Talk:Origin of the Turkic peoples

Major source
Shouldn't the following source be dealt with in this article?
 * Cengiz Cinnioğlu, Roy King, Toomas Kivisild, Ersi Kalfoğlu, Sevil Atasoy, Gianpiero L. Cavalleri, Anita S. Lillie, Charles C. Roseman, Alice A. Lin, Kristina Prince, Peter J. Oefner, Peidong Shen, Ornella Semino, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Peter A. Underhill (2004). Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia, Hum. Genet. 114:127--148. DOI 10.1007/s00439-003-1031-4.

--Lambiam 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The following research paper studied the genetic relationship of the turkic-speaking minority of Gagauz Turks (Moldavia and Romania) with their neighbours and with Central Asians. The authors conlude that Gagauzes, a Turkic-speaking and Christian population, show closer affinities to their geographical neighbors than to other Turkic populations.

This is one more indication that most of the "Turkic" populations of Europe and possibly Anatolia are indigenous who adopted the turkish language.

Varzari A. et al. (2007), ''J Hum Genet. 2007;52(4):308-16''. (Epub 2007 Feb 16) Population history of the Dniester-Carpathians: evidence from Alu markers. 84.205.255.20 (talk) 19 Dec 2008.

Name "Genetic origins of the Turkish people" seems not explanatory, better change it to "Origin of the Turkish people in Anatolia". And please add some anthropological and biological information such as; Carleton S. Coon 's 1939 "The Races of Europe" (For "the main page" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm) (For "The Osmanli Turks" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-17.htm) and a "Racial Distribution" map that shows (For "Racial Distribution" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/08-06.htm), blood type percentage distribution (50's 60's), inherited diseases such as thalassaemia, sickle cell anemia(40's to 80's). And language shift is not something new, more than half of the Europe wasn't speak any indo-european language in four millenium ago, so it's hardly considered as indicator for origin.

--Giftlist (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Information that you're presenting in "Genetic origins of the Turkish people" mostly new(began 90's) and it should be considered inefficient without those old but confirmed data.
 * Even, it can be considered provocative for people who sees it first time.
 * I am very much aware that "race" is outdated human classification for now, but it was best you could get in beginning of 20th century.
 * Carleton S. Coon is definitely the source when it's come to objectivity;
 * One of the most important genetic research about Anatolian Turks (Cinnioğlu(Cinnioglu)) used with missing parts and not referenced.
 * while mentioning genetics you're missing that Y chromosome and mtDNA is not wholly recombine (means a person can carry European mtDNA with whole African morphology), so you have to give some autosomal data comparison of our neighbors to Central Asia, such as blood type percentage, inherited diseases and their percentage, hair type and color percentage, eye type and color percentage.
 * When its come to politicians with prejudices,i never heard any politic claim about our origin, i only know one newspaper(2007,Sabah) mentioned 10% to 15% intermixing from Central Asia, our history books(as far as i come across) still claims that we're came from Central Asia.
 * One of the reference(Genetic affinities among Mongol ethnic groups and their relationship to Turks) that showed in "References and notes" tells "The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations" in abstract section, somehow its been missed out.
 * The article is about the genetics of the Turks, not about history or linguistics. I believe that Wikipedia accomodates historical and other aspects of Turks under other titles. In any case, a Wikipedia article cannot be a multi-disciplinary post-doctoral research paper. If you are aware of any other genetics papers about Turkish (i.e. Turhish-speaking) people that lead to different conclusions, please add them to this discussion. 84.205.255.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC).
 * What do you mean history and linguistics? Thats like 1/10 what i wrote.
 * The subject is pre-genetics lineage reports. I just want you put some of those researches for accuracy of your article.
 * And the main reason i posted because, the name "Genetic origins of the Turkish people" focuses only one part of genealogy, therefore you cant put any anthropological information which this article need for verification(if this article really dealing with Origin of the Turks), "Origin of the Turkish people in Anatolia" can hold all genealogical information, so if move or add your genetic reports to this with provided informations from following links, i would be glad.
 * For "The Races of Europe, The main page" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm
 * For "The Races of Europe, The Osmanli Turks" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-17.htm
 * For "The Races of Europe, Racial distribution" http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/08-06.htm
 * For "Blood type percantage distribution" http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm
 * For "Sickle cell anemia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia
 * For "thalassaemia distribution" http://www.area.cs.cnr.it/imseb/malaria/talassemia/index_ing.html
 * For "Familial Mediterranean fever" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/5/e70

--Giftlist (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The article's kick-off claim: "...a dramatic shift in language barrier between Altaic languages and Indo-European languages." is meaningless. A shift "between?" Do you mean "from?" "to?" Well then, just say it! Tom Schmal (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious source
Arnaiz-Villena is a hack, so I marked the refs to him as dubious. Shouldn't be hard to find s.t. else. kwami (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i am gonna assume you have doubts about author's agenda, so that make you think that quotes from the author's articles are also should be false. Nonetheless here is some alternative sources and quotes for your dubious marks:


 * http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Cinnioglu2004.pdf
 * "high resolution SNP analysis provides evidence of a detectable yet weak signal (<9%) of recent paternal gene flow from Central Asia."
 * http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1287948
 * "...and the Turks lie between the geographically neighoring but linguistically distant Armenians and Greeks."
 * http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707616279
 * It is interesting to note that Turks present shorter genetic distances to the British than to central Asians, even though the central Asian populations' samples in the present study speak Turkic languages.
 * --94.122.199.216 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant references?
I red references 19a and b, i.e. the full article of Boljuncic J., (2007) and the abstract of ref. 19b (Keyser-Tracqui et al, 2003), which, along with 3 other references, are supposed to support that "Turks of Anatolia are genetically very much related to Turks of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Eastern Turkistan and Azerbaijan". Apart from the fact that these references and links do not correspond to each other, I found no relation between ref. "Boljuncic J.,(2007)" and the above statement of the article. The reference refers to a genetic research of 4 skeletons found in Croatia. Abstract of Ref. "Keyser-Tracqui et al, 2003" does not mention anything about turks genetics either, although I am not aware of the full text.

Also, questionable is the relationship of ref. 23 (Henke et al. 2001) to ref. 22, supposedly supporting that "Turkish Anatolian tribes may have some ancestors who originated in an area north of Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period". The combination of these two references, may at best confirm a genetic relation of two bodies found in Kazakhstan to turkish-speaking people of modern Anatolia who migrated to Germany. But does not conclude that the latter originated from the former. If turkish populations are indigenous of Anatolia since, say, bronze period, then the Kazakhstan human remains may originate from Anatolia or from a common ancestor somewhere between.

I haven't yer red the other references, but the above-mentioned samples do not encourage the reader to study further this section of the article. Centaurus50 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove this unreliable statements and sources. Jingby (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, the link ""Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis ..." of ref. 19 leads to the paper of Boljuncic, which is irrelevant..79.107.92.204 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the Turkish people:What about Iranians and Turkicized Iranian migrations into Anatolia.
Genetic origins of the Turkish people:What about Iranians and Turkicized Iranian migrations into Anatolia.

Knowing that the Turkish language have thousands of common words and a very similar grammar with Iranian languages.

Also the Alevi and Azeri Turks(as Turkicized Iranians)have very similar phenotypes with Iranians and Armenians(while Sunni western Turks have similar phenotypes with Greeks).

And we know that due to mongol conquests hundred of Iranians fled to Anatolia(Mevlana Jelaleddin Rumi,Bektashi etc etc...)

Humanbyrace (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tell us about this Iranian genetics? What is it exactly? How about the Azeris being Persianized in Iran today? What are these Iranian phenotypes? Tanned people with greasy black hair?

People move across borders they adopt new cultures and languages. Look at the USA are you going to call Americans Americanized/Anglicized French, Americanized/Anglicized Germans, Americanized/Anglicized Italians, Americanized/Anglicized Russians, Americanized/Anglicized Iranians, Americanized/Anglicized Africans, Americanized/Anglicized Arabs, Americanized/Anglicized Koreans, Americanized/Anglicized Vietnamese, Americanized/Anglicized Pakistanis, etc... Even if they identify as American?

There were Iranian influences in Turkey just like there were Russian influences, Greek influences, Albanians influences, Arab influences, Central Asian influences.

Why don't you look at Iran there were Russian influences, Turkish influences, Indian influences, Arab influences, etc...

Yesterday your ancestors could have spoken Hindi, today they speak Persian but tomorrow they could speak English.

Your blind nationalism/fascism makes you hate Turkey and Turkic speaking people because you dream about what once was and the presence of Turkey and Azerbaijan show you where your dreams belong - in the dustbin of history.

Ethnicities including Iranian are all modern constructs go back 10000 years ago or more and there was no Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.64 (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Turkish people.
Pleace, remove the added info about another Turkic (Uyghur) people to the article about the DNA of the Turkic people. Provide any sources for your statements. Jingby (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * About recent edits have been made by IP adress "141.213.162.128": Please provide references for this edits or they all will be considered as an act of Vandalism and they all will be reverted.


 * --6F-6C-63-61-79 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the references 141.213.162.128, but here is the problem:


 * http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/03/uyghurs_are_hybrids.php


 *  Around 2,000 years ago a reverse historical process occurred, the migration of Turkic peoples to the west from their Mongolian urheimat("homeland" in german). In some places the migration's genetic impact was minimal; e.g., Turkey.


 * http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00166-3


 * The word ‘‘Uyghur’’ (alternatively Uygur, Uigur, and Uighur) originates from the Old Turkish word ‘‘Uygur.’’ On the basis of its Old Turkish phonetics, the word ‘‘Uygur’’ was rendered differently in Chinese during different periods of China’s history.


 * This is some quotes from those article and blog that you put in reference section, these are only parts they are talking about Turkish people. If i'm making any mistake please correct me but this is not a reference for "striking similarites" of Turkish people to Uyghur people. XLinkBot already reverted your edits for putting "unwanted links" to article. However if you try to edit with those references, it will be reverted anyway.
 * --6F-6C-63-61-79 (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Population of Anatolia prior to Turkic invasion
There is no way to know the exact population yet a figure of 12 million is being said. However estimates place Turkeys population at 13.1 million in 1923 to 7 million by a French Foreign Office estimate in just after the first world war.

How could the population remain stagnant or even declined over a 1000 year period but within the last 80 years more than quadruple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.182.64 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see any mistake regarding 12 million population, only just an unclear sentence. The sentence goes as follows:


 *  Later during the late Roman Period, prior to the Mongol invasion, the population of Anatolia had reached an estimated level of over 12 million people.


 * It's sounds like just before Mongol invasion, population of Anatolia was 12 million. According to two of three given sources ("Russell, Josiah C. (October 1960)" and "Russell, Josiah C. (1958)") this number is right but for the "Late Roman Period" not for the prior to the Mongol invasion or 1000 A.D.. Russell (1958) says, during the Roman period(1 A.D) population of Anatolia reached 8.8 million, then made a peak at the late Roman Period (350 A.D) with 11.6 million. After the Plague of Justinian at 600 A.D population of Anatolia fall down to 7 million which is also killed 50% of the Europe. At the 1000 A.D (prior to Mongol invasion) population reached 8 million and numbers stayed same for centuries. After the Black plague (14th century) numbers fall to 6 million and it didn't reached 12 million for four centuries.
 * --6F-6C-63-61-79 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What about janissary?(paedomazoma,Devşirme)

 * it should also be noted that during the years of ottoman empire, 'paidomazoma' occured or blood tax, which stands for the gathering of male toddlers coming from greek,armenian and jewish families and their turkification, who would grow up to be 'jenitsari'. don't forget that ottoman army could be made up just by turks

94.67.51.112 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although there is no genetic research about Greek, Jewish and Armenian people who are currently living in Asia Minor, there are substantial amount of genetic research have been made people who is living in Balkans and Greece. According to Wikipedia janissary and Devşirme pages: janissaries and Devşirmeler (paedomazomas) were mostly coming from Balkans:


 * As borders of the Ottoman Empire expanded, the devşirme was extended to include Bulgarians, Armenians, Croats, Bosnians and Serbs and later Romanians, Georgians, Poles, Ukrainians, southern Russians, and Black Africans.


 * If we compare some Balkan genetic markers to Anatolian genetic markers, we may answer the question of "how much of the Turkish genetic pool is made up by janissaries and paedomazomas". According to Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe, while Greek and Albanian populations carrying considerable j2b-M241* haplogroup: Greeks=%8.7, Albanians=%14.5, Turkish people were only at %1 (Cinnoglu et al - 2004). Another interesting Haplogroup is I-M170*: while Turks carrying %5 I-M170* haplogroup, Albanians were at %21.7 and Greeks were at %9.8. Considering these two haplogroups were also found neighboring countries (I-M170* only north), we can easily say that Turkish people were not made up by the grandsons of janissaries and paedomazomas. There is a exception of course, which is Crete, but this very close connection between Anatolia was connected to neolithic expansion(8000 B.C).


 * Additional: If language replacement is so hard to believe, please remember that today's USA is only %20 percent English and today's France, Spain and Portugal is %0 Italian.--78.188.112.93 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The janissary was important political group, but their numbers are just not enough to change the population's gene pool. Janissary was recruited as soldiers and they spent most of their life in barracks. the recruitment was highly dependent on how many solders died during a battle. in most of the time janissary only numbers 10 thousands and since 17 century, as the empire start to decline and heavy corruptions. the janissary no longer gather its soldiers from the christian people, but mainly the offspring of the older janissary and local children from rich families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many mistakes in this article.
Native Anatolians began to use Altaic languages instead of Indo-European

There was many languages spoken in Anatolia not related to Indo-Europeans (guti,hatti,kaski,lulubbi,akkadian,assyrian,colchi....)

I think that you know that language and phenotype are two independant,not connected concepts ie indo-europeans dont fit with the "caucasoid" phenotype as the first is a linguistic concept and the second is a biologic one,there are very dark indo-europeans as Bengali,Sinhali(and nowadays a great part of indo-europeans are "mestizo"(populations of Mexico,Bolivia,Peru...) or "negroid"(Nigeria,Kongo,Brazil,USA...)and first(and perhaps proto)indo-europeans were likely of the "mediterranid" phenotype(as originating in either Anatolia,either Balkan,either Central Asia and not Scandinavia)not the "nordic" one.

the Anatolian Turks are overwhelmingly indigenous to the area and they are in no sense racially Mongoloid.[3]

Huh,there are central asian Turkic speaking peoples who are not(and were not)"racially" "mongoloid".

''Y chromosome Haplogroup distribution of Turkish people[29] J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula. J2=24% - Typical amongst Near Eastern and Western Asia peoples. R1a=6.9% - Typical of Eastern Europeans and Central Asians I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans and Balkan populations R1b=14.7% -Typical of Central Asia and Western Europeans G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus E1b1b=11.3% - Typical amongst populations of the Balkans. N=3.8% - Typical of Siberian and Altaic populations T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean and South Asian populations K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations. L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations. Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.''

All the above listed haplotypes(except J1,I,E1b1b,T,R1b)could have been carried by newcomer Turks (Oghuz,Kypchak...) Mongols, Iranians, Turkicized Iranians etc...

Which mean that the influx of Turks,Mongols and Turkicized Iranians could be as much as 30-40% which remains a big ratio compared to a country like Spain whose population is nearly 70% R1b =the haplotype associated with local original pre indo-european Iberians (such as Vasconic and Iberic speaking peoples)but has adopted a romance language(which has for origin a tiny region in actual Italia)imposed(rather forcefully)by a couple Roman officials.

Humanbyrace (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

R1b
R1b must be listed in "Central Asian Haplogroups" list,Uyghurs have it as 20% also Turkmens have it 33%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.80.73 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, R1B1B2 is european either ht35 or ht15, R1B1B1 is asian! Here a current database http://www.familytreedna.com/public/turkey/default.aspx?section=yresults —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.228.109 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish needs explanation
This article tries to present the discussions about the origins. Nevertheless, one important question remains unanswered. Why do Turkish people speak Turkish ? Prior to 1071, although many languages were spoken in Turkey none of them was Turkish and the the official language was Greek. After 1071, the language of the religion was Arabic and the lingua franca in Muslim world was Persian. Moreover the ruling class (Seljuks) was under Persian influence. Under those conditions, it is next to impossible to explain Turkification unless a much greater wave of migration is hypothesised. In the article there are references to Seljuks and Temur. But an equally important wave has been omitted. In 1220s, after the collapse of Khwārazm-Shāh dynasty, many Turkish tribes migrated (or rather escaped) to Turkey and after 1243 still others came together with the Ilkhanid army. So the percentage of Turkish share in Anatolian gene pool must be higher than it is assumed. I am not trying to ignore the gene researches. But somebody should explain how the rural minority imposed its language to the majority. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree...Many Central Asian Turks migrated to Anatolia after 1071.Also Mongol Invasion in Central Asia caused a HUGE Turkmen migration.If you include Kipchak/Cuman and Pecheneg communities in Anatolia,who were in there before Seljuks(most of them were Christianised Turkic soldiers),we have too much Central Asian blood.Also if we would be just a "Turkificied" nation,we would speak a hybrid language like Peruvians speak half-mayan half-spanish but Turkish Language Community(TDK) proved most of words in Turkish(Nearly %70) have Turkic origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.102.51 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no major influx of Latins in France, still France is majoritly Latin speaking, there was no major Portuguese influx in Angola still Angola is majoritly Portuguese speaking, there was no major Hungarian influx in Hungary but still Hungary is majoritly Hungarian speaking.

What occured is: local Anatolians adopted Ottoman Turkish of the rulers as a lingua franca but still all the high culture words of Turkish and the words for animals, colors, foods, fruits, music, tools, fishes, musical instruments are either Greek either Persian either Arabic either Anatolian.

The amount of migrant Turkman (Turkicized men in Persian) is most propably no more than 5% overwhelmingly men, that diluted culturally and autosomogenetically in the middle-eastern Anatolian pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.65.4 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a flaw in logic in the the preceding talk. Angola of the Portuguese colonial empire and Anatolia of Seljuks are not comparable.  Probably, there was no common language in thinly populated Angola before the Portuguese rule. So, the people readily adopted the language of the rulers as a common means of communication. The same may also be true for the other examples cited. But in Anatolia, Greek had already been adopted as a common language. Besides, the Seljuk rulers  didn’t impose Turkish on the Anatolian people. Just the reverse, the elits (the sultan’s family, the viziers etc.) preferred Persian.  Under these circumstances, how can Turkish be the common language of the country unless a much greater migration is proposed ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena
There are plenty of sources that Osmanli Turks are genetically Anatolian rather than Turkic. We don't need to ref crackpots like Arnaiz-Villena. Indeed, the following ref states almost the exact same thing! I also deleted the preceding reference, which was "}}". You might want to add a valid reference rather than reverting to gibberish. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Central Asian Turks
"Native Anatolians began to use Altaic languages instead of Indo-European languages after the migration of Turkic speaking groups into Anatolia. Scientists have long debated the extent to which this shift in language was accompanied by a genetic replacement of the former population. the Anatolian Turks are overwhelmingly indigenous to the area and they are in no sense Mongoloid phenotype."

--funniest of all in the text. the text claims such a small number of mongoloid turks are coming to anatolia and they are no successful at changing the dna pool but able to change all those indo-iranian or probably afghan peoples languages.... such a small mongoloid group of people can conquer the anatolia and balkans but they somehow dont affect the dna structure of anatolia...

this will remain a funny article. because speaking of the turkish and turkic dna is pretty funny without knowing the racial structure of the northern caucasus, northwestern asia and even central asia. this is totally like saying all asians are chinese. i laughed a lot

iranians... as a people living in asia... how could they become caucasian? and indians? wow lets start an article about genetic origins of iranians. cos this sounds magical this is totally ignoring the caucasian population of asia. like it is impossible a caucasians being in asia. lol

whats next, genetic origins of the greeks? how could the balkan dna be replaced with the ethiopian dna? wow why dont you go and start an article and explain people all your bullying thoughts. isnt wikipedia for this? --88.226.111.234 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)