New map of East Asian autosomal admixtures in Europe and the Middle East

[Sky earth]

1. Indirectly you can proof that they were predominantly mongoloids. Let’s try, Gagauzes, Anatolian Turks, Chuvashs, Azerbaijani - western Eurasian. Turkmens, Uzbeks and Uyghurs mixed. Kazakhs and Kirgiz clearly are mongoloid with little European admixture. Tuvans, Yakuts and eastern Kazakhs are mongoloids. Only the last three are leaving in areas where Indo-Europeans didn’t. It is convincing me that proto-Turks were chiefly East Asian like looking. Of course the situation could be more complex, some groups could be mixed enyough to have some European features.
2. One of six is not much, however they had East Asian admixture, but I thing it wasn't considerable one. That is because of such a low East Asian admixture in southeast Europe reaching 2,5% while in this area settled Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars.
3. There is some hypothesis that Bulgar could be descendents of Iranic speaking tribe from Pamir.


Edit: Interesting thing about Crimean Tatars is that they resemble rather Persians then Turkmens, mongoloid features are rare among them, which might be connection to Iranic Khwarezmians.

1. Scholars and linguists place the Proto-Turkic urheimat in the Altay region which lays between Central Asia, Siberia and Eastern Asia. The Pazyryk culture in the Altai mountains is a hot candidate for Proto-Turks and the geneticist have tested the Pazyryk burials and it came out that were Eurasian (mix between Mongoloid and Caucasoid). The people of the Pazyryk culture had also the same culture as the people who live today in the Altay mountains, the Turkic Altaians. My theory is that the Pazyryk people were Eurasian Proto-Turks who mixed with Eastern Iranian nomads and Mongols. Turks and Azeris have still 7-15 % Mongoloid admixture on average and Chuvashs have even 20-25 % Mongoloid admixture on average. That's too significant to be only Western Eurasian at least for Chuvashs. Kazakhs and Kyrgyz have also 30 % Caucasoid admixture on average which makes them almost Eurasian genetically. Yakuts and Tuvans are predominantly Eastern Eurasian. Here are you right!

2. Five of six skeletons still showed a more Asian apperance than a European apperance and only 6 skeletons were tested. That's too little. It's normal that Eastern Europe has only 1-2 % Mongoloid admxiture on average because the Turkic steppe nomads who were anyhow not fully Mongoloid mixed only with Caucasoids when they settled there. If you as an East Asian person would only mix with Caucasoids and your children and their children also, then there is not much of Mongoloid admixture left for the future generation.

3. Crimean Tatars look nothing like Persians sorry. They are even more Mongoloid admixed than Volga Tatars. The etimology of the name Bulgar come from the Turkic verb bulga (to mix, shake). It is accepted by most scholars, historians and linguists that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe who spoke the Turkic Bulgar language and that Chuvash language is the only surviving Bulgar language today.

[matbir]

1. Pazyryk burials also are hot candidate to be trails of Sakas, because of similarities to Scythians kurgans. I would like to read about DNA tests of these mummies, it is very interesting. Do you have some paper?
Generally I have different opinion of Turkic urheimat that is because progenitors of Uyghurs were Tiele people, who lived in eastern Mongolia what is far east from Altai.
2. First of all if admixture is under 2,5%, and less than 1% in western Pannonia it means that they were little in numbers or they had little admixture. I will try to estimate a population which gave this 2% of mongoloid admixture to Pannonia and Transylvania.
I know that estimation of polish population around 1000 AD is about 1,5 million
Transylvania and Pannonia covers area circa 250 000 km2 what is about the same as Poland in this time.
I assume that population density was twice as high as in Poland which give 12/km2
12*250 000 = 3 million people
2% of East Asian admixture gives 60 000 pure mongoloids
If each of coming person from the step has 20% mongoloid admixture it means that number of coming people is 5 times higher.
5*60 000 = 300 000 what makes 10% of population.
I thing this 300 000 is quite possible, but if you put 40% admixture which is significant, then it is only half of nomadic settlers, 150 000 people and 5% of population.
Migration from Pontic step to Pannonia wasn’t one time event, but this estimation gives a general idea of numbers.
3. Crimean Tatars differs in appearance due to division in two groups. First one is Tatars leaving in Crimia with Caucasoid appearance, dark eyes and hairs, and nomadic Tatars leaving in what is today southern Ukraine and Dobruja in Romania they have heavy mongoloid admixture. Descendants of the second group live today in Poland they are Lipka Tatars community has 3000 members and many of them look mongoloid. But majority of Tatars was not this step nomads. Why do you thing that they are more mongoloid then Volga Tatars?
4. Bulgars certainly spoke Turkic language, but some scholars emphasize that Bulgars means mix of people, and even some found traces of Zoroastrian theme in Bulgarian culture and even some similarities in languages. It is quite possible that Bulgars were Turkic and Iranic mix.

[matbir]

Estimated number of people living in Avar Khanate is 250 000, from whom 100 000 ware Avars.
According to K12b dodecad Hungarians have 0,7% of Siberian and 0,3% of East Asian admixture.
If Avars are responsible for most of it then try to calculate:
0,01*250 000 = 2500 ; Avar admixture is 2500/100 000 = 2,5%
It means that they weren't looking like Asians at all.

[Petter]

What is high in certain parts of Europe is not "East Asian", but Siberian:

In K=12b run: (link removed as I have less than 10 posts /Petter)

Finland: 6.7 Siberian

Mixed Slavs: 1.5 Siberian (and .4 East Asian)

Russian: There are three populations, ranging from 7.3 to 3 for Siberian, and .8 to 1.1 for East Asian

Of course, these calculators don't reflect the underlying North Eurasian in any Europeans, a la all the Reich group papers such as Lipson et al.

Exactly - the map would be more interesting, if it showed Siberian instead of East Asian admixture. Of course there has never been any actual East Asian admixture in for example Finland. Rather, the East Asian-like genes have come from Siberian peoples, which themselves have partly North European genes, partly East Asian genes, and probably also unique genes of their own as the region has been inhabited for a long time. Since the Siberian cluster in such analyses is usually only about 50% mongoloid, the percantage of siberian genes in for example Finns is higher than the percentage of East Asian genes. (Another thing is how much one should trust cluster analyses on such matters.)

The Siberian component in Finns has probably come from the proto-Saamis, before they entered present-day Lapland and mixed with the existing paleo-European people to form the current Saami population. The proto-Saamis had probably also picked it up from some other people, perhaps an ancient North-Easteran European population, since other Western Uralic groups (such as Baltic people, who previously spoke Finnic languages) do not have Siberian admixture.

"Siberian" should perhaps be considered more of a group of its own than a sub-group of East Asians. Hui Li et al are at least of that opinion in the paper "Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and ‘‘Admixture’’ in Uyghurs".

Now, there is probably also of course "pure" East Asian admixture in Europe - something most have been left after all the migrations of steppe people into Europe.

[Petter]

yes but Siberian is related to East Asian.

Related yes, but hardly a sub-group. Siberian peoples probably do not have all genes that characterize East Asians. They have a surprising load of North European genes also, looking at cluster analyses.

[adamo]

Siberian y-DNA tends to go along the lines of the N,Q and C haplogroups.

[tlangford18]

Very cool, thanks for sharing!