http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html
the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%. It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolian, but it is by no means negligible.Most Turks are actually Greek, Armenians, Arab, and others who "went Turk".Remember that as per the Ottoman Millet system, if you converted to Islam, you were no longer classified as Greek or Armenian but as a Turk
You can refer to discover magazine
Turkish samples have non-trivial, though minor, northeast Asian ancestry. The Yakut themselves are a Turkic group situated to the north of Mongolia. The more southerly and central Asian affinities the nomadic ancestors of the Anatolia Turks may have picked up in their sojourns over the centuries between their original homeland in east-central Siberia and Mongolia and West Asia. The rest of ancestry is rather typical of northern West Asian groups. In particular, Armenians!Turks picked up Persian ancestry from living centuries around Persian people and conquering them, intermarriage with rampant, because many of these places were conquered by mostly males warrior bands...yes they also mixed with Greeks, Armenians, Mongols, etc. However as they moved West the more Western they became in biology.
A straightforward one would be that the Muslim Turk population of Anatolia has a strong bias toward having been assimilated Armenians rather than Greeks. The cultural plasticity of Armenians in late antiquity and the early medieval period was clear: individuals of ethnic Armenian to origin rose the pinnacles of the status hierarchy of the Orthodox Christian Greek Byzantine Empire. The Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantines under which the civilizationreached its mature peak were descended from Armenians who had resettled in Macedonia. Just as plausible to me is that eastern Anatolia as a whole exhibited little genetic difference between Greeks and Armenians, and the former were wholly assimilated or migrated, while the Armenians remained. One way to test this thesis would be type the descendants of Greeks who left eastern Anatolia during the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 1920s.They are culturally Turkic, but biologically no
Thank you for the link an information.
I will have to study that to fully understand it better.
Outstanding! Exactly what I was wondering about. Many thanks!
From one of the comments in the Discover article:
“The ethnic Turks ... did conquer Anatolia and other parts of the Middle East, [but] they never really colonised the regions properly and contributed very little of their genes to Anatolia. The result was that the Turkic language became dominant in Anatolia, but aside from that, not much changed.”
So Anatolia is pretty much the same now genetically as it was in the 11th century.
I can’t tell from the articles if you can go back in time much further than that in a genetic study. The genetics in 1000 AD and since then seems to be mainly what we now call Armenian. But were the Armenians also the Anatolians of 1000 BC as well?
I would think so.