/r/TurkicHistory
This subreddit is dedicated to anything related to the Turkic countries up until and through the year 2000. We encourage friendly discourse, debates, questions, articles, discoveries, or anything else relevant within the given time period.
Welcome to /r/TurkicHistory!
This subreddit is dedicated to anything related to the Turkic countries up until and through the year 2000. We encourage friendly discourse, debates, questions, articles, discoveries, or anything else relevant within the given time period.
Sovereign Turkic states
Northern Cyprus
Autonomous Turkic regions
- In Azerbaijan
- Nakhchivan
- East Turkestan (Uyghuristan)
- (various Salar, Kyrgyz and Kazakh counties)
- South Azerbaijan
- Altai Republic
- Bashkortostan
- Chuvashia
- Karachay-Cherkessia†
- Kabardino-Balkaria†
- Khakassia
- Sakha Republic
- Tatarstan
- Tuvan Republic
- Karakalpakstan
- Crimea
†: Shared with Circassians
RULES - Please read before submitting.
Upvote
Good posts that constructively add to the conversation, people citing sources, and helpful answers
Downvote
Unhelpful or antagonistic replies
Report
Blogspam, self promotion, flaming, insults, memes, or anything else that breaks our rules.
Related Subreddits:
/r/TurkicHistory
10,069 Subscribers
Traditional Turkic religion: Tengrism
06:41 UTC
How Turkic are Kazakhs (DNA wise)?
I wonder what's the % Turkic component is there in Kazakh DNA? We know that each Kazakh tribe is different, but I was always curios on the Turkic, Mongol, and Iranian/Western Asian DNA breakdown for your average Kazakhs.
A lot of our tribes are Turkic but a significant amount are also of Mongolian origin (majority of Uly Zhuz, Naimans, Kerei, Tolengyts, Tore, etc), and some of our clans having a Western Asian paternal ancestor (Argyn and Kozha).
This makes me wonder how Turkic are Kazakhs?
16:34 UTC
Ergenekon legend: question
Where can i read more about the ergenekon legend and the ergenekon valley, from Turkic sources?
The only informations i could find were those on English Wikipedia, and they don't give much details.
13:53 UTC
Atilla the Hun depiction
I’m planing to create a longer video of Atilla the Hun so here an AI generated video based on Priscus’s a Roman historian and diplomat describing him as “Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and swarthy skin”. Adding the very likely hood of him being of Asian origin, possibly Turkic into the mix, I came up with the appearance seen in the video. Overall a lot of consideration has gone into it.
02:45 UTC
Uyghur - Uzbek - Kazakh
10:02 UTC
The Huns
A theory suggests that environmental factors drove the nomadic steppe peoples of the Eurasian steppes westward. During a particularly harsh year, scarce pasturelands sparked internal conflicts between clans, with the losing groups forced to migrate. This movement eventually brought them into contact with settled communities as they were pushed out of their homeland, later becoming known as the European Huns.
I’ve created this AI video to try to visualize the conflict and migration.
16:35 UTC
What interesting and very unknown curiosities can you tell me about the Seljuk Turks?
08:07 UTC
The First Known Azerbaijani Language Text-Apardı Könlümü Ghazal
The earliest known example of Azerbaijani literature is İzzəddin Həsənoğlu's ghazal "Apardı Könlümü", dating back to the late 13th and early 14th centuries. This manuscript belongs to the 14th century and is preserved in the library of Leiden University in Germany.
Apardı könlümü bir xoş qəmərüz canfəza dilbər, Nə dilbər? Dilbəri-şahid. Nə şahid? Şahidi-sərvər.
Mən ölsəm sən, büti-şəngül, sürahi eyləmə qülqül, Nə qülqül? Qülqüli-badə. Nə badə? Badeyi-əhmər.
Başımdan getmədi hərgiz səninlən içdigim badə, Nə badə? Badeyi-məsti. Nə məsti? Məstiyi-sağər.
Əzəldə canım içində yazıldı surəti-məni, Nə məni? Məniyi-surət. Nə surət? Surəti-dəftər.
Şaha şirin sözün qılır Misirdə bir zaman qasid, Nə qasid? Qasidi-qiymət. Nə qiymət? Qiyməti-şəkkər.
