Turkic peoples - East Asian propaganda finally finds an end

A

Alpakut

Regular Member
Messages
106
Reaction score
19
Points
0
Location
Saray
Ethnic group
Turkic/Iranian
Y-DNA haplogroup
L1b Elite Hun
330px-%E9%95%B6%E5%B5%8C%E7%BA%A2%E5%AE%9D%E7%9F%B3%E9%87%91%E9%9D%A2%E5%85%B7_%E8%A3%81%E5%89%AA.jpg


Damgaard 2018 says that Turks were originally East Asian, because they found an East Asian elite member in a Göktürk tomb.
Jeong 2020, however, says that most Göktürk samples belonged to paternal Haplogroup J2 (6/9 or 66.%), with the others being R1b (1/9 or or 11%) and O2 (2/9 or 22%) and that the general increase of East Asian ancestry is associated with the migration of Mongols and Tungusic tribes from Northeast Asia. Jeong also says that this East Asian elite guy apparently was obviously a Chinese attendant sacrificed to guard the tomb entrance.

It seems that early Turks must have been Chinese with haplogroup O, according to the propaganda of the last 80 years in scholarship of which Damgaard was the last surviving drop.

WARNING: (the content may be triggering for some people)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Göktürks&oldid=1023143371#Genetics
 
What type of J2 are we talking about?
 
Let me guess if I understood the OP properly: is the claim that the early Turkic people were not fully East Asian people or is it in fact, as it seems, claiming that they were mostly West Eurasian with very little genetic affinities/contacts with East Asian-majority populations?

And what is this supposed "East Asian propaganda" (sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories...). I'd really like to know why there is such a noticeable Anti-East Asian bias or at least a huge discomfort in some (Western) Turkic people with the idea that their earliest linguistic ancestors must have had significant East Asian ancestry.

Is there some anti-East Asian racism in the Near East, Eastern Europe and southern parts of Central Asia? I can't help feeling that some of them react almost as it is offensive to say that most (yes, definitely almost ALL) ancient Turkic samples and the very documented history of the Early Turkic peoples and tribal confederations puts them in close connection to Central-Eastern Siberia and the northern part of China and East Turkestan/Xinjiang, which hardly correlates with an overwhelmingly West Eurasian genetic makeup merely 2,000 years ago or less than that.

Any analysis that relies solely on 1 study focusing on one single period, territory and population and, to make matters much worse, is totally based on Y-DNA lineages alone is doomed to be incorrect or at best very incomplete, especially in the case of early Turkic peoples, which, as was already thought and archaeogenomics only proved even more unmistakably, had varied origins and didn't expand from one single population, but rather in various waves that involved genetically distinct (but always very mixed) people and was probably at least as much about assimilation of non-Turkic foreigners as about expansion of previously already Turkic peoples.

Nearly all the ancient DNA samples identified with Turkic archaeological sites have West Eurasian+East Eurasian mixed individuals, with proportions varying a lot from mostly East Eurasian to mostly West Eurasian, but the majority is usually 40-70% East Eurasian, especially those from Central Asia. Mt-DNA haplogroups have a very high proportion of East Eurasian lineages, and even Y-DNA lineages, summing up all the various Turkic groups, include a huge variety of lineages that also encompass characteristically East Eurasian/Siberian lineages found in mostly autosomally East Asian ethnicities from Central Asia and Northeast Asia. That includes Q, N, O and C.

Nonetheless, we all know Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA don't go always hand in hand: e.g. one of the modern peoples with the highest % of R1a-M17 (typical from EMBA Steppe Herders) is the Kyrghyz, who are genetically and phenotypially very much shifted toward East Asians due to mixing and heavy drift. A 2020 study on ancient samples from Mongolia and the vicinity of the Altai show that Late 1st millennium B.C./Early 1st millennium A.D. samples from the western portion of that area had a mixture of West+East Eurasian ancestry, but were mostly East Eurasian, even though there had been a notable increase in Western Steppe Herder-related haplogroups like R1a and R1b compared to centuries earlier, probably via social/cultural selection and drift.

Besides, it is just way too obvious that there is a correlation between the Turkification of the steppes and of parts of Central Asia and West Asia and a significant increase in East Asian admixture in the local genetics. Virtually every region where Turkic speakers settled has today East Asian ancestry that didn't exist or existed in much lower proportions before their arrival. That of course doesn't imply those Turks were exclusively East Asian in ancestry, but it does sugges they had a very considerable amount of it.
 
Last edited:
Some Global25 ancestry models of averaged Early Turkic and Late Antiquity Central-Eastern Asian population samples (ancient DNA), probably related to later Turks. The mixed makeup with very high East Asian ancestry (drawn blue) is an almost universal feature.

Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_SKT007
Distance: 2.0139% / 0.02013877 | R5P
67.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
24.4 RUS_Kurma_EBA
4.0 MNG_East_N
3.8 MYS_LN


Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_west
Distance: 2.1273% / 0.02127327 | R5P
45.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
35.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
9.4 TKM_Geoksyur_N
5.6 TUR_Barcin_N
4.0 CHN_Boshan_N


Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_rest
Distance: 1.4008% / 0.01400763 | R5P
55.0 RUS_Yakutia_N
16.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.0 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
9.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
4.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N


Target: MNG_Early_Med_Uigur
Distance: 1.3227% / 0.01322723 | R5P
26.6 RUS_Yakutia_N
23.4 TKM_Geoksyur_N
23.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
13.4 TUR_Barcin_N
13.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN


Target: MNG_Early_Med_Turk
Distance: 1.5161% / 0.01516070 | R5P
61.2 MNG_East_N
22.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
8.0 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
6.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.2 CHN_Boshan_N


Target: MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
Distance: 1.3423% / 0.01342285 | R5P
43.6 MNG_East_N
26.8 RUS_Yakutia_N
16.8 RUS_Kurma_EBA
8.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
4.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA


Target: MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
Distance: 2.2913% / 0.02291347 | R5P
38.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
35.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
12.6 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
11.4 TKM_Geoksyur_N
2.6 AASI_Hyp


Target: MNG_Xiongnu_East_Asian
Distance: 1.8166% / 0.01816615 | R5P
51.0 CHN_Boshan_N
25.0 CHN_Western_Liao_River_LN
8.8 MYS_LN
7.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
7.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA


Target: KAZ_Kipchak
Distance: 2.1663% / 0.02166260 | R5P
32.4 RUS_Yakutia_N
30.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
11.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
10.8 CHN_Western_Liao_River_LN


Target: KAZ_Karluk
Distance: 2.2206% / 0.02220646 | R5P
28.8 RUS_Yakutia_N
23.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
19.4 TKM_Geoksyur_N
18.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
10.6 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N


Target: KAZ_Karakhanid
Distance: 1.3321% / 0.01332075 | R5P
43.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
16.4 CHN_Boshan_N
14.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.0 TKM_Geoksyur_N
11.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N


Target: KAZ_Kimak
Distance: 4.4381% / 0.04438136 | R5P
36.2 RUS_Yakutia_N
24.6 RUS_Samara_HG
23.8 TKM_Geoksyur_N
9.2 TUR_Barcin_N
6.2 CHN_Boshan_N


Target: KAZ_Nomad_HP
Distance: 1.9527% / 0.01952741 | R5P
51.6 MNG_East_N
31.8 RUS_Yakutia_N
11.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.6 CHN_Boshan_N
2.0 GEO_CHG


Target: KAZ_Nomad_IA
Distance: 2.1702% / 0.02170170 | R5P
39.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
19.6 RUS_Yakutia_N
17.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
13.8 TUR_Barcin_N
9.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N


Target: KAZ_Nomad_MA
Distance: 2.0143% / 0.02014275 | R5P
28.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
27.6 MNG_East_N
26.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
11.0 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
6.6 CHN_Boshan_N

Target: KAZ_Turk
Distance: 1.4844% / 0.01484370 | R5P
38.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
18.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
17.4 RUS_Yakutia_N
17.4 TUR_Barcin_N
8.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: KGZ_Nomad_MA
Distance: 2.5539% / 0.02553896 | R5P
45.6 RUS_Yakutia_N
28.6 MNG_East_N
16.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.2 CHN_Boshan_N
3.2 TUR_Barcin_N


Target: KGZ_Turk
Distance: 2.2250% / 0.02224983 | R5P
50.2 RUS_Kurma_EBA
23.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.4 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
7.8 TUR_Barcin_N
3.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
 
Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_west
Distance: 2.1273% / 0.02127327 | R5P
45.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
35.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
9.4 TKM_Geoksyur_N
5.6 TUR_Barcin_N
4.0 CHN_Boshan_N
Click to expand...

Turkic-speaking peoples in western China like the Uyghurs do have Steppe ancestry and they are linked to Yamnaya/Afanasievo cultures. Xinjiang is associated with the Tocharian language, which was present from 500 to 900 CE in central Xinjiang. This Indo-European language is associated with Afanasievo-related people such as the Afanasievo, who introduced the language to Xinjiang. Recent decades have seen a mass migration of Han Chinese (China's ethnic majority) to Xinjiang but their unique culture must be preserved.

The BA around Xinjiang was predominantly represented by western Steppe–related ancestries, which included the EMBA Yamnaya/Afanasievo cultures (28, 40, 42, 48). For instance, we find that the WSteppe_EMBA populations cluster with individuals from the Songshugou site in northern Xinjiang (NSSG_EMBA) in multiple haplogroups (U4, U5, H2, H6a, and W3). This is consistent with the Afanasievo-style relics at Songshugou (SSG) and the physical anthropology of an individual from this site (tomb M15) who shows European-like characteristics (49). We also find evidence for the influence of Chemurchek culture in BA Xinjiang, as suggested by the archaeological records of standing stone pillars with anthropomorphic figures around different cemeteries (50). The BA populations within Xinjiang were quite mixed genetically, as we found the presence of both East (NEA) and West (western Steppe–related) Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroups. Despite high admixture among the BA Xinjiang people, some unique genetic affinities are still observed. For example, western Steppe–related populations appear to have affected the northern and western Xinjiang populations (NWAfana_EMBA and NChemur_EMBA) more notably than the eastern Xinjiang groups (E_BA and E_LBA), which showed more NEA connections. The NEA connection is consistent with the archaeologically hypothesized formation of the earliest known culture in BA eastern Xinjiang, the Tianshanbeilu culture (~3900 BP). It has been suggested that the Majiayao/Machang culture in Gansu Province, east of Xinjiang, formed the Tianshanbeilu culture in eastern Xinjiang and formed the Siba culture in the Hexi Corridor (51). Individuals from BA eastern Xinjiang (E_BA; Tianshanbeilu culture) also showed physical similarities to populations from the Gan-Qing region (52). Consistent with these reports, we found that later LBA populations in eastern Xinjiang also had genetic connections to ancient Gan-Qing populations (GQQijia_BA and GQKayue_LBA). The presence of some West Eurasian–related haplogroups in eastern Xinjiang (both E_BA and E_LBA) is further consistent with the presence of burial forms, ornaments, and tools at the Tianshanbeilu site that share some West Eurasian features (53, 54), as well as some individuals that had European-like physical characteristics (55).
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/14/eabd6690
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top