Turkey

Why do turks from Turkey look like caucasoids/arabs while other Turkic people look more mongoloid?

Other urls found in this thread:

biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/
etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Proper Turks are a hapa of East Asian mongoloids and Indo-Europeans. Their offspring in T*rkey is a mixture of them and local Anatolians. Pontic Greeks are genetically much more similar to the bronze age Anatolians for example.

Turks have very little in common genetically with Turkics besides language, they are anatolians mixed with a lot other non-turkic peoples, like the Yoruk, the Kurds, Circassians and Arabs.

Yakuts aren't hapas. They could be Uralic in origin though.

The man in your pic looks like a descent human being, not at all like a ro*ch

Other people ITT have explained why Turks in Turkey look different but also keep in mind the Mongol conquest of Central Asia may make Central Asian Turkics look more mongoloid.

Post that meme
Tou know the one I'm talking about

...

...

why do modern turks, chalcolithic armenians, early bronze age armenians, middle late bronze age armenians and modern armenians all cluster together?

They're mutts

Because they are all predominantly CHG.

...

Isn't this proof that the Armenian genocide didn't happen? How can you be genocided by your own people?

What happened to him. Haven't seen any new pics or webms for the longest time.

Because those Turks are actually Greeks/Anatolians/Armenians/Cappadocians (i.e. people from the Roman empire) that were conquered and adopted the culture of their conquerors

Roaches are mixed Greek mutts. That's why.

Yoruk people are Turkish

Alpinid/mediterranid phenotype intermediation basically

TURKS =/= TURKIC

There are no Turks in that PCA plot

pic related a PCA plot with Anatolians, Greek Anatolians and Armenians and Turks

Scientifically debunked meme. Stop parroting outdated haplomeme studies. Here's what actual studies say

biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/18/015396.full.pdf

>Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient Anatolians. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/
>In comparison, the weight for the migration event predicted to originate from the branch ancestral to East Asia (presumably Central Asia) into current-day Turkey was 0.217

etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12607764/index.pdf

>Moreover, results pointed out that language in Anatolia might not have been replaced by the elites, but by a large group of people. Therefore, it can be concluded that the observations do not support the elite dominance model of Renfrew (1987 ; 1991).

got your answer? now fuck off.
also
>Roman Empire

Byzantines were not Roman. No amount of LARP can change this. Also if you said this to me i'd probably break your bones. I love beating up delusional Byzaboo subhumans like you. We buried your Byzantine Empire alive. It ain't coming back. You can cry about it.


First, we're not same as Armenians. Armenians are Kurdish and Arab rapebabies plus monobrow.
Second, if we did indeed genocide Armenians trust me there'd be no such thing as "Armenia" or "Armenian people". We're going to genocide Europeans for real though. We're taking over demographically. Your priests and nuns wil be lynched alive in the streets of Europe.

Also not all Turkics look asian. You can find lots of Caucasoid people in Central Asia.

>Turks have very little in common genetically with Turkics besides language

oh my oh my

look at how vague connection we have :DD

we wuz neoltihci anatolianz XDDDD we wuz not Turkic XDDDD

>Yoruks

Yoruks are Turks. Retarded subhuman. Holy fucking shit those inbreds should be banned for talking about things that they don't know.

There were no Greeks in Anatolia. Only Hellenized Anatolians.

Get your facts straight or else i'll stick your keyboard up your white ass.

>There are no Turks in that PCA plot
yes there are. the grey dots are modern populations. here they are labeled. turks are actually slightly closer to bronze age armenians than armenians are.

>yes there are
no there are not. Stop shitposting.

Also in Western Eurasia PCA plots Turks are close to Armenians BECAUSE there are no Central Asians and East Asians and South Asians in the PCA plot.and in your meme pca plot Abkhasians are literally 90% Chinese and 10% Caucasian.

But when those populations are added, you can see the difference between Arab rapebaby Armenians and Turks.

look in the mirror, """turk""". do you look more like a mongolian or an armenian?

>Do you look like a Mongolian or an Armenian

Hmm

Do I look like a non Turkic ethnicity or an another non Turkic ethnicity but with monobrow?

Turkics are far away from Mongolians. Now shoo before i rape you in the ass ITT.

That map is a meme. Kalash are pretty unique genetically.

it's mostly focused on Turkics and non Turkic Central Asians (Hazaras and Tajiks). There are 3 main sources of genetic contribution in Central Asia

1- Mongol like Asian ancestry
2- Middle East/European like ancestry
3- Indian like (probably just Iranians having them) ancestry

and the fun fact is that our ancestors Turkmens are literally more close to Tajiks and Middle Easterners than to Mongolians or Kazakhs/Kyrgyzes. Some even cluster with them. This means that even if Turks did not mix with Anatolians, a thread like this would still exist.

by the way here all Anatolian Turks and their mongoloid admixture

why do roaches wuzz harder than every nigger on the planet

Why do crackers burn in the sun?

They're still salty no one considers the Ottoman Empire a continuation of Rome.

Well conquering people and taking their women is fun and everything but if you do it too often you start to become like them.

Yoruks are the most turkic of turks though faggot.

Turkics always mixed with the locals of the area they settled in. Southern central asia has people mixed with iranics while northern has people mixed with slavs. Besides central asia was settled by iranics before the turkic conquest and not all of them were massacred or driven off.

>him
Sorry to disappoint, but Anzu is a girl.

anyway if you're looking for serious replies ITT read these

Teleuts, Khanty and Mansi are

Because modern Turks are rape babies. Also, language doesn't define genetics.

Nah but the balkan christians are.
After all the ottomans didn't rape muslims.

They were proto turbo mongols

So, you are saying that Anatolia was muslim before the turks invaded it?

My anecdotal evidence from living in turkey for 2 years: I saw just about every phenotype imaginable (yes even a ginger from Thrace/Trakia) The western side and Aegean coats seems to have generally more "Greek" complexions and amongst Turks themselves the women from Aegean coast (particularly Smyrna/Izmir) are considered the most beautiful in turkey (lots of natural blondes with fair complexion and blue/green eyes)

The monkey men memes and roaches are usually concentrated in the east/south and are usually found rurally. I don't think it is meaningful to discuss a single Turkish phenotype.

You have this

This. (You can see the light asianess)

And people with actual fur. You do see mongoloid looking people occasionally but very often they have Azerbaijani roots or are a mix of Turkish and some other Turkic country

why didn't turks make any efforts to improve anatolia in terms of cultural and technological sophistication? isn't that usually what people do when they colonise a place?

Neither did the byzantines really. They both gave little fucks about the interior and sandy east of Anatolia. Coastal regions are more wealthy and important in terms of trade, military and transport etc. ergo they were the areas which were heavily developed.

the "byzantines" didn't colonise anatolia and had been living there since the bronze age.

True if you consider Byzantines to be the hellenized Anatolian population. But Romans did colonise and didn't bother with the internal part of the country beyond colonizing for the sake of building connections between major population centers. Much for the same reason the ottomans never bothered either. It is pretty rugged terrain low in population and resources.

. Here is the answer why in concise pictorial form. The ottomans did try and I prove the coastal cities. The internal part of Anatolia was relatively poor in exploitable resources and low in population.

The Turks didn't colonize anatolia either. Most AnatolianTurks literally have zero Turkic blood despite speaking a Turkic language. Most of them have Turkic names because they were forced to in 1924.

...

...

...

...

...

Because Turks that settled in Anatolia were probably around 100,000 or even less while the pre-existing population was of several million. That means most Turks have more Anatolian blood than Turkic blood

Why are Turks so hairy though? Not even arabs are as hairy. Asians are fairly hairless. Were the native anatolians monkey men?

The fact that Eastern Anatolia had an important Alevi/Shia minority and the proximity of Persia also played a role in the lack of interest of the sultans for the region, I guess ?

Because Turkey is one of the most mixed countries in the world.
Even tho those erdogan turkroaches dont want to realise that.

WE WUZ ROACH N SHIET
No seriously you muslim scum be sure that a lot of europeans are just waiting for an occasion to destroy your kind and send its remnants back to the middle east and oh boy it sure will be fun

Ever seen a full blooded anatolian hill turk/kurd?

Sasquatch style, even the women.

What religion do the original turks follow? Or what did they use to follow in case they converted to the retarded abrahamic religions

Kul-Tegin's face has clearly Mongoloid features, and the descriptions of the early Turks by both Chinese and Westerners chroniclers certainly describe them as Mongoloid Asians.

Monocultural domination of a multi-ethnic populace

>Not even arabs are as hairy
Nope

The average is 15-20% faggot.

Yes, I saw a young female Turkish child who was quite marginally hairier than me (a bearded adult male) It was utterly mind bending. Poor little thing.

Because they were repeatedly assimilated by Persians, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and especially Arabs and other Semitic Near-Easterners.

Its the other way round.

>small bands of Turks assimilated large sedentary populations of urban ethnic groups and peoples
Doubt that.

Do you understand what assimilation means?

Do you?

user are you retarded aside from the kurds everyone in turkey speaks turkish as their mother tongue and identifies as turks.

And no one else in the Near East or Southern Europe where Turks took over speak Turkish. Same with the language, Ottoman Turkish isn't even intelligible or mutually understandable to a native modern Turkish speaker today.

>in Turkey
We're talking genetically here, especially following the reply chain why 99% of Turks look like Arabs in Turkey.

Group X abandons their language for the language of culture Y due to pressure or convenience.
Y here are the Turkics.
If Y were assimilated into X then Persians and Greeks would have Turkic heritage(far more than they actually do).

yeah okay but why do modern Turks look like the average sand nigger and not a steppe nigger?

Tengrism or Manichaeism.