So it's official that Original Turks , Xiongnu, Huns, Gokturks were Mongoloid?

Do you agree with this claim?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 63.6%
  • No

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • I'm still not sure

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33

Gurka atla

Regular Member
Messages
196
Reaction score
28
Points
0
Based on at-DNA and anthropology of ancient and medieval Turks seems to suggest they were Mongoloid and part Mongoloid ( from 1/5 to 4/5 Mongoloid ).
How else do we explain these signfificant East Eurasian / Mongoloid admixture in modern Turkish population?

( Note: Mongoloid admixture is only low in East Turkey because that region is predominated by Kurdish ethnic minority 15 million )


vEB25v.png


a4wmyx.png




2myu6u0.jpg




Mongoloid admixture is low in East Turkey because they are predominated by Kurish speakers and even in the Northeast are populated by many other ethic minorities of non-Turkic origin.

kurdistan1.gif



In fact they even dream of a Kurdistan country in Turkey ( which will always be a dream )

Kurdistan%2BHypocristan%2BTurkey%2Badministration%2Bmap2.jpg
 
Last edited:
OGHUZ TURKS

Oghuz from Western + Southern Kazakhstan.

" Among the Oghuz (mainly in the steppe zone of their resettlement) mainly dominant Mongoloid racial type. "They - wrote about the Aral Oghuz in the tenth century. Al-Masudi, - most of undersized (Turks) and they have very small eyes" [11]. Other medieval authors note poorly defined vegetation on the face and body and Ploskonos Oguz. All of this suggests Mongoloid features that were characteristic of the bulk predominantly steppe Oguz [12]. "


zmf75y.jpg



Click here to view the original image of 600x798px.


They later mixed with the Central Asian Iranic inhabitants




" These written sources of X-XII centuries. the physical appearance of the Oghuz confirm some paleoanthropological materials.

Among the found in the Oguz-Pecheneg mounds of western Kazakhstan skulls dominant Mongoloid types with the South Siberian features. However, there are also found the skull Caucasoid and metisnogo appearance. [13]

More intensive process of ethnic assimilation is likely to take place among the Oghuz south-western regions of Central Asia. Quite a few, but very interesting in this respect craniological material is located in southern Kazakhstan. In excavated ANBernshtam Oguz cemeteries Sasyk-Bulak buried dolihokrannye Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloid features. [14] "


73hqo0.jpg


GOKTURKS


Gokturk from Altai



2cz4nwz.jpg


Click here to view the original image of 672x869px.



An Gokturk V-VIII AD, Kyrgyzstan

kbpuf5.jpg



Gokturk from Mongolia

7aff2dd0817b.jpg

c13fc0deb0fb.jpg
 
OGHUZ TURKS ( it includes both Gokturks and Seljuks )


" Among the Oghuz (mainly in the steppe zone of their resettlement) mainly dominant Mongoloid racial type. "They - wrote about the Aral Oghuz in the tenth century. Al-Masudi, - most of undersized (Turks) and they have very small eyes" [11]. Other medieval authors note poorly defined vegetation on the face and body and Ploskonos Oguz. All of this suggests Mongoloid features that were characteristic of the bulk predominantly steppe Oguz [12]. "


XIONGNU ( possibly ancestors of Huns )


" Well-preserved bodies in Xiongnu and pre-Xiongnu tombs in the Mongolian Republic and southern Siberia show both 'Mongoloid' and 'Caucasian' features[50] but are predominantly Mongoloid with some admixture of European physical stock, nonetheless the Xiongnu shared many cultural traits with their Indo-European neighbors, such as horse racing, sword worship.[51] Analysis of skeletal remains from sites attributed to the Xiongnu provides an identification of dolichocephalic Mongoloid, ethnically distinct from neighboring populations in present-day Mongolia.[52]
 
Anatolian Turks as whole score about 6% East Eurasian admixture. Not all of it came with Oghuz Turks, because many steppe groups of eastern central asia were already mixed with Mongoloids and larer these people migrated in the middle east.
 
Anatolian Turks as whole score about 6% East Eurasian admixture. Not all of it came with Oghuz Turks, because many steppe groups of eastern central asia were already mixed with Mongoloids and larer these people migrated in the middle east.

It really depends on what region.

1/2 of them have 5-10%
1/3 of them have 10-15%
1/4 of them have 2-3%
1/10 of them have 15-18%

There are also individual samples with 20 - 24.7% East Asian but it's extremely rare ( properly 1/100 ) and most sample study are ussually just 20 to 50.

And haplogroup does not suggest they have much Central Asian markers. Y-DNA shows only 5.7% Q, N in turkey ( although this ranges from 3% to 13% depending on the region ) but it's hard to say because some of the R1a and R1b in Turkey may have possibly derived from the Central Asian varitiety of Mongoloids or Turanids. As many of ancient Turks ( predating the existance of Turkic ethnicity and maybe even language ) hand carried R1a and were of Mongoloid appearance that included many of the Xiongnu elite burial who were Mongoloids with R1a while other were C3, D4 Tungids, other Xiongnu carried mostly Q, N.

Not only is Central Asia extremely complex but so is the the region of Turkey who had many different states and many different ethnicities long before Turkic intrusion.

Anatolian_Beyliks_in_1300.png
 
Last edited:
Yes, but what exactly defines Mongoloid? Is there a clear-cut boundary between it and Caucasoid? For example Turkic and Mongolic languages are relatively closely related to Indo-European and Uralic, while the latter groups are Caucasoid (or rather Uralics are transitional Caucasoid-Mongoloid, Turkics are transitional Mongoloid-Caucasoid, Mongolics are "pure" Mongoloid):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ANXG-rqrw...ADck/C70ttuZWRuo/s632/Fig_1_macrofamilies.png

Fig_1_macrofamilies.png


How do languages evolve:

 
Gurka atla said:
many of the Xiongnu elite burial who were Mongoloids with R1a

Not sure where did you take this from. The scientific study described him as "a Western Eurasian male", so not a Mongoloid:

An autosomally Western Eurasian male, with haplogroups R1a1 (Y-DNA) and U2e1 (mtDNA), found in Xiongnu elite cemetery:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=B58DE687130C09668A1B0A5BB7808094.f02t01

A western Eurasian male is found in 2000-year-old elite Xiongnu cemetery in Northeast Mongolia:

We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (Y-SNP), and autosomal short tandem repeats (STR) of three skeletons found in a 2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia. This study is one of the first reports of the detailed genetic analysis of ancient human remains using the three types of genetic markers. The DNA analyses revealed that one subject was an ancient male skeleton with maternal U2e1 and paternal R1a1 haplogroups. This is the first genetic evidence that a male of distinctive Indo-European lineages (R1a1) was present in the Xiongnu of Mongolia. This might indicate an Indo-European migration into Northeast Asia 2,000 years ago. Other specimens are a female with mtDNA haplogroup D4 and a male with Y-SNP haplogroup C3 and mtDNA haplogroup D4. (...) There was no close kinship among them. The genetic evidence of U2e1 and R1a1 may help to clarify the migration patterns of Indo-Europeans and ancient East-West contacts of the Xiongnu Empire. Artifacts in the tombs suggested that the Xiongnu had a system of the social stratification. The West Eurasian male might show the racial tolerance of the Xiongnu Empire and some insight into the Xiongnu society.

Read more here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...aohe-belong-to?p=467059&viewfull=1#post467059

And here as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31587-J1-Sarmatians-in-Beslan?p=467645&viewfull=1#post467645

That man was not native to that region, but an immigrant from behind the Altai, most likely an Indo-European speaker.

Genetic boundary between East Asians and West Eurasians was along in the Altai region during the Bronze Age:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31587-J1-Sarmatians-in-Beslan?p=467395&viewfull=1#post467395

A. Frequency of East Asian mtDNA haplogroups prior to the Iron Age.
B. Frequency of East Asian mtDNA haplogroups by the end of the Iron Age.

paz2.png


Anthropological studies also confirm what those mtDNA maps say - in the Bronze Age Kazakhstan was Caucasoid:

Kazakh_genesis_Ismagulov.jpg
 
In my opinion,

First of all, we need to accept the faluire of mongoloid term. Even Mongol people are mixed so they can't be a race name.
color8.png


You can use Sardiniod term instead of Mediterreanean Race or you can use term yakutoid. Because Yakut people and Sardinian people are very pure, they can be core race, but not the mongols.

An other example
2zo9nvt.jpg
 
Not sure where did you take this from. The scientific study described him as "a Western Eurasian male", so not a Mongoloid:

An autosomally Western Eurasian male, with haplogroups R1a1 (Y-DNA) and U2e1 (mtDNA), found in Xiongnu elite cemetery:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=B58DE687130C09668A1B0A5BB7808094.f02t01



Read more here:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...aohe-belong-to?p=467059&viewfull=1#post467059

And here as well:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31587-J1-Sarmatians-in-Beslan?p=467645&viewfull=1#post467645

That man was not native to that region, but an immigrant from behind the Altai, most likely an Indo-European speaker.

Genetic boundary between East Asians and West Eurasians was along in the Altai region during the Bronze Age:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31587-J1-Sarmatians-in-Beslan?p=467395&viewfull=1#post467395

A. Frequency of East Asian mtDNA haplogroups prior to the Iron Age.
B. Frequency of East Asian mtDNA haplogroups by the end of the Iron Age.

paz2.png


Anthropological studies also confirm what those mtDNA maps say - in the Bronze Age Kazakhstan was Caucasoid:

Kazakh_genesis_Ismagulov.jpg


The Pazyryk culture is Indo-European but many of the burials are between Half Mongoloid men with Europoid females, the males seems to be R1a. The R1a in Turkic could have predated Turkic ethnicity and languages rather than recieving from Indo-Europeans.


It's only 1 Western Eurasian male. The others 2 were found to be a male with haplogroup C3 and mtDNA D4, and another with D4.

Three Xiongnu elite

1 Xiongnu R1a and U2e1
1 Xiongnu C3 and D4
1 Xiognu with D4.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091844

Kim K1, Brenner CH, Mair VH, Lee KH, Kim JH, Gelegdorj E, Batbold N, Song YC, Yun HW, Chang EJ, Lkhagvasuren G, Bazarragchaa M, Park AJ, Lim I, Hong YP, Kim W, Chung SI, Kim DJ, Chung YH, Kim SS, Lee WB, Kim KY.

Author information

Abstract

" We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms (Y-SNP), and autosomal short tandem repeats (STR) of three skeletons found in a 2,000-year-old Xiongnu elite cemetery in Duurlig Nars of Northeast Mongolia. This study is one of the first reports of the detailed genetic analysis of ancient human remains using the three types of genetic markers. The DNA analyses revealed that one subject was an ancient male skeleton with maternal U2e1 and paternal R1a1 haplogroups. This is the first genetic evidence that a male of distinctive Indo-European lineages (R1a1) was present in the Xiongnu of Mongolia. This might indicate an Indo-European migration into Northeast Asia 2,000 years ago. Other specimens are a female with mtDNA haplogroup D4 and a male with Y-SNP haplogroup C3 and mtDNA haplogroup D4. Those haplogroups are common in Northeast Asia. There was no close kinship among them. The genetic evidence of U2e1 and R1a1 may help to clarify the migration patterns of Indo-Europeans and ancient East-West contacts of the Xiongnu Empire. Artifacts in the tombs suggested that the Xiongnu had a system of the social stratification. The West Eurasian male might show the racial tolerance of the Xiongnu Empire and some insight into the Xiongnu society. "

The most newest and recent data by Chinese and Russian anthropologist shows Xiongnu were Mongoloid, not Europoid Chinese translation to English (you can still understand most of it )

( English translation to Chinese )

" Xiongnu were of dolichocephalic Mongoloid rather than Europoid, a mestizo crossbreed nation of primary South Siberian and Indo-European traits ".

" Wrong classifications of Xiongnu being Europoid was due to the fact dolichopehalic is rare in Eastern Asia but extremely common among the Europeans, Turkic, East African, Oceanic "

" A re-examining shows all physical traits of Xiongnu can be found in modern Central Asia rather than West Eurasia ".

" Xiongnu craniofacial clusters with present day population of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan more than they do with Mongolia, Turkey, Russia "

" Biological traits of east-west mestizo populations had existed in pre-Xiongnu tombs which supports a very positive hypothesis that not all Central Asia were resulted from the Mongol invasion "

Face reconstruction of Xiongnu.


4sl1ft.jpg

14buxit.jpg
 
Yes, but what exactly defines Mongoloid? Is there a clear-cut boundary between it and Caucasoid? For example Turkic and Mongolic languages are relatively closely related to Indo-European and Uralic, while the latter groups are Caucasoid (or rather Uralics are transitional Caucasoid-Mongoloid, Turkics are transitional Mongoloid-Caucasoid, Mongolics are "pure" Mongoloid):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ANXG-rqrw...ADck/C70ttuZWRuo/s632/Fig_1_macrofamilies.png

Fig_1_macrofamilies.png


How do languages evolve:



Mongol / Turkic are not close to Indo-European, but close to Uralic.

Any similarties was due to cultural exchanges, borrowing words, not because they came from the same root so overall they are all completely seperate language families.


Tell a half black / half white person how he defines himsefl and he always defines themselves as black.

In my opinion, I think Turkic people are Eurasians although we call them Central Asian Turanids, they are not that much different from those Half Asian / Half White. Both are mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid except the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz are more like 2/3 Mongoloid While Uzbeks, Uyghur are roughly 1/2 while Turkmen are 1/4 to 1/3 on average ( although many are also 1/2 ).




Half Chinese / Half White
296519_c0255_original.jpg


Half Chinese / Half white
zsmgw0.jpg


Half Japanese / Half British
BIlSCoBCYAA7uYm.jpg:large


Half Korean / Half White
86055420778046628_7a8d2bbf_c.jpg


Half Korean / Half White
julienkang.png
 
In my opinion,

First of all, we need to accept the faluire of mongoloid term. Even Mongol people are mixed so they can't be a race name.
color8.png


You can use Sardiniod term instead of Mediterreanean Race or you can use term yakutoid. Because Yakut people and Sardinian people are very pure, they can be core race, but not the mongols.

An other example
2zo9nvt.jpg



So how would you define them?

They are basically Northern Mongoloid ( Tungids ) with little Caucasian admixture

200px-Mongoloid_Australoid_Negrito_Asia_Distribution_of_Asian_peoples_Sinodont_Sundadont.GIF



Also if Mongols can't be described as Mongoloid than I don't think Southeast Asians can be called Mongoloid aswell. True Mongoloids can therefore be only Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese. ( and maybe Japanese is you include Jomon to be Mongoloid )

Especially when Southeast Asian like Indonesians, Cambodians, Malay, Burmese, Thais all have South Asian and Australoid admixture but it doesn't change the fact they still part of Mongoloid race.

29o5qj5.jpg




Indonesians and Burmese lack Australoid admixture but they have 10-20% Indian/Paki mtDNA with 10-15% in Y-DNA Indian/Paki Y-DNA.

Malays, Thais have 7-11% Negrito mtDNA , and 5-10% Indian/Paki mtDNA , 5-10% Indian/Paki Y-DNA

Cambodians lack australoid admixture but 5% Indian/Paki mtDNA and 18% Indian/Paki Y-DNA.



Look at the bottom. Notice How Thais and Cambodians are less Asian than Mongolians? Thais, Cambodians have 18-23% non-Asian admixture while Mongolians have only 3-5% non-asian admixture in this study.



Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png
 
The R1a in Turkic could have predated Turkic ethnicity and languages rather than recieving from Indo-Europeans.

IMO they received R1a from Indo-Europeans, but what do you think about such an idea:

That Turkic peoples (and languages) emerged as a mixture of Mongolic and IE groups ???

As for Xiongnu, IMO they could mixed Mongoloid-Caucasoid, as these guys from your photos.

Even today in Mongolia there is some West Eurasian admixture, higher than in Japan or China.

Easternmost Indo-European groups also became partially Mongoloid as they mixed with the locals.
 
So how would you define them?

They are basically Northern Mongoloid ( Tungids ) with little Caucasian admixture

Using another term for example if the mongoliod features show with yellow colour in your figure, using word han / hanoid is more logical, so Mongol people are mostly Hanoid with a little other features, but not Han people are mongoid.

It is like you are living in blue-green world and when you see firstly orange and then red, you are saying that red is varyant of orange. The main colour should be red. Orange is the mixed colour of red and yellow.

We have to eliminate historical naming and perspective for the truth.
 
The R1a in Turkic could have predated Turkic ethnicity and languages rather than recieving from Indo-Europeans.

What variety of R1a do Turkic peoples have? As far as I know they have mostly R1a1a1b2a Z94.

We have an ancient DNA sample of Z94 from Poltavka culture, dated to 4940 - 4550 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltavka_culture

And if you check YFull website, they estimate the TMRCA of Z94 as around 4800 years ago:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

So unless YFull estimates are too young, that Z94 guy lived very close to the emergence of Z94.

That is not the last time we see Z94 in aDNA record, it appears later in all Indo-Iranian cultures.

We have Z93 / Z94 (and their derived subclades) in Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo, and so on.

So in my opinion with 99% certainty Turkic peoples inherited R1a-Z93/Z94 from Indo-Iranians.
 
Gurka Atla, are you a Turk or just a Spaniard playing a role to defame Asians by their looks? I know the Spanish did terrible things to Amerindians.
 
In Central Asia today, both Turkic-speaking groups and Indo-European speaking groups have mixed West Eurasian and East Asian ancestries, but Turkic-speakers have visibly more of East Asian admixture (with few exceptions), while IE-speakers have visibly more of West Eurasian admixture (with no exceptions) - check this map; some Turkic groups are even majority-Mongoloid (= red):

centralasianmartinez.jpg
 


IMO they received R1a from Indo-Europeans, but what do you think about such an idea:

That Turkic peoples (and languages) emerged as a mixture of Mongolic and IE groups ???

As for Xiongnu, IMO they could mixed Mongoloid-Caucasoid, as these guys from your photos.

Even today in Mongolia there is some West Eurasian admixture, higher than in Japan or China.

Easternmost Indo-European groups also became partially Mongoloid as they mixed with the locals.


Is clear that R1a in Turks had predated the existence of any Turkic ethnicity/empire, so contact with Indo-European was far more earlier than previously though. For example people say Indian with R1a came from outside of India subcontinent perharps that is true but it also shows Indians with R1a predates any so called Aryan invasion


Chadic people have 72-95% R1b but they seem to have this marker before the existence of any western European ethnicity/identify was formed. This very clearly proves that haplogroup does no define racial heritage because these people are as black as any pure Sub-Saharan ethnic groups.


p10166.jpg




What variety of R1a do Turkic peoples have? As far as I know they have mostly R1a1a1b2a Z94.

We have an ancient DNA sample of Z94 from Poltavka culture, dated to 4940 - 4550 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltavka_culture

And if you check YFull website, they estimate the TMRCA of Z94 as around 4800 years ago:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

So unless YFull estimates are too young, that Z94 guy lived very close to the emergence of Z94.

That is not the last time we see Z94 in aDNA record, it appears later in all Indo-Iranian cultures.

We have Z93 / Z94 (and their derived subclades) in Sintashta, Srubna, Andronovo, and so on.

So in my opinion with 99% certainty Turkic peoples inherited R1a-Z93/Z94 from Indo-Iranians.


I'm not saying that it doesn't have a connection with with Indo-European but because it was 4500-5000 years ago it's more like a Turkic marker.


R1a1a1b2a Z94 is basically as Turkic marker.

If a group of Turkic invaders mixed with another group of Iranian , their marker would be the Turkic version of R1a rather than Indo-European ( although it originated from them it's long mutated to be a distinct Turkic marker )
 
Using another term for example if the mongoliod features show with yellow colour in your figure, using word han / hanoid is more logical, so Mongol people are mostly Hanoid with a little other features, but not Han people are mongoid.

It is like you are living in blue-green world and when you see firstly orange and then red, you are saying that red is varyant of orange. The main colour should be red. Orange is the mixed colour of red and yellow.

We have to eliminate historical naming and perspective for the truth.

I'm fine with the wording. I don't see Mongolians being any less Asian than others. If we have to change historical naming of Mongoloid than we must do the same for other races.

How would you describe African Americans who are genetically 21% White and 77% African-American? African American always refer themselves as Black but they never call themselves mixed but genetically they are mixed.

2ba7ok.png



You can even find Mongolians with green eyes , red hair, blue eyes, blonde hair

Although most Mongolians have only 2-3% caucasian admixture, some have 15%. These traits are also found in other Mongoloids in Central Asia and Siberia, and in th Hmong ( 0% Caucasian admixture ).
5bxzj6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Indians with R1a predates any so called Aryan invasion

No, most of Indian R1a is also under Z93/Z94 - actually most is under even younger L657:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L657/

It most certainly came with the Aryan migration ("invasion" is a wrong term) to India:

Sites of the Fedorovo type extend from Central Kazakhstan to the Yenisey. In
the Urals sites of the Alakul’ type are found while mixed types prevail in north
and central Kazakhstan; these formed as a result of the interaction between the
Alakul’ and the Fedorovo tribes. Differences are evident only between the
extreme sites of the typological scale. In linguistic terms, this continuous chain
of interrelated complexes can be described as the area of settlement of the
bearers of related dialects of the Indo-Iranian community.

The sites of the Fedorovo type demonstrate the closest resemblance to the
reconstructed culture of the Vedic Aryans: the existence of inhumation alongside
the prevailing rite of cremation, the rite of sati, specific types of ritual ceramics.
This provides good reason to suggest that the Fedorovan tribes were Indo-Aryans.

Three chronological stages are distinguished in the history of migration of the
steppe tribes to Central Asia and farther south.

Stage I: the 20th - 17th centuries BC: the appearance of cheek-pieces of the
Sintashta type on the Zeravshan in the grave of Zardcha-Halifa and a cult of the
horse from the Urals and later ceramics of the Petrovka type in the camp of
Tugai near the agricultural settlement of Sarazm. There is no evidence that they
reached India. According to the materials of Dzharkutan, the newcomers were
not numerous but they employed horses and chariots and established elite
dominance and adopted the culture of the BMAC. It is not known whether some
part of this population moved south and was among those who established the
BMAC contacts with Baluchistan.

And there is, of course, no data to support the theory that it was the early
Andronovans who destroyed the Harappan civilization and were guilty of
the massacre in Mohenjo-daro, as M. Wheeler (1968) assumed.

His opponents pointed out, first, that in other Harappan cities there
were no signs of violence and destruction. Secondly, according to the stratigraphy
of Harappa, there is a chronological hiatus between the downfall of this
city and Cemetery H. This leads to the conclusion that the collapse of the centers
of civilization was caused by ecological, social and political reasons (Bongard-
Levin and Il’in 1985).

The hypothesis of B. and R. Allchin (1973) is very probable: they thought
that pastoral tribes settled on the frontiers of the Harappan centers that were
experiencing a crisis because of ecological disasters and internal social and
economic catastrophies. The downfall of the cities cleared the way for the
newcomers, and they began to settle along the borders of oases. Yet we are not
speaking of hordes but isolated groups. Meanwhile a part of the indigenous
Harappan population moved east to Haryana and south to Gujarat where the
Harappan sites, as some scholars think, are younger than in the west.
Of extreme importance is the continuity in the culture of the Harappan and
Post-Harappan period on the periphery of Harappan territory (Joshi 1978). This
proves that the movement of the Aryan groups was slow and gradual. Initially
the newcomers and the aborigines settled near each other but not together.

Vedic sources clearly reflect the relations with the indigenous population.
Already in the 19th century the existence of borrowings from the local languages
was discovered. Now there is a large literature concerning this problem (Witzel
1999 and others).

There are very few loan-words in the Rigveda, but some names of tribes
included in the Aryan community and the names of several rulers and especially
priests are definitively non-Indo-Aryan. This means that the newcomers established
contacts with the elite of several adjacent tribes and a part of the priests
turned to their side and joined the new nobility (as we have seen, this process
began already in North Bactria).

In the Brāhmanas the number of loan-words from the Dravidian and Munda
languages increases, and there are new borrowed lexical fields: not only the
names of flora and fauna unknown to the Aryans, but also the words of economy
and everyday life.

This reflects the fact that the Aryans came into closer contact with ordinary
people of the land—craftsmen and farmers. This is the time when it becomes
legitimate to speak of the formation of a new culture—the culture of the people
of India, that formed as a result of an organic synthesis of the strange culture of
the Aryans mostly revealed in the language, and the aboriginal culture that
preserved the ancient Harappan traditions.

As G. Possehl (2002) has shown, the way of life essentially changed in India
in this period: small villages, the centers of agriculture and handcrafts that
became much degraded, replaced populous cities. Harappan writing, costly
jewels and seals disappeared, international trade stopped, but the old methods of
economy, tools, domestic animals, the traditions of house-building, the types of
means of transportation and, most importantly, the tradition of ceramic production
on a potter’s wheel were preserved. So the opinion of the Indian scholars
who emphasize the conservation of the Harappan traditions in the culture of the
subsequent periods is quite correct.

The Aryan contribution was the spread of horse and chariot, which is recorded
in the petroglyphs of India and the burial rite: the prevalence of cremation
with the existence of inhumation, the rite of sati, sacrifices of horses and
essentially new mythological beliefs and a social structure close to that of other
Indo-European peoples.

The second stage of the migration of pastoral tribes south was in the 16th–
14th centuries BC. People from the mixed Timber-grave-Alakul’ zone occupied
new territories and formed the original farming culture of Tazabagyab. The sites
of the Andronovan tribes are recorded across Central Asia. In the Tashkent and
Samarkand oases the Timber-grave population appears and comes into contact
with the Andronovans.

The Fedorovan tribes reached the Amu-Darya, took part in the formation of
the Tulkhar culture and actively interacted with the bearers of the farming
Bactria-Margiana culture.

Cultural contacts among the groups of the steppe population can be defined
as the integration of the bearers of related languages or dialects.
Interaction between farmers and stock-breeders was very diverse and
followed very different patterns (see part II). South Tadzhikistan and Uzbekistan
illustrate different patterns of contact: cultural influence: the conservation of
culture with the change of burial rite (the Tadzhik variant of the Andronovo
Fedorovo culture); integration: the formation of the new culture of Bishkent as a
result of the synthesis of the Andronovo Fedorovo culture and BMAC; elite
dominance migration and then integration: the penetration of the Andronovo
population in the BMAC and the probable subjugation of the indigenous
population, primarily in the ideological sphere. This pattern is of great interest; it
is displayed in the materials of the cemetery and especially the temple of
Dzharkutan.

These facts could be interpreted as a gradual aryanization of the
population of south Central Asia and the peaceful spread of the Indo-Aryan and
the Dardic-Nuristani languages in this region. If this model is correct, it agrees
well with the hypothesis of Th. Burrow (1973) that the Indo-Aryans first settled
in Central Asia and then migrated to India from there; the Iranians followed
them, which explains why the Iranian languages lack loan-words so numerous in
Sanskrit. The movement south to Afghanistan and India of the cultures that were
combinations (in different proportions) of Andronovan Fedorovan and BMAC
traits demonstrated the Kulturkugel model of Aryan migration suggested by J.
Mallory (1998).

The 13th–9th(8th) centuries BC was the period of the third stage of
migration. It was caused by the cultural transformation of the Eurasian steppes as
a result of internal development and ecological crises.

At that time the new cultural and economic type was becoming firmly
established: the mobile (yayla-type) stock breeding which implied the emergence
of riding. Migrations became more active: a part of the Timber-grave tribes
moved to the North Caucasus because of the crisis; they had already begun
appearing and settling in the Caucasus at an earlier time and adopted some
features of the material culture of the highlanders. M. N. Pogrebova (1977)
connects the migration of the descendants of the Timber-grave population from
the Caucasus to Iran with the appearance of West Iranians in Iran. Another way
might have lain through Central Asia.

This was an elite dominance migration with the subsequent adoption of
the aboriginal culture by the newcomers and of the Iranian language by
the indigenous population. Having come to Iran, the
West Iranians borrowed local grey-black ceramics and contributed to its wide
dissemination, as well as of the Western-Iranian language, for they roamed a lot
in the region. The Fedorovans moved to Central Asia and their territory in south
Siberia was occupied by the bearers of the Karasuk culture.

The other part of the Timber-grave population came to the Urals region and
moved to Central Asia along the Caspian Sea. The activation of cultural
connections, the mobility of population led to a considerable unification of
culture, which is graphically demonstrated by the emergence of a common type
of ceramics with applied roller. The departure of the Fedorovans and the
interaction of Timber-grave and Alakul’ tribes who were closely related not only
in their culture but also in their anthropology, especially in the contact zone of
the Urals, led to the replacement of the diversity of many individual variants that
existed in the High Bronze Age by the cultural uniformity of vast steppe
territories in the Final Bronze Age. This may have been connected with the
formation and the spread over the whole steppe zone of the proto-Eastern-Iranian
language.

Source (pages 471 - 473 out of 782):

https://ia800503.us.archive.org/30/items/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranian.pdf
 
I'm not saying that it doesn't have a connection with with Indo-European but because it was 4500-5000 years ago it's more like a Turkic marker.

R1a1a1b2a Z94 is basically as Turkic marker.

If you count people who have R1a-Z94 and speak Indo-Iranian, and then people who have R1a-Z94 and speak Turkic languages, you will find out that Turks with R1a-Z94 are outnumbered several times even without counting Indians with R1a-Z94.

If a group of Turkic invaders mixed with another group of Iranian, their marker would be the Turkic version of R1a rather than Indo-European ( although it originated from them it's long mutated to be a distinct Turkic marker)

If you go deep enough into subclades then yes, you will find some Turkich-specific sub-branches as well, sure.

But generally Indo-Iranians and Turkic peoples share similar variants of R1a.

And we know that Turkic expansion was later, and largely assimilated previous Iranian inhabitants.
 

This thread has been viewed 95375 times.

Back
Top