PDA

View Full Version : why turks have most higher r1a?



XipeTotek
28-11-17, 13:45
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?

LeBrok
28-11-17, 18:15
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?
Based on genetic admixtures of people from Turkey, the Turks who invaded Anatolia were Mongoloid.

Ygorcs
28-11-17, 22:16
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?

I think this is only another evidence of the most probable scenario for the coalescence and expansion of the Turkic tribes: an increasingly expansive and influential confederation of steppe tribes united under the common banner of a lingua franca (Common Turkic) and a few similar cultural traits (a religion based around a supreme Sky God/Tengri, for example).

A relatively recent paper analyzed the ancient DNA of individuals in some Scythian sites of the Iron Age, and they found out that: western Scythians were most similar to people living now in the North Caucasus and parts of Central Asia; and the present-day Turkic populations of the Eurasian steppe, including its western area, are most similar to the eastern Scythians who lived in north Central Asia. By the way, in the Antiquity those eastern Scythians were still mostly West Eurasian Iranic, but they already had relevant East Asian admixture (maybe relations with the Proto-Turks andd Proto-Mongols were already increasing until the latter became the more powerful of steppe ethnicities?).

Many things still need to be clarified and analyzed through ancient and modern DNA, but if you asked me I'd bet that the Proto-Turks were typical mongoloid Central Siberians (Altaians, Western Mongolians), but by the time they really became "THE Turks", the powerful and numerous people spreading toward everywhere in Eurasia, they were basically a blend of those Altaians and Mongolians with many, many Scythians, other Iranic peoples (Sogdians, Bactrians etc.) and perhaps even some Finno-Ugric peoples like the Magyars while they still lived in the steppes.

A. Papadimitriou
29-11-17, 22:21
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?

Based on results from groups of Turkmens some have thought that the elite of Oghuz Turks belonged to Q1a1b-M25 (but maybe that's true only about Turkmens).

In the region where 'Common Turkic' was spoken there could have been many haplogroups. Certainly R1a-Z93 existed there.

The terms 'mongoloid', 'caucasoid' etc aren't scientific. Certainly they weren't East Asians.

I have thought that the Mongols had Turkic elites and pushed other Turkic groups to move towards west.

MOESAN
30-11-17, 01:14
'mongoloid', caucasoid' are very useful terms for people which doesn't like split hairs; 'mongoloid' implies a set of phenotypical traits which are statistically very dominant among almost pure East-Asians, and are, when typical of the greater number of a group, the signature of also a dominant east-asian autosomal constitution of this group. At the individual level, it's an other thing.
I share the point of Ygorcs.

MOESAN
30-11-17, 16:25
I see we have good scientists here again! what a lost of time when we speak about the most of East Asians and their (partly diverse) phenotypes appearing in history IN ACCORD with au DNA changes, as a whole -haplo's Y, mt and autosomes -, for people who don't like split hairs - if phenotypes (typology and means) had been taken in account more seriously and in details with fewer "sniffs" of modern "scientists" we could have seen long time ago the changes during Copper/Bronze transition in Southeastern Europe and Balkans and in Chalco Italy, and in Eastern Iberia too, all that before anDNA, though I find DNA a progress (but not in so a proportion to exclude anything else)!

MOESAN
30-11-17, 16:32
Sorry for my histerical tone! The matter doesn't deserve it. Lack of alcohol, or chamomile?

Boreas
30-11-17, 19:03
Based on genetic admixtures of people from Turkey, the Turks who invaded Anatolia were Mongoloid.

Not sound logical. Turkic people especially, South Central Asia (Turkmenistan-Uzbekestan) started to mix and turned Caucasoid much before.

Actually, that region is one of the main based of Iranic people, so Turkic invader have already heavily mixed with iranians in there then invaded Anatolia

LeBrok
30-11-17, 20:04
Not sound logical. Turkic people especially, South Central Asia (Turkmenistan-Uzbekestan) started to mix and turned Caucasoid much before.

Actually, that region is one of the main based of Iranic people, so Turkic invader have already heavily mixed with iranians in there then invaded Anatolia
How do you explain elevated level of Siberian and East Asian admixtures in your DNA and other Turks in general? Silk Road traders? ;)

MOESAN
01-12-17, 15:46
Lebrok, I rather share the opinion of Ygorcs on this very matter; It could have been the same process which could explain why Southern Slavs are not so close to Eastern Slavs and even Western Slavs, and explain too why so low level of typical "invaders" auDNA is found sometimes among accultured pops: the latter and ultimate waves of invaders or colonisators were already mixed since some time, kind of progressive change on the road (local wives played a great role here, I think more and more proofs are popping up now).
And why do you say the east-asian components are so elevated among Anatolian Turks?: it is not what I red until now?

LeBrok
01-12-17, 22:21
Lebrok, I rather share the opinion of Ygorcs on this very matter; It could have been the same process which could explain why Southern Slavs are not so close to Eastern Slavs and even Western Slavs, and explain too why so low level of typical "invaders" auDNA is found sometimes among accultured pops: the latter and ultimate waves of invaders or colonisators were already mixed since some time, kind of progressive change on the road (local wives played a great role here, I think more and more proofs are popping up now).
And why do you say the east-asian components are so elevated among Anatolian Turks?: it is not what I red until now?
Good catch, sorry I meant NE Asian. Here are the comparative samples I have. To bad we don't have Anatolian sample from IA or anything before Turk conquest.


M740087
I2499

Modern


M348213
i0247

M084152
PR3_I0575
Moder


Moder


Moder


Moder



Anatolia, SE
BA

Turkey


scythian


EarlySarmatian, Pokrovka, Russia
5th–2nd c. BCE
Mongolian

Turkmen


Uzbek


Uyghur



Run Time 4.58




Run time
11

Run time
6

Run time


Run time


Run time


Run time



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
1

S-Indian
5

S-Indian
5

S-Indian
5


Baloch
8

Baloch
15

Baloch
25

Baloch
25

Baloch
5

Baloch
26

Baloch
18

Baloch
16


Caucasian
42

Caucasian
44

Caucasian
8

Caucasian
6

Caucasian
5

Caucasian
30

Caucasian
17

Caucasian
13


NE-Euro
7

NE-Euro
11

NE-Euro
45

NE-Euro
51

NE-Euro
6

NE-Euro
10

NE-Euro
14

NE-Euro
12


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
1

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
4

Siberian
6

Siberian
4

Siberian
38

Siberian
7

Siberian
17

Siberian
15


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
3

NE-Asian
1

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
39

NE-Asian
8

NE-Asian
20

NE-Asian
30


Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
0

American
3

American
2

American
1

American
1

American
1

American
1


Beringian
-

Beringian
1

Beringian
1

Beringian
1

Beringian
2

Beringian
1

Beringian
2

Beringian
2


Mediterranean
29

Mediterranean
11

Mediterranean
9

Mediterranean
11

Mediterranean
2

Mediterranean
4

Mediterranean
4

Mediterranean
2


SW-Asian
13

SW-Asian
9

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
7

SW-Asian
2

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
0

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
0

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0

W-African
0

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

W-African
-

Boreas
02-12-17, 07:18
How do you explain elevated level of Siberian and East Asian admixtures in your DNA and other Turks in general? Silk Road traders? ;)

You have turned word elevated so I am skipping it :D

I didn't say that invaders didn't have Mongoloid admixture. My point is their mongoloid admixture weren't as much as to define them as Mongoloid.

How full Iranian Sythian, started to show EastAsian admixture later. Western Turk started to show Caucasoid admixture. Early Turk and Arab writers confims it. According to some of them, word Turkmen is coming from Persian word - Turk-manend which means "like-Turk" and they add that Turks start to look like Tajiks (another Iranian Nation)

About current Siberian & East Asian admixture in Turkey, genetic is multi-unknown equation. So first Turkish invader are just one thing. What are the others?

*Mongolian Invasion, they came to even East Anatolia
*Before Mongolian came, in fornt of them East Turkic People had came (Turkic people who were forced by Mongolian, They were more Mongoloid)
*Tatars and Other Pontic-Steps Turkic people who were forced by Russians to go Anatolia.

About the last one, we are 12 people in our company but one is originate from Crimea and other one is more blonde then Putin and from Russian Tatarestan. Both of them, say that their all villages are same.

qtr
13-03-18, 16:08
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?

Russians are finnish. So is Putin. It is already established fact.



First of all Altai is Scythic region which was inhabitated by IE scythian tribes basically from earliest beginnings - it has one of the richest deposits of artifacts from scythians. That is the main source of R1a in those lands.

Mongols most probably come from region of Khitan, that also includes Dauria and Jurchen - they all are names of mongols. The only mongolic tribe in Europe are kalmyks and they have notable y-dna C even today - just like other mongols.
Tungusic people live on Amur river area near mongols.
Turkic seems more like branch or neighbouring languages of mongols. It is hard to tell, but if they are not hybrid offshot of mongols, then most likely they lived west of mongols in area, what is considered eastern Mongolia and most probably were driven to west by mongols from their homeland. Note, that the migrations before mongols happened west and then east, but were driven by IE steppe people.

Genetically all three have y-dna C. Also related to these three groups are Nivkhs(Sakhalin and Amur estuary are their home place) and Chukotkan-Kamchatkian people. They have no knowledge of horse riding - most probably, that neither of any other y-dna C had, that includes mongols, tungus and turkic people and this knowledge came from IE people.

Ainu are not related to them(Ainu are y-dna D) - they are related to original Tibetians and some Indian tribes. Ainu were original inhabitants of all of Japan, but not Sakhalin, where they invaded Nivkhs. Korean are basically chinese, who speak different language. Yukagir are N and Yenisean(original inhabitants of Baikal area and Yenisey river and probably Sakha or what was not under ice in ice age) are Q.

Modern turkic people do not have any genetical ties to their "cousins"(if they are not related, then they are not relatives). The only true turkic people(if we use y-dna C as a base) nowadays are Kazakhs - rest are product of linguistical assimilation of local people, with some unimportant exceptions.

Horse riding, milk drinking is IE development. Even if people in Europe do not mix blood and milk as a drink, it does not mean, that their ancestors didn't do it.This is nothing special for neighbours to adapt and become masters of these things. For example, chinese did not developed metalurgy on their own, but it was most probably, that Miao Miao ancestors did so, even if they are driven out from their lands now.


Modern Turks in Turkey has nothing to do with Turkic tribes, as they all are mostly assimilated Canaaniites, prehelenic semithic greeks and hellenic and R1b invaders, that created Mittani and later - Armenia(which was created as a mix of Hurrians and IE - hence Ar in Armenian and in ancient name of nakh people - Ers, that is still present in name of Erevan). Most ancient Hattic inhabitants of Anatolia were more related linguistically to Circassians and genetically also to Georgians, as are Circassians. I guess it is very political question in Turkey, where differences between Turks, Kurds and Armenians does not exist, except in language.

XipeTotek
31-03-18, 20:18
Russians are finnish. So is Putin. It is already established fac
First of all Altai is Scythic region which was inhabitated by IE scythian tribes basically from earliest beginnings - it has one of the richest deposits of artifacts from scythians. That is the main source of R1a in those lands.
Mongols most probably come from region of Khitan, that also includes Dauria and Jurchen - they all are names of mongols. The only mongolic tribe in Europe are kalmyks and they have notable y-dna C even today - just like other mongols.
Tungusic people live on Amur river area near mongols.
Turkic seems more like branch or neighbouring languages of mongols. It is hard to tell, but if they are not hybrid offshot of mongols, then most likely they lived west of mongols in area, what is considered eastern Mongolia and most probably were driven to west by mongols from their homeland. Note, that the migrations before mongols happened west and then east, but were driven by IE steppe people.
Genetically all three have y-dna C. Also related to these three groups are Nivkhs(Sakhalin and Amur estuary are their home place) and Chukotkan-Kamchatkian people. They have no knowledge of horse riding - most probably, that neither of any other y-dna C had, that includes mongols, tungus and turkic people and this knowledge came from IE people.
Ainu are not related to them(Ainu are y-dna D) - they are related to original Tibetians and some Indian tribes. Ainu were original inhabitants of all of Japan, but not Sakhalin, where they invaded Nivkhs. Korean are basically chinese, who speak different language. Yukagir are N and Yenisean(original inhabitants of Baikal area and Yenisey river and probably Sakha or what was not under ice in ice age) are Q.
Modern turkic people do not have any genetical ties to their "cousins"(if they are not related, then they are not relatives). The only true turkic people(if we use y-dna C as a base) nowadays are Kazakhs - rest are product of linguistical assimilation of local people, with some unimportant exceptions.
Horse riding, milk drinking is IE development. Even if people in Europe do not mix blood and milk as a drink, it does not mean, that their ancestors didn't do it.This is nothing special for neighbours to adapt and become masters of these things. For example, chinese did not developed metalurgy on their own, but it was most probably, that Miao Miao ancestors did so, even if they are driven out from their lands now.
Modern Turks in Turkey has nothing to do with Turkic tribes, as they all are mostly assimilated Canaaniites, prehelenic semithic greeks and hellenic and R1b invaders, that created Mittani and later - Armenia(which was created as a mix of Hurrians and IE - hence Ar in Armenian and in ancient name of nakh people - Ers, that is still present in name of Erevan). Most ancient Hattic inhabitants of Anatolia were more related linguistically to Circassians and genetically also to Georgians, as are Circassians. I guess it is very political question in Turkey, where differences between Turks, Kurds and Armenians does not exist, except in language.
i dont agree so much. i am half albanian and half turk but i have and my family have a slanted eyes. i see so much slanted eyes people in turkey. turkic peoples always mixed hybrid nation. and i know my ancestos come from all of our history. scythians,hunnic,gokturk,ottoman. turks are always most mixed nation on the world. so this is reason why we are powerful and change the history :)

Tutkun Arnaut
31-03-18, 20:31
You should look at R1a subclade also. Idians for instance have high rates of R1a incidence but that does not mean they are Russians. It means that 10-15000 years ago when everyone was dark, they had the same male ancestor, later everyone diverged.so the subclade will tell you what are really R1a people of Turkey

RajvoSa
23-04-18, 17:15
Russians are finnish. So is Putin. It is already established fact.

If they are Finnish, how they speak Slavic language? From the sky it came to them?

Oh, pls, don't say me that before Old Church Slavonic they spoke some another language. :D :D

RajvoSa
23-04-18, 17:19
i see on a website altai turks have most r1a gens on the world. its meaning they are more slavic than russians? i wanna learn about first turkic tribes more mongoloid or more caucasoid? and they are scythians? or who? if they are scythians why our language family are differerent from them. mongolians assimiliated us? so we are assimiliated scyhtians from mongols or what?

Look at subclades. R1a-Z280 is Balto-Slavic, R1a-M458 proto-Slavic, Turkic and Mongolic R1a are different branches (except Nogai, where's foundable R1a-M458), but everything have some mysteries, same for Nogai M458.

RajvoSa
23-04-18, 17:22
The only true turkic people(if we use y-dna C as a base) nowadays are Kazakhs - rest are product of linguistical assimilation of local people, with some unimportant exceptions.

Oh my God, oh my God...

Did you read somewhere that Golden Horde were Turkified Mongols? And the modern Kazakhs are mainly descedants of Golden Horde. So how they could be "the only true turkic people" ?

Btw. in my opinion Turks of N1b are proto-Turks.

XipeTotek
03-05-18, 09:35
Oh my God, oh my God...

Did you read somewhere that Golden Horde were Turkified Mongols? And the modern Kazakhs are mainly descedants of Golden Horde. So how they could be "the only true turkic people" ?


Btw. in my opinion Turks of N1b are proto-Turks.

proto turks come from native american hablogroup q. n hablogroup is uralic peoples

RajvoSa
04-05-18, 18:26
proto turks come from native american hablogroup q. n hablogroup is uralic peoples

However stays the fact that C turks are Turkicized Mongols.

Boreas
04-05-18, 19:13
proto turks come from native american hablogroup q. n hablogroup is uralic peoples
Please share your source.

XipeTotek
20-05-18, 22:08
Please share your source.

https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2016/02/23/its-official-native-americans-and-siberians-are-cousins_569517

http://www.turkishculture.org/literature/language/turkish-language-americans-459.htm?type=1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL_178su7IE

XipeTotek
20-05-18, 22:11
However stays the fact that C turks are Turkicized Mongols.

C hablogroups are mongol they are early asian group with tibet D hablogroups.

chinese, japanese, korean, and turks also native americans later mixed with them.

turks and native americans mixed with mongol peoples since 15.000 - 20.000 years.

if we say japanese and tibets are cousins, turks/native american/mongols have good relationships many years and they are cousins.

but dont come from same ancestors, but yes they are different peoples like a vikings and other tribes in europe

so turks main group are q hablogroup. but today we have so little q. max %10

our max hablogroup r1a (east iranian, slav)

we assimilated so many group our inside.(like a scythians.) central asia have many tribes

and turkey peoples are more greeks than turkic. you can see easy

XipeTotek
20-05-18, 22:30
However stays the fact that C turks are Turkicized Mongols.

yes kazakh peoples have many mongol hablogroup. but genghis khan create their army %70 turks and other tribes.

this is why kazakh peoples and other asimiliated and turkicized by turks.

and that peoples living many many years together. like a 15.000 - 20.000 years. i dont think they know who is real mongolian or turkic.

also you cant see turkic hablogroup q on central asia. really so low. how we can say who is real turk or not.

native americans more turk than central asians for me.

because they come from same ancestors with turks and they save genetic and cultural things (shame on to american invaders.)

later they mixed so many tribes in central asia. c, r1a, r1b, o, they are most mixed nations on the earth.

i think turks mean not a hablogroups. caucasoid/mongoloid mixed = turks

Ygorcs
20-05-18, 22:52
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.

Ygorcs
21-05-18, 00:11
Expredel, care to expain what you disagree with about my post above? I'm interested to know, maybe I have understood something really wrong about the relationship of ethnicity and language to genetics, especially very upstream clades of Y-DNA. Giving a negative rate to a post without caring to say anything looks as if you just found something in the post unpleasant or inconvenient (maybe because now the reality of genetics does not look so simple?) - and not that you found something incorrect in it.

XipeTotek
22-05-18, 17:05
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.

so? this is works. we are related with native americans. and connection with y-dna hablogroup q. also languages have similarity. all the nations connected perfectly with y-dna and languages. i dont understand what do you wanna mean.

ethnicity, y-dna, and language going together.

and indo europeans only r1a (and r1b because cousins of them) other peoples are natives of their land before come aryan invaders. (J1,J2,I,G,Q and others)

this is reality accept or not

yes i know this is many many years. but that people small groups on the big world. they dont have connection so much to civilization beginning.

only 7.000 maybe low people live on the world that ages

Ygorcs
22-05-18, 23:38
so? this is works. we are related with native americans. and connection with y-dna hablogroup q. also languages have similarity. all the nations connected perfectly with y-dna and languages. i dont understand what do you wanna mean.

ethnicity, y-dna, and language going together.

and indo europeans only r1a (and r1b because cousins of them) other peoples are natives of their land before come aryan invaders. (J1,J2,I,G,Q and others)

this is reality accept or not

yes i know this is many many years. but that people small groups on the big world. they dont have connection so much to civilization beginning.

only 7.000 maybe low people live on the world that ages

No, it doesn't work. My point is that, to put it simple, you're wrong and you're trying to "play" with the data to portray a simple, straightforward and "pure" version of the history of peoples and languages that simply does not exist in any long term (let alone talking about basal Y-DNA haplogroups that are 20,000 or even 40,000 years old!), ignoring or preferring to overlook the inconvenient complexities that in fact surround population genetics, linguistics and the ethnogenesis of peoples and their cultures. If trying to devise simple and direct connections in just one of those fiels is already very complicated and often misleading, imagine trying to establish a direct and simple link between language, genetics and ethnicities going back dozens of thousands of years.

No, Y-DNA, autosomal DNA, languages and ethnic ientity do not always correlate perfectly, and when they do, as Maciamo has often demonstrated, it is just when you associate a certain language or ethnic group with a very specific and recent subclade downstream of such basal, extremely old haplogroups such as Q, N, C and so on. They're talking about things like R1b-Z2103, R1a-M417, and so on - and even there the correlation is not seamless and absolutely certain due to many cultural and linguistic changes since a few milennia ago (let alone 30,000 years!).

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that you can't expect anyone who knows a modicum of historical linguistics and population genetics to take these speculations seriously (they aren't even hypothesis, for they have no solid and systematic sources in the scientific research). Not things like "Turks and Native Americans are 'the' Q people, they are still very similar, even their languages are still similar, there are even many identical words and so on - yes, even after 20,000 years of cultural and genetic divergence, believe it or not".

But if you want to keep pretending that these things are really as simple and easy as you want them to be, allowing you to have fun establishing imaginary classifications and categories associating Y-DNA, languages, ethnic identity and autosomal genetics as if they all remain perfectly correlated to each other even after 10,000 or even 30,000 years of historic evolution... well, who am I to kill your playful joy by stating the hard and inconvenient truth, right? ;-)

It's just a pity that you apparently refuse to go to the next step and gain more real, scientific knowledge about the matters that you are interested in. In a way, you're right, because the conclusions of science tends to be much less "fantastic" and nicely simple than these fanciful "theories".

Expredel
23-05-18, 00:14
Expredel, care to expain what you disagree with about my post above?
The large Y haplogroups in Europe bottleneck around 3000 BC. For example, 99% of R1a Turks, Russians, and Indians share common descent 5500 years ago. Your argument would hold ground for MtDNA, but not for Y-DNA.

Ygorcs
23-05-18, 06:08
The large Y haplogroups in Europe bottleneck around 3000 BC. For example, 99% of R1a Turks, Russians, and Indians share common descent 5500 years ago. Your argument would hold ground for MtDNA, but not for Y-DNA.

I definitely don't think that example holds for very basal haplogroups like Q and C, especially if the main intent of that comparison is to assert a supposed close similarity of Turks and Native Americans whose ancestors isolated themselves completely from the Asian Q-carrying populations between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago. There is no common recent source for all those people carrying Q.

Also, my point was not just about the age of Y-DNA haplogroups, but also about the lack of very strong correlation, after thousands of years of mixing, between a thousands-year-old upstream Y-DNA clade and a specific language and ethnicity spoken today. There were some specific subclades even of G2a, J2b and Q1a that, as Maciamo have demonstrated, were correlated with the spread of IE, not some other "exotic stuff" - simply because virtually no society, even in the past, was completely homogeneous in its Y-DNA beyond the local patrilinear effects.

That's true especially if you consider the last milennia where inter-ethnic mixing became much more intense, and there were several profound Y-DNA local founder effects, sometimes favoring a certain "rare" Y-DNA even though the language family spoken by the population was not born in any close association with Y-DNA haplogroup (an obvious example is that the range of modern Indo-European-speaking populations includes specific nations with a lot of R1a, R1b, N1C, J2, G2, and so on). There is no way that, without several ancient DNA samples, you can simply say that, generically, "Q" is Turkic and Native American, "C" is Mongol, "O" is Chinese, etc. That's too vague and too simplistic.

Expredel
23-05-18, 15:28
There is no way that, without several ancient DNA samples, you can simply say that, generically, "Q" is Turkic and Native American, "C" is Mongol, "O" is Chinese, etc. That's too vague and too simplistic.

The proper scientific approach is to carefully record and organize all the available data and make it easily accessible. Having discussions about narrow interpretations of carefully selected facts that support a particular viewpoint is futile.

kmak
28-05-18, 17:30
R1A is main paternal haplogroup ancient indo-iranian tribes. central asia was conquered by altaic people this indo-iranian tribes are assimilated by altaic people. this haplogroup(R1A) passed altaic people from indo-iranian tribes.

kmak
28-05-18, 17:38
proto-turks heavily mixed tocharians, scythians, sakas. proto-turks conqueror assimilated this people. altai have less population, it increased rate of this haplogroup(r1a).

Punish Them 911
06-09-18, 09:37
The Turks didn't "conquer" the Scythians; the Scythians beat them and ran off with the Turk females, who probably found Scythians more attractive and wealthier. That's why Turks have so much R1a, and not just R1; Q1a in Turks also comes from Scythians.

The material culture of R1a "Turks" was simply a continuation of the Scythian tradition; at best these people spoke an IndoEuropean-Altaic pidgin language.

persmann
06-09-18, 19:34
central asia was heavy influenced by turkic-mongolid invasions & migrations and became turkic during medieval ages
R1a-Z93 frequency among turkic speakers are traced back to iranian saka nomads and sogodians and bactrians etc.
and maybe R1b-M73 turks are tocharian remnants !

laint
11-12-18, 10:12
People, can you please learn to stop talking about modern people's origins as if they were entirely defined by their Y-DNA haplogroup (does only males or, even worse, males' Y chromosome define your ancestry in your mind?) and, even less correctly, basing your views on basal forms of Y-DNA haplogroups (N, Q, C) that have first appeared dozens of thousands of years ago as if these modern-day language families and ethnicities had lived in total isolation from each other and hadn't even changed much (through internal evolution and drift itself) in 20k, 30k or even 40k years?

You won't ever reach any right conclusion by looking only at Y-DNA with a very ancient TMRCA, and simply ignoring the specific subclades and the fact that these ethnic groups (like Proto-Turks) that existed 2000-2500 years ago couldn't belong to just one of the Y-DNA haplogroups and population structures that existed 20,000-50,000 years ago, in virtually unmixed form. This is not just nonsense, but potentially even a dangerous idea of long-term "purity". The linguistic, genetic and cultural divergence and evolution is just too much along so many milennia to establish direct correlations.

There are more defined groups, that shows cultural spread, based on y-dna. Female mtDNA doesn't show such boundaries - and are spread over any such cultural borders. More or less, but paternal heritage has been defining nationality of a child, expect for some reasons in colonial times, that created Metiz or negro slaves, where if parent was freeman and even white, then child of slave mother was still slave. And Brasil also has interesting history, that shaped Brasil nation with foreigners marrying multiple native women. Both Americas are rather anomaly, when it comes to defining child's nationality, where everyone else define it by father side and then everywhere else exists language based assimilation.

Besides, then we need to be less racist towards Neanderthals, as X, possibly I and W mtDNA source might be Neandertalian females, but there are no y-DNA suspect for Neanderthalian origin, even if some parts of our y-DNA are shared. Also lots of genes, that define looks and immunity or resistance in Eurasian populations comes from Neanderthalians, but still - we consider, that we descended from Homo Sapiens, even though picture is a bit more complex, where modern sapiens went through hybridisation with Denovasians, Neanderthalians and possible other groups and that also left impact on racial features. I don't think, that we are Neanderthalians, though ;)

laint
11-12-18, 10:35
Talks about ancient Turks is complete bullsh!t. Turkic languages are quite recent(probably 2000 years old at max) split from Mongolian and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C, which is wayyy more archaical, than Q y-DNA and appeared long before other y-DNA groups...

If Turks were originally Q, they would share similarities to Na-Dene or other American native languages, which is not observed. What is known is that Turkic languages original homeland is located in western Mongolia, and that they are more closely related to Mongolian - according to their ancient tales their tribe split from Mongols and I would trust this source more, than what are claiming modern mixed population of Turkey, which is least Turkic possible of all other Turkic people.
Mongolian in turn is closely related with Tungusic and Tungusic might have been larger group and as they have impacted Korean and Japanese and somewhere along these mixings comes Liao valley civilization, that produced Uralic and Yukagir expansions and also shares linguistical links with Nivkh.

Turks in Turkey assimilated mainly Greeks, which was population, that originally was a result of Anatolian Indo-European invaders, who conquered and assimilated Hattusa(which originally were G Y-DNA), which in turn was in process of assimilation by colonists from Fertile Crescent(J Y-DNA).

RajvoSa
17-12-18, 00:18
Talks about ancient Turks is complete bullsh!t. Turkic languages are quite recent(probably 2000 years old at max) split from Mongolian and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C, which is wayyy more archaical, than Q y-DNA and appeared long before other y-DNA groups...

If Turks were originally Q, they would share similarities to Na-Dene or other American native languages, which is not observed. What is known is that Turkic languages original homeland is located in western Mongolia, and that they are more closely related to Mongolian - according to their ancient tales their tribe split from Mongols and I would trust this source more, than what are claiming modern mixed population of Turkey, which is least Turkic possible of all other Turkic people.
Mongolian in turn is closely related with Tungusic and Tungusic might have been larger group and as they have impacted Korean and Japanese and somewhere along these mixings comes Liao valley civilization, that produced Uralic and Yukagir expansions and also shares linguistical links with Nivkh.

Turks in Turkey assimilated mainly Greeks, which was population, that originally was a result of Anatolian Indo-European invaders, who conquered and assimilated Hattusa(which originally were G Y-DNA), which in turn was in process of assimilation by colonists from Fertile Crescent(J Y-DNA).

Your theories about Turkic language (just like about Balto-Slavic) are just funny, nothing more. What would you say about Oghur language? It is thought to have been spoken even in period from 3000 BC - 500 BC. And, at the end of the day, which language spoke Hunns ? Proto-Bulgars? Xiongnu warriors? (If Turkic is old just 2000 years) ??? :)

Srbadija
17-12-18, 17:44
and both of their original paternal y-DNA is C

Haplogroup C was not so strong component among proto-Turks.
Kazakhs with haplogroup C are just turkicized Mongols, and they are aware of that.