the filth in your hearth, and use your logics, If it is historically proven that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns/Turks, then are the ancestors of the Sycthians / Sakha's not the "Proto Turks", YES THEY ARE.
The fact is that the majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types, with a minority of East Eurasian anthropological skull types. It is a historical fact that the Huns and the Scythians spoke the Turk Language. Then, the ancestors of the West Eurasian Huns and the Scythians were the Proto Turks.
Yes "majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types "
The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan. The source from the graph never mentions those proto-European were proto-Turks yet this person deliberately added fake data.
It is not a fake data. It is an analysis of the table published by Orazak Ismagulov at his study named "Physical Anthropology of Kazakh People and their Genesis. Read the full article of the study paper and you will see that the comments(a couple of words) in red colour are correct.
The Iron Age is equal to the Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the modern Kazakh Turks. So, empty the filth in your hearth, and use your logics, If it is historically proven that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns/Turks, then are the ancestors of the Sycthians / Sakha's not the "Proto Turks", YES THEY ARE.
Originally posted by MrButlerKing
The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here
is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how
they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.
Kazakhs
today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were
Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and
Mongols.
Nowhere in the article at http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis is mentioned that the people of Kazakhstan were speaking the Iranian language, you are making this up, you are being pathetic and simple to deceipher.
Orazak Ismagulov is talking about the LABELS of the 3 MAIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPES:
So, i am asking you the Huns and the Han Chinese are different people of different nations/races, right? Historical documents proof this obviously fact, right? Then, is it not stupid to call the skull type of the Han Chinese Mongoloid? If the Han Chinese and Huns are from different races/nations from each other, then is it not stupid to call the Huns Caucasoid? Yes it is.
The fact is that the majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types, with a minority of East Eurasian anthropological skull types. It is a historical fact that the Huns and the Scythians spoke the Turk Language. Then, the ancestors of the West Eurasian Huns and the Scythians were the Proto Turks.
Example showing the fact that the core of the Huns and the Scythians/Sakha's are the same:
You know what's funny. These Turks always post data or Argin people with 65 - 87% G1 despite having a sample size of only 6 or 7 samples from a random village with few people.
And when you give Argin 30-60 samples.
Haplogroup G1 in Argin is only 18.33 - 20%
You know you are lying and spreading false information, dont you? Of course you do.
As you can see in the picture, the sample size in the "A Y-Chromosomal Comparison of the Madjars (Kazakhstan) and the Magyars (Hungary)" academic study is 45. If you do not have the proper IQ to read the values under the column with the letter of "n", i promise you i will help you to find out how to read these values.
As you can see, 39 of the tested 45 Kazakh Turks, belong to Y-DNA Haplogroup G1, this is 86,7%.
Bashkir Turks, Karachay Turks, Balkar Turks, Kumik Turks, Kuban Nogay Turks, Terek Cossack Turks, Karai Turks, ALL HAVE HIGH FREQUENCIES FOR Y-DNA HAPLOGROUP G.
You seem to claim every Y-DNA haplogroup as Turks.
Didn't you know since history Turks would turkified all their conquered inhabitants? this is why regions like central Asia, West Siberia, Caucasus who were historically of Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Caucasus ethnicites have people who have haplogroup native to the region. And the reason why haplogroup of Turks from Central Asia, Middle east, Turkey, west Siberia, Caucasus are all different from eachother.
I don't know where this source comes from but it seems more legit than fake data where it added proto-Turks as proto-Europoid
As you can see all Turks have large percentages of mtDNA and Y-DNA of Mongoloid, Caucasian and even south Asian origin to a extend. So we can all conclude there is so thing as pure West or East Eurasian haplogroup DNA.
You provide no sources, no names, no results, no nothing. You wont even provide one study name + results with Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies. Only one short sentence, with no data at all included in it. This shows your writing is insufficient. What is the name of your modern and more rational research? Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Türkiye Turks are not of Turk origin? Which frequencies for Türkiye and Central Asia do you provide as proof for your statements? You provide nothing, just an empty sentence, withouth a backed up solid argument...
Sorry for the late respond, I was at Summer vocation.
First of all, in my respond there is no aim to proof origin of Turks in Turkey. The only important point was in past people associate the Turks in Turkey with Central Asian and it was shown by the map.
For the name of the god, please decide something
Originally posted by kuzzar
Y-DNA Genetic Structure of Türkiye Turks = Y-DNA Genetic Structure of Ancient & Modern Central Asian Turks
As you said Ancient Central Asians not "=" with modern Central Asian (They are mixed with East Eurasins). This was my first objection. And you are confessing it in the below
Originally posted by kuzzar
. So, at the time of the Mongol Empire, the East Eurasian originated Turks(not equal to the root of the Sakha, Huns and Turks) merged together with the West Eurasian originated Turks(equal to the root of the Sakha, Huns and Turks) in Central Asia. Thats why the frequencies of parts of modern Central Asia became 50%-50% West-East Eurasian origin.
and not just Mongol period, increasing East-Eurasians began in Göktürk period so even Gökturks not pure blood children of ancient west eurasian who lived in Central Asia (Sakha, Huns...)
LOL FAKE GRAPH
The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan. The source from the graph never mentions those proto-European were proto-Turks yet this person deliberately added fake data.
It seems turks do not only claim Ancient Egyptian and the nomadic berber tribes of North Africa as Turks but even claim the original people of Kazakh who were Iranic speaking Indo-European people. Andronovo people.
The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.
Kazakhs today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and Mongols.
You know what's funny. These Turks always post data or Argin people with 65 - 87% G1 despite having a sample size of only 6 or 7 samples from a random village with few people.
First
of all, in my respond there is no aim to proof origin of Turks in
Turkey. The only important point was in past people associate the Turks
in Turkey with Central Asian and it was shown by the map.
For the name of the god, please decide something
I could not follow and understand this text...
Originally posted by Aeoli
As you said Ancient
Central Asians not "=" with modern Central Asian (They are mixed with
East Eurasins). This was my first objection.
and not just Mongol period, increasing East-Eurasians began in
Göktürk period so even Gökturks not pure blood children of ancient west
eurasian who lived in Central Asia (Sakha, Huns...)
Then how should we define the finding of East Eurasian Y-DNA Haplogroup C, found among the ancient skeletal remains of the 5300 - 4950 BCE Linear Band Keramik Culture from Hungary at the Gamba et al 2014 study?
At the following page, you can find information about this associated study named "Genome flux and stasis in a five millenium transect of European prehistory", Ancient DNA in Hungary region.
At the same Neolithic Age Linear Band Keramik Culture(plus the associated Lengyel Culture) and the Neolithic Age Spain Cultures(5200-5000 BCE)(for example La Brana) in Europe(regions from Germany to Hungary), the West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups E, F, G, H, I, J, R, T are found in the majority together with a minority of East Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroup C.
What is interesting in here, is that the ancient Neolithic persons with Y-DNA haplogroup C in European regions, had West Eurasian anthropological skull types. Which means that the majority of the Proto Turks had a West Eurasian origin, with a minority of East Eurasian origin. The same structure was found among the ancient Sakha's, Huns and Turks.
Majority or minority, does not matter, genetic mutations occurred tens of thousands of years ago, so it is the truth that East and West Eurasian originated people lived together for thousands of years ago as Proto Turks.
As a conclusion, the fact that ancient skeletal remains with Y-DNA Haplogroup C, from Neolithic Age of European regions, had West Eurasian anthropological skull types, and the fact that these people lived together with people from the exact same culture(which means they are of the SAME NATION) with West Eurasian Y-DNA Haplogroup like E, F, G, H, I, J, R, T, shows that the high frequencies of Haplogroup C found among the modern Kazakh Turks is not of foreign origin, and has for example the same origin as the high frequencies of West Eurasian Haplogroup G found among the modern Kazakh Turks.
So, the ancestors of the people that had an East Eurasian anthropological skull type 1000 years ago, could have a West Eurasian anthropological skull type 7000 years ago.
The table associated with the Gök Türks is only restricted to the anthropological skull types of Kazakhstan.
Even within several regions of Kazakhstan, during the Gök Türk Period, the Türks with West Eurasian origin were the majority. And it were the female skeletal remains who tended to have more East Eurasian skull types, while the male skeletal remains had mostly West Eurasian skull types.
For example, at a craniometrical/anthropological study about the ancient Kimak/Kimek tribe of the Gök Türks, the %73 of the Kimak skulls had a West Eurasian origin.
Originally posted by http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267
Anthropological and Archaeological Determinations about the Gok Turks
Most of the paleoanthropological material was found from S.Tchernikov excavations in Eastern Kazakhstan.
The skulls found by him belong to the Kimak Türks. A modest series of
the 6th - 11th centuries AD (Türkic time) is also available from the Northern and Western Kazakhstan.
These materials are described by V.V.Ginzburg (1958, 1960, 1963). He
encountered different degrees of anthropological composition of the 6th -
11th centuries AD (Türkic time) population. So, the nomadic Türks of Eastern Kazakhstan had a bigger Caucasoid admixture than the nomadic Türks of Northern Kazakhstan. A significant paleoanthropological material on Türkic tribes is from Pavlodar Irtysh area.
A
significant paleoanthropological material on Türkic tribes is from
Pavlodar Irtysh area. Here in the 1960 -1961. F.Kh. Arslanov uncovered
37 skeletons from five burials. All of them were in a fair state of
preservation. The skulls from the burials near villages Trofimovka,
Bobrovka and Pokrovka are dated 7th - 9th centuries AD, and the
skeletons from burials at state farm Jdanovka and village. Leontievka
are dated 10th-12th centuries AD. All these burials F.Kh. Arslanov
(1964, 1968) considered as the monuments belonging to the Kimaks.
Both male, and female groups by the majority of high taxonomic value
attributes are at a junction of Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial types. A
typological observation of Irtysh skulls also points to intermediate
character of morphological features of the buried. Generally, they have
inherent Caucasoid features, but with various degrees of admixture of
Mongoloid elements (Ismagulov, 1969).
Another craniological series of the 10th - 12th centuries AD from
Pavlodar Irtysh area is represented by 26 skulls (15 male, 10 female and
one child). This series is mostly from a necropolis located at 3rd
branch of Jdanov state farm, and partly from necropolis near village
Leontjevka. Averaged sizes of skulls with some measurements are listed
in the Appendix (see Table. 4) (not sited here).
The male group have
medium longitudinal and large crosswise diameters, hence, have a
brachicranial index, relatively low hight of the crania, medium sloped
and moderately wide forehead, high and very wide face medium -profiled
in a horizontal plane, high value for the nose bridge, strongly
protruding nose, medium high and relatively wide eye-sockets.
The average sizes in female skulls mostly coincide with the male skulls
(considering gender dimorphism), but in female group the face skeleton
is flatter in a horizontal plane and nose less protruding (i.e., female
faces are more doll-like and cute, but in Russian anthropological
tradition females are found to be more Mongoloid than their brothers).
A
series as a whole belongs to a great Caucasoid race, but at the same
time the fang indentations are not deep, the face skeleton is relatively
high and wide, and moderately flat in a horizontal plane, which
indicates a Mongoloid admixture.
This obsevation is also
confirmed by a typological analysis. So, it is easy to find
representatives of two big races among the skulls: Caucasoid and
Mongoloid. Most (16 skulls) belong to Caucasoid race, some from them remind softened Andronov-type skulls. Six skulls are judged to be Mongoloid, but even they are not totally homogeneous.
First, among them we discerned brachicranial and mezocranial types. Two
female skulls of the mixed type is difficult to attribute in greater
detail. A female skull from a burial near village Leontievka also has
mixed attributes.
In South Kazakhstan, out of the 22 Gok Turkish Kimak tribe, %73 has the
Europoid type, and 27% has the Mongoloid type. In here, people with
Europoid and Mongoloid skull types belong many other subtypes. This
again shows that several Y-DNA haplogroups could be found. In this
example, it shows that the Kimak's could have several Europoid Y-DNA
haplogroups.
At a recent study of Allentoft et al 2015, named "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia", the following results were found:
Between the years 1000 BCE - 889 AD, among the ancient Sakha and/or Hun
and/or Gök Türks from the Altai Republic region, the West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups J2 and R1a were found.
You provide no sources, no names, no results, no nothing. You wont even provide one study name + results with Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies. Only one short sentence, with no data at all included in it. This shows your writing is insufficient. What is the name of your modern and more rational research? Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Türkiye Turks are not of Turk origin? Which frequencies for Türkiye and Central Asia do you provide as proof for your statements? You provide nothing, just an empty sentence, withouth a backed up solid argument...
Sorry for the late respond, I was at Summer vocation.
First of all, in my respond there is no aim to proof origin of Turks in Turkey. The only important point was in past people associate the Turks in Turkey with Central Asian and it was shown by the map.
For the name of the god, please decide something
Originally posted by kuzzar
Y-DNA Genetic Structure of Türkiye Turks = Y-DNA Genetic Structure of Ancient & Modern Central Asian Turks
As you said Ancient Central Asians not "=" with modern Central Asian (They are mixed with East Eurasins). This was my first objection. And you are confessing it in the below
Originally posted by kuzzar
. So, at the time of the Mongol Empire, the East Eurasian originated Turks(not equal to the root of the Sakha, Huns and Turks) merged together with the West Eurasian originated Turks(equal to the root of the Sakha, Huns and Turks) in Central Asia. Thats why the frequencies of parts of modern Central Asia became 50%-50% West-East Eurasian origin.
and not just Mongol period, increasing East-Eurasians began in Göktürk period so even Gökturks not pure blood children of ancient west eurasian who lived in Central Asia (Sakha, Huns...)
Actually, if you check the history of genetic research, Anatolian people seemed as Central Asian and Mongoloid
as this map
After the modern more rational research, it changed
You provide no sources, no names, no results, no nothing. You wont even provide one study name + results with Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies. Only one short sentence, with no data at all included in it. This shows your writing is insufficient. What is the name of your modern and more rational research? Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Türkiye Turks are not of Turk origin? Which frequencies for Türkiye and Central Asia do you provide as proof for your statements? You provide nothing, just an empty sentence, withouth a backed up solid argument...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum