Turks with 10 - 25% Mongoloid admixture ( Turkish people autosomal DNA )



You implied here that she did:


"If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."


Well not really, I said she look whiter than her, the fact is that Uralic girl also look predominately white herself with some mongoloid influence and this 1/4 Korean looks completely white with slight mongoloid.


Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).
[/quote]

I have found that in paleo-Mongoloid people although they still look distinguishable Asians.
 
Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?

And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.

The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.

There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.

No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.

1 generation 50%
2 generation 25%
3 generation 12.5%
4 generation 6.25%
5 generation 3.12%
6 generation 1.66%
7 generation 0.75%

Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid.


Where Uralics came from before they reached their Urheimat is pure speculation, something which your unnamed Russian source apparently does. Nothing wrong with speculation, but dont call it fact.

That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.

There is no "Slavic" or "Uralic" DNA in the sense you are suggesting.

They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.


But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.



N is simply one gene, it has nothing to do with language or race. Latvians are very N-rich but have virtually no Siberian admixture. N in Eastern Europe is too old to give any information on recent migrations of Asian peoples.
 
Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.

Why wouldn't one believe scientific consensus on something as non-controversial as Uralic Linguistics?

The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic

The original language spoken in Lapland is usually considered to be the substrate for non-Uralic, non-Indo-European words in Saami. The region was inhabited before the Saami-speakers arrived, and modern Saamis mostly have those genes. In the Fennoscandia project you can read about how the La Braña samples are close to Finns/Saami.
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.fi/
 
And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.

The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.

There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.



Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid.


Where Uralics came from before they reached their Urheimat is pure speculation, something which your unnamed Russian source apparently does. Nothing wrong with speculation, but dont call it fact.



There is no "Slavic" or "Uralic" DNA in the sense you are suggesting.




N is simply one gene, it has nothing to do with language or race. Latvians are very N-rich but have virtually no Siberian admixture. N in Eastern Europe is too old to give any information on recent migrations of Asian peoples.

Latvians have only 35% N with only 0.7 to 1.5% Siberian admixture. They also have 40% R1a.

Latvians are mixture of Slavic and already low mongoloid admixture finnic tribes so I don't expect them to have high Mongoloid admixture.

I just knew N was a Mongoloid marker.

Now here is the question can you explain why Nenets have 75% Mongoloid Y-DNA but with 63% Caucasian maternal DNA and still look full blooded Mongoloid to predominately Mongoloid??? one should expect nenets to look like Caucasoids


NenetsY_DNA.gif

nenets_men_in_a_budarka_1607559.jpg



Nganasa extremely Mongoloid as hell with only 7% Caucasian maternal DNA but have 95% N, one should expect they look mix or slightly closer to Caucasoid.
NganasansY_DNA.gif

1ips07-Nganasan.jpg




Now let's look at the autosomal DNA study.... this destroys your argument that N was not mongoloid.


15 testes samples




10 samples are = 100% pure Mongoloid /Siberian


1 Sample = 100% Mongoloid with different Siberian admixture


2 sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid Siberian groups with small Caucasoid admixture


2 Sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid siberian groups with 36% Caucasoid admixture.



Nganassan are pure Siberian Mongoloid
, there is another study that gives them 5% R1a and 14% Caucasoid maternal DNA but that's it




Nganassan.jpg
 
I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.

N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages.

I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.
 
I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.

N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages.

I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.

Latvians and Finns have a separate branch of N haplogroup but the original was Mongoloid.
 
So what was your long argument for? Do you want to speculate that because of N, pre-proto-Uralics were Mongoloid? Personally, I think that is OK speculation, as long as you call it speculation. I dont think its any more likely than that they were Causaoid before reaching the Urheimat. In the Urheimat however, they were most likely Caucasoid, similar to present day Mordvins. Perhaps this debate is finished.
 
Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.
 
Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.


This is such a stupid bullshit claim. Original Central Asians were Caucasoid that means it has nothing to do with mixing with Russians. Mongols invaded and raped the Central Asians Iranic women and Turkic women that is why Mongoloid DNA had increased from 50% extra. compared to the past Caucasoid numbered 90% and Mongoloid mixed only 10% .Central Asian Caucasoid DNA have nothing to do with Russians Caucasoid, their DNA is West Asians. You can find Turkish people and Pakistani with red hair but they have nothing to do with Europeans. Red hair can be found in people who are genetically 90% West Asian like the Kashimiris and Kulash.


Green = West Asian admixture
Dark blue = European admixture
Light blue = Caucasus admixture
Light Yellow = Siberian admixture
Dark yellow = East Asian admixture


The graph as shown here clearly shows Uzbeks, Uyghurs are half Mongoloid ( or 40-60% on average ) but their Caucasoid DNA is totally different.
Central Asians have 10-25% European DNA not because of Russians is because Central Asia was between Europe, Middle east, Siberia but still closer to Middle east. Russians also have west Asian and Mongoloid DNA.


2b9ugn.jpg
 
Mongoloid admixture but yet greeks, Armenians or Kurds samples are 0%?

Kurds are 2% mongoloid. Based on studies they have even more Siberian Q than Turks. Those are probably Kurdified Turkmens. Also Greeks with anatolian ancestry do have some east asian input. It was probably way more before they left Anatolia.
 
But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.

That's the most plausible, but I dont think its possible to ever know for certain. The Turkic family branched into todays languages quite recently and some groups, such as Uyghurs, are partly caucasoid.
 
i am so so dissapointed to see here only oppinions and sided unscientific claims which are made and produced with western and turkophobic point of view. its just one of them,which has no any relation with facts of sciense of human history in general.

"But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid."

To use "original" term to point a nationality or ethic group is means there is "fake" ones.so its sounds much more racistical. By the way people who sends comments here are missing that point Turkic ethnicity and culture is very very ancient prevalent from mongolian. so to try to describe and define Turkic population with mongoloid or mongolian terminology is very wrong and anachronistic.





[/I][/COLOR]
 
Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.

And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.
 
Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.

And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.
Peace, please use "Reply with Quote" button when replying to someone's post, otherwise we don't know who you are talking too.
Welcome to Eupedia.
 

Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).

Interesting comment, epicanthic eye-folds are not exclusive to Asia and mongoloid is a term that is used to describe non-Asians too.

Khoisan.jpgimages.jpgindex.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 226693 times.

Back
Top