Tutuşmayınca dər atəş bəlirməz xisləti-ənbər, Nə ənbər? Ənbəri-suziş. Nə suziş? Suzişi-məcmər.
Həsənoğlu sənə gərçi duaçıdır, vəli sadiq, Nə sadiq? Sadiqi-bəndə. Nə bəndə? Bəndeyi-çakər.
16:19 UTC
Formation of Turkic-speaking peoples (new pre-print)
A new pre-print has been announced: The dual origins of Turkic-speaking peoples
It basically confirmes the previous data on a Northeast Asian origin for Proto-Turkic and goes into detail for the origin and spread of the two main branches: Shaz Turkic (Common Turkic) and Lir Turkic (Oghur Turkic).
- While the common ancestor of Shaz Turkic is inferred to have formed by the combination of Bulan Koby-like ancestry with Kok Pash/Xiongnu-like ancestry,
- the common ancestor of Lir Turkic is inferred to be derived from Kok Pash/Xiongnu-like ancestry;
- pointing to the affilation of Kok Pash/Xiongnu-like ancestry with the Proto-Turkic speakers, which in turn may be ancestrally affilated with the MNG_North_N component in northern Mongolia and southeastern Lake Baikal
This fits well with the previous data on the Eurasian Steppe and Turkic peoples. For that, see my latest post: A chronological history of Turkic peoples; from the roots to modern times
While all Turkic-speakers have the Xiongnu/Kok Pash ancestry, not everyone has the Bulan Koby ancestry component:
In conclusion, both Bulan Koby and Kok Pash/Xiongnu played a role in the formation of Turkic-speakers, while Xianbei and Yellow River-like ancestries in the formation of Mongolic-speakers.
12:21 UTC
The origin of the Turkic peoples：Haplogroup C2-related wave Part 2
The haplogroup C-M217 is now widespread mainly among the Mongols , the Turkic peoples of Central Asia , and the East Siberian tribes：
1，C2a1a1 Y10418(F1756)
2，C2a1a2 M48
3，C2a1a3 M504
4，C2c/C2b Hongshan Culture
Haplogroup C2-related wave:
1，Ancient Paleo-Siberian + Native Americans：C2a1a1 Y10418 （F3918+F12319）
F3918>P39（Native Americans）
F12319：Ust-Kyakhta (UKY) individual（Ancient Paleo-Siberian /APS）
2，MNG_North_N and MNG_East_N：C-F3918>YP5260>F15910>TY140960
C-YP5260>F15910>TY140960
F15910：MNG_East_N（I7021）
TY140960：MNG_North_N（I11696，I11697，I11698，I13698）
3，Per-Xiongnu period：C-YP5260>F1756
F1756 ( ARpost9K>Manchuria/Houtaomuga）
4，Xiongnu period：C-F1756>Y10420 + F3830
and “C2a1a2 M48 (F11611)”
5，Xianbei + Rouran period：C- F3830 >F9721>F9715
C-F3830 （formed 5000 ybp）Proto-Mongolic Donghu origin
F3830>F9721（formed 3500 ybp）West Liao River farmers/Upper Xiajiadian
F9721>FGC28857 Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou Yuwen Yong/Xianbei
F9721>>F9715（formed 1840 ybp） Rouran Khaganate
6，Mongol + Golden Horde period
C2a1a3 M504（Outer Manchuria/Boisman）
C2a1a3 M504>Y11121>F3796>Y4633（Golden Horde）
C2a1a3 M504>Y11121>Y11098 The Senior jüz（Mainly the Uissun tribe）
00:28 UTC
A chronological history of Turkic peoples; from the roots to modern times
In this post we will look at the chronological history of Turkic peoples, from our initial roots to the present-day. This will also include early contact events with other groups, and a possible Turkic presence among the initial Eastern Saka, but more about that later. I will include and base all points on published academic papers, and for additional information add some models.
At first, we will look at Turkic homeland and our roots:
The Turkic peoples, specifically the Proto-Turks, originated out of the “Ancient Northeast Asian” gene pool somewhere in Northeast Asia, most likely in the Mongolia region. There were several waves of expansion into Central Asia and beyond. Turkic peoples are native to the “South Siberia and Mongolia” (SSM) region and in extension the whole of Central Asia (Inner Asia). Later emerged sub-groups can be considered native to their respective place of origin (speaking of the branches Kipchak, Karluk, Oghuz, … in Central Asia; Siberian Türks, … in Southern Siberia; Oghur likely already in Mongolia as first wave, or eastern Central Asia; etc.).
The homeland proposals of Proto-Turkic based on linguistic and historical data:
The ultimate Proto-Turkic homeland may have been located in a more compact area, most likely in Eastern Mongolia, that is, close to the ultimate Proto-Mongolic homeland in Southern Manchuria and the ultimate Proto-Tungusic homeland in the present-day borderlands of China, Russia and North Korea. This hypothesis would explain the tight connections of Proto-Turkic with Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Tungusic, regardless of whether one interprets the numerous similarities between the three Altaic families as partly inherited or obtained owing to long-lasting contact.[1]
[…}
The Neosiberian turnover from the south, which largely replaced Ancient Paleosiberian ancestry [Yeniseians & co], can be associated with the northward spread of Tungusic and probably also Turkic and Mongolic. However, the expansions of Tungusic as well as Turkic and Mongolic are too recent to be associable with the earliest waves of Neosiberian ancestry, dated later than ~11 kya, but discernible in the Baikal region from at least 6 kya onwards. Therefore, this phase of the Neosiberian population turnover must initially have transmitted other languages or language families into Siberia, including possibly Uralic and Yukaghir.[2]
[...]
The ancient Turkic Urheimat appears to have been located in Southern Siberia from the Lake Baikal region to Eastern Mongolia. ... The "Proto-Turks" in their Southern Siberian-Mongolian "homeland" were in contact with speakers of Eastern Iranian (Scytho-Sakas, who were also in Mongolia), Uralic and Paleo-Siberian languages. ... The earliest information we have on Turkic peoples is connected with the Xiongnu, a powerful nomadic empire centered in Mongolia that arose about 200 BCE.[3]
The ancestor of Proto-Turkic is Pre-Proto-Turkic. There may have been now extinct Para-Turkic languages, but so far we have not much evidence on them. Pre-Pre-Proto-Turkic may share a distant genealogical link to Pre-Proto-Uralic/Yukaghir or Pre-Pre-Proto-Mongolic, or both, but that is too far back in time. We can not unite them in a “single upper-level parent group”.
Pre-Proto-Turkic and Early Proto-Turkic was placed in the Mongolia region and can be associated with the MNG_North_N ancestry component.
Corresponding material cultures would be the Slab Grave - Ulaanzuukh and possibly Khövsgöl - Deer Stone complex cultures in Mongolia and Southern Siberia:
Pre-Proto-Mongolic has its homeland somewhere close to the Khingan mountains in Manchuria, they can likely be associated with the Amur_EN ancestry and in secondary terms with the WLR_BAo (outlier) sample being a 61% Amur_EN and 39% MNG_East_N merger:
On the other hand, the homeland of Pre-Proto-Uralic/Yukaghir was located somewhere Northeast of Lake Baikal in modern day Southern Yakutia. Early Proto-Uralic moved to the Altai-Sayan region (Yakutia_LNBA → Krasnoyarsk_BA Kra001-type ancestry), from which it expanded later westwards during the Bronze-Iron Age (prior to the major Turkic expansions):
As such, certain linguistic elements and features are shared between Turkic, Mongolic and Uralic. The so called “Ural-Altaic” typological area (not language family). E.g. see Janhunen 2023 The Unity and Diversity of Altaic:
In popular conception, Altaic is often assumed to constitute a language family, or perhaps a phylum, but in reality, it involves a historical, areal, and typological complex of five separate language families of different origins—Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic—to which Uralic also adheres in the transcontinental context of Ural-Altaic. The similarities between the individual Altaic language families are due to prolonged contacts that have resulted in both lexical borrowing and structural interaction in a number of binary patterns. The historical homelands of the Altaic language families were located in continental Northeast Asia, but secondary expansions have subsequently brought these languages to most parts of northern and central Eurasia, including Anatolia and eastern Europe.
[...]
There are, however, examples of Altaic languages becoming de-Altaicized, meaning that they have acquired a significant number of non-Altaic features due to contacts with languages representing a different typology. This is the situation in areas where Altaic typology is involved in a Sprachbund situation, with a mutual structural levelling as a result. A case in point is the Amdo (Gansu-Qinghai) Sprachbund, located in the Upper Yellow River region at the border between China and Tibet, where Turkic, Mongolic, Bodic (Amdo Tibetan), and Sinitic (Northwest Mandarin) languages have been in intensive contact for centuries. While the local varieties of Chinese show traces of rather profound Altaicization, the Altaic typology of the Turkic and Mongolic languages in the region has also been obscured by the introduction of a strong component of Bodic and Sinitic features (Szeto 2021).
[...]
Third, there is a clear isogloss, the so-called rhotacism–lambdacism, which shows that the oldest layer of loanwords from Turkic to Mongolic, conventionally classified as Proto-Altaic, actually derives from Pre-Proto-Bulgharic, a prehistoric language (of the late first millennium BC) that coexisted with Pre-Proto-Mongolic, apparently in the context of the Xiongnu–Xianbei interaction.
[...]
This allows us to date not only the early Turko-Mongolic contacts but also the separation of the Bulgharic and Common Turkic branches of Macro-Turkic (Róna-Tas 1972).
It is, then, obvious that the old layer of Turkic borrowings in Mongolic, which shows the feature of rhotacism–lambdacism, originated in a Bulgharic language. The same language was also the source of borrowings to Samoyedic (Joki 1952, Róna-Tas 1980), as well as later, in its secondary western location, to Pre-Proto-Hungarian (Róna-Tas & Berta 2011). Apart from these early contacts, the interaction between Turkic and Mongolic has continued in a number of local contexts up to the present day (Shherbak 1997, 2005; Schönig 2001, 2003; Khabtagaeva 2009)
[...]
This similarity, however, also includes the Uralic languages. At the time of the Altaic protolanguages (approximately 1000 to 2000+ BP), the Uralic language family, which has a much more substantial depth, was already represented by nine distinct branches, ranging from Finnic and Saamic in the west to Samoyedic in the east (Grünthal et al. 2022). From this point of view it would be more appropriate to speak of Ural-Altaic typology, but for the sake of brevity and convention we may classify the Uralic languages as typologically Altaic in reference to the large Transeurasian areal context that may also be termed the Altaic typological sphere.
[...]
The five Altaic language families, especially when viewed together with Uralic, offer a well-defined field for the analysis of areal typology, language contacts, lexical borrowing, and structural interaction.
Also see Grünthal et al. 2022 regarding Uralic in Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread:
The morphosyntactic typology of Uralic is distinctive in western Eurasia. A number of typological properties are eastern-looking overall, fitting comfortably into northeast Asia, Siberia, or the North Pacific Rim.
[...]
We have argued that Proto-Uralic originated east of the Urals and out of contact with Proto-Indo-European. Its traceable prehistory begins with a mostly westward spread bringing daughter speech communities to the middle Volga. That spread took place rapidly and for the most part without substratal effects. It occurred in the time frame of the 4.2 ka event, the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon, and the Indo-Iranian contact episode, and taken together these three events explain the Uralic spread and situate it in space and time.
For further discussions on contact between Turkic, Uralic, Iranic and Tocharian in and around the Altai region, see Bjorn Rasmus 2022 in Indo-European loanwords and exchange in Bronze Age Central and East Asia: Six new perspectives on prehistoric exchange in the Eastern Steppe Zone.
E.g. the linguistic data and contact events also place the homeland of Proto-Turkic into the Mongolia region and in extension Southern Siberia and Lake Baikal. Proto-Turkic peoples originated in the Mongolia region out of the Northeast Asian gene pool, specifically MNG_North_N like sources.
The Turkic expansions
The last common Turkic ancestor existed during the Xiongnu period. The population of the Xiongnu would become ancestral to later Turkic-speaking peoples, which spreaded the Turkic languages throughout Eurasia:
…, two waves of diffusion have been hypothesized: the Bulgharic Turkic diffusion, beginning in the Hunnic period, instigated by the earlier expansion of the Xiongnu, and followed up by the demic expansion associated with the Türkic Khanate.
The Xiongnu in Mongolia had on average 83–100% Northeast Asian/Siberian ancestry, except for the Iranic Saka/Sarmatian-like outliers with at least 55–70% West Eurasian ancestry (assimilated non-Türks, but later part of the larger Turkic entity).
… among the Eastern Steppe pastoralists, the Xiongnu groups (earlyXiongnu_rest, and lateXiongnu), harbored dominating East Eurasian ancestry from 82.9% to 99.8% and additional West Eurasian ancestry. In contrast, the early West Xiongnu (earlyXiongnu_west) and late Sarmatian Xiongnu (lateXiongnu_Sarmatian) derived ancestry mainly from West Eurasian; for example, early West Xiongnu exhibited 68.4% Afanasievo‐related ancestry.
The Xiongnu were primarily Turkic-speakers:
The predominant part of the Xiongnu population is likely to have spoken Turkic". However, important cultural, technological and political elements may have been transmitted by Eastern Iranian-speaking Steppe nomads: "Arguably, these Iranian-speaking groups were assimilated over time by the predominant Turkic-speaking part of the Xiongnu population".[4]
Modern and medieval Central Asian Türks can be modeled as admixture in varying degrees of Proto-Türks via Xiongnu and historical Indo-Iranians (Scytho-Iranic groups such as the Saka, Sarmatians, Alans, or Sogdians). Modern West Asian and European Türks can be modeled as admixture of medieval Central Asian Türks and local populations.
The diversification within the Turkic languages suggests that several waves of migrations occurred35, and on the basis of the impact of local languages gradual assimilation to local populations were already assumed36. The East Asian migration starting with the Xiongnu complies well with the hypothesis that early Turkic was their major language.[5]&[6]
Xiongnu Elite:
Overall, we find that genetic heterogeneity is highest among lower-status individuals. In particular, the satellite graves surrounding the elite square tombs at TAK show extreme levels of genetic heterogeneity, suggesting that these individuals, who were likely low-ranking retainers, were drawn from diverse parts of the empire. In contrast, the highest-status individuals at the two sites tended to have lower genetic diversity and a high proportion of ancestry deriving from EIA Slab Grave groups, suggesting that these groups may have disproportionately contributed to the ruling elite during the formation of the Xiongnu empire.
- Lee, Juhyeon; Miller, Bryan K.; Bayarsaikhan, Jamsranjav; Johannesson, Erik; Ventresca Miller, Alicia; Warinner, Christina; Jeong, Choongwon (14 April 2023). "Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales"
According to Lee & Kuang, the main paternal lineages of 62 Xiongnu Elite remains in the Egiin Gol valley belonged to the paternal haplogroups N1c1, Q-M242, and C-M217. One sample from Duurlig Nars belongrd to R1a1 and another to C-M217. Xiongnu remains from Barkol belonged exclusively to haplogroup Q. They argue that the haplogroups C2, Q and N likely formed the major paternal haplogroups of the Xiongnu tribes, while R1a was the most common paternal haplogroup (44.5%) among neighbouring nomads from the Altai mountain, who were probably incorporated into the Xiongnu confederation and may be associated with the Jie people. - For this, also see: MNG_North_N, Slab Grave - Ulaanzuukh - Xiongnu paternal haplogroups
Chronological history of Turkic peoples and expansions:
We will look at their genetic makeup and genetic contributions to successor groups.
1 & 2: two material cultures for Early and Late Proto-Turkic-speaking peoples: Slab Grave - Ulaanzuukh & Khövsgöl - Deer Stone Khirigsuur cultures:
The MNG_North_N component is associated with the Pre-Proto-Turkic peoples, and made up the main ancestry for the Slab Grave (& Ulaanzuukh) culture, as well as one of the two dominant components of the Khövsgöl - Deer Stone complex culture. The other component for Khövsgöl is the Yeniseian-affilated Cisbaikal_LNBA ancestry. It is possible that both acted as transmittor-forces for Turkic branches.
3, 4 & 5: These two material cultures fall into the early linguistic contact period of Turkic with Pre-Proto-Mongolic and Yeniseian as well as Early Proto-Uralic, among others (formation of the Northeast and Inner Asian typological area).
These two, especially the Khövsgöl_BA component, played a crucial role in the formation of the Eastern Scythians, the original Sakas of the Altai and the Central Saka of the Tasmola culture (next to the Western Steppe Herder Sintashta component associated with Indo-Iranian/Iranic-speakers = Iranic contact period), while the Slab Grave component formed the dominant ancestry for the Early and Late Xiongnu (main):
The earliