Question on genetics

[jgk3]

Re: Question on genetics

I really like the sense this post makes.

It's pretty obvious that our genes will be similar to the people who we have lived next throughout the ages. Georgians, Azeris, Turks, and maybe Kurds as well will all share close similarities to us. And you make a good point, mountainous folks do not admixture as much because of the geography. In comparison to other groups of people, Armenians have been on the low side when it comes to admixture, some of it can be explained by our geography.

I'm not dismayed buddy, on the contrary i think the similarities can be used to bring peace in the region. We have extremist Armenians and Azeris, who think their people are unique in this world, and vilify one another in the most extreme ways possible.

It feels good when people agree with what I have to say :P

Ayrudzi, having common genes imo has never resulted in people getting along. Ever heard of family feuds?

Conflict between two groups will breed feelings of uniqueness. Of course we might have unique cultures, different from the rest in important ways, but rather than enriching and celebrating these, when we are at war we freeze them so that they can become consolidated as a kind of dogma to indoctrinate violence, everything enjoyable about our culture suddenly becomes exalted as something precious that needs to be defended by force of arms.

And regarding extremism, when a population is scared of being attacked, their fight or flight instinct kicks in and extreme actions cease to feel as extreme as they did during times of peace. If you want to minimize extremism, I think you have to maximize feelings of safety and security in the hearts of the people, so that when they think of the future, they imagine good things.

[ayrudzi]

Re: Question on genetics

I was looking at the sight more closely, and it states that Azeris have a significant amount of middleeastern/northafrican dna also 15% of their population is stated as having "other" which when I read the fine print genes from Asia will be stated in the "other" category. The fine print also noted that Turkey has the highest dna from Asia as well. So We are not that close genetically with the Azeris after all. Even though there are many turkofied Caucasians and Persians, there is a large part of their dna that still holds to their foreign origins.

[jgk3]

Re: Question on genetics

It really depends how you choose to look at it.

Because the Muslim populations in Anatolia were by nature less (or not at all) restrictive of marriages with Muslim Central Asian and Muslim Middle Eastern traders, administrators and soldiers, then of course those genetic interminglings will show up in a higher percentage of the population than they do with Armenians, who were a center of Christianity in the region that was highly differentiated socially from other ethnic groups, with its own hierarchy and religious community. But, because Azeris, Turks and Armenians share a common sub-stratum of genes which dates back thousands of years in Anatolia, these similarities do make us quite similar genetically. The differences between us are recent, and our similarities are old.

Another issue is the question of how homogenous "Turks", "Azeris" and "Armenians" are as ethnic groups. Are they of equal level of genetic homogeneity, or is there more variation in the makeup of one group than with another?

[ayrudzi]

Re: Question on genetics

It really depends how you choose to look at it.

Because the Muslim populations in Anatolia were by nature less (or not at all) restrictive of marriages with Muslim Central Asian and Muslim Middle Eastern traders, administrators and soldiers, then of course those genetic interminglings will show up in a higher percentage of the population than they do with Armenians, who were a center of Christianity in the region that was highly differentiated socially from other ethnic groups, with its own hierarchy and religious community. But, because Azeris, Turks and Armenians share a common sub-stratum of genes which dates back thousands of years in Anatolia, these similarities do make us quite similar genetically. The differences between us are recent, and our similarities are old.

Another issue is the question of how homogenous "Turks", "Azeris" and "Armenians" are as ethnic groups. Are they of equal level of genetic homogeneity, or is there more variation in the makeup of one group than with another?

Armenians are pretty homogeneous to the area. Almost all of our genes are from within the Armenian Highlands. We have some R1a which is Iranian/Slavic, also some J which is your basic Arab gene. However those two genes are in the minority when compared to J2(originated in area of Northern Mesopotamia, Armenian Highlands, and South Caucasus) R1b(western part of Armenian Highlands), and G (Caucasus)

Turks and Azeris even though they share the regional genes with us, also tend to have north African, middle eastern, and of course central Asian genes that is missing in Armenians.

[Armanen]

Re: Question on genetics

One thing is crystal clear. Armenians were formed as a distinct ethnic group before any of our modern neighbors (we can debate about Persians), especially the turks and azeris (Caucasian tatars).

[Mos]

Re: Question on genetics

One thing is crystal clear. Armenians were formed as a distinct ethnic group before any of our modern neighbors (we can debate about Persians), especially the turks and azeris (Caucasian tatars).

Turks were a nomadic barbaric tribe coming from central asia. Their "race" was formed through genocides, rape, and cultural distortions. The country of Turkey and the Turkish identity today is fake - they have stollen the lands, culture, of the native Anatolian people, and with it forcibly admixtured themselves with those people.

[Qami]

Re: Question on genetics

What does mean for You Azerbaijani? Azerbaijan is a young state, the majority of it are no turks no trkic peoples, they have less mongolid phenotypes than the turks. Lezgi, Tsaxur, Avar, Rutul... peoples on the one hand and Tati, Tolishi peoples one the other hand, are genetically quiet a majority and were it untill sombedy decidet to eliminate them from the map...
For that reason the wish of many so called Azerbaijani to associate with Iran or Aghvanq is so high.
In ancient times for example Aghvan people for us were no strangers, and we had a lot of relations and even specially in Artsakh, Utiq...
Turks are quiet different from Azerbaijani, and Azerbaijani again still are queit different from most Azari...
Azari are mostli related to Tolishi, Azerbaijani have more Caucasin naations assimilated, and after there is a big black mass of turkic, semitic and so on intermixed tatars...
Turks have many Armenian, Laz, Georgian, Circassian, Greek, Kurd, Zaza, Arab and European genes, but still the mongolic component is relatively high.

When 1. being Armenian is based upon religion and language, and
I agree that Hay linel@ is based on language, but what did You mean with religion?
To be Armenian is not related to no religion. More over every religion is bringing every Armenian far of being Armenian.

[retro]

Re: Question on genetics

Turks were a nomadic barbaric tribe coming from central asia. Their "race" was formed through genocides, rape, and cultural distortions. The country of Turkey and the Turkish identity today is fake - they have stollen the lands, culture, of the native Anatolian people, and with it forcibly admixtured themselves with those people.

Only around 5% of Anatolian Turks have Mongol ancestors. Turkey has been partially Arabised and nearly half the country are now Kurds. What is more Turkey clearly still has all sorts of Anatolian, Armenian, Assyrian and Greek infuences.

The Turkic tribes are orginally from Western Mongolia and Siberia. Mongols, Turkics and Uralics are all cold adapted Northern Eurasians. Which is why Northern Europeans/Russians and Uralics have ancient ties. The 'Turks' supposedly emerged from among the Huns and Turkic people have very little to do with Anatolian Turks in an ethnic or cultural sence. As the Tatars (Bulgars) in Russia have far more NE Asian ancestry than the Turks or Azaris.

The Chuvash and Tatars are Bulgars and not all Asiatic, Eurasiatic are Mongolian type peoples. Whilst the Chuvash's Mongoloid admixture is around 10%-20%. The Chuvash maternal ancestry is indigenous Northern European.

The Bulgar language however is from the Southern Russia/Caucasus.

See Utigurs (Bulgar) on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs

[Armanen]

Re: Question on genetics

Only around 5% of Anatolian Turks have Mongol ancestors. Turkey has been partially Arabised and nearly half the country are now Kurds. What is more Turkey clearly still has all sorts of Anatolian, Armenian, Assyrian and Greek infuences.

The Turkic tribes are orginally from Western Mongolia and Siberia. Mongols, Turkics and Uralics are all cold adapted Northern Eurasians. Which is why Northern Europeans/Russians and Uralics have ancient ties. The 'Turks' supposedly emerged from among the Huns and Turkic people have very little to do with Anatolian Turks in an ethnic or cultural sence. As the Tatars (Bulgars) in Russia have far more NE Asian ancestry than the Turks or Azaris.

The Chuvash and Tatars are Bulgars and not all Asiatic, Eurasiatic are Mongolian type peoples. Whilst the Chuvash's Mongoloid admixture is around 10%-20%. The Chuvash maternal ancestry is indigenous Northern European.

The Bulgar language however is from the Southern Russia/Caucasus.

See Utigurs (Bulgar) on this map.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs

The Tatars are not Bulgars. The Tatars are related to the Bulgars, and there are some remnants of the Bulgars who live in the Volga region. Certainly the two ethnic groups have mixed over the centuries but the Bulgars predate the Tatar arrival in the area. Furthermore, the Bulgars were Turkic, some theories, mostly Bulgarian nationalist ones, claim Iranic. The Tatars were closely related to the Mongols of the Golden Horde, a number of them in fact were the descendants of the Mongols.

[retro]

Re: Question on genetics

The Tatars are not Bulgars. The Tatars are related to the Bulgars, and there are some remnants of the Bulgars who live in the Volga region. Certainly the two ethnic groups have mixed over the centuries but the Bulgars predate the Tatar arrival in the area. Furthermore, the Bulgars were Turkic, some theories, mostly Bulgarian nationalist ones, claim Iranic. The Tatars were closely related to the Mongols of the Golden Horde, a number of them in fact were the descendants of the Mongols.

Whilst the Bulgars and Tatars are a related Western Turkic/Hunnic type peoples and the Cyrillic alphabet has Bulgar associations.

Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Volga_Bulgaria

Bulgarian is fairly closely related to Macedonian and as I'm sure you know the Bulgarians are a Orthodox, South Slavic speaking Balkans people. The Bulgarians have Dacian, Illyrian and Thracian origins with Bulgar and later Slavic influences. Thrace is a interesting region historically and Spartacus, the famous Roman rebel slave leader was a Thracian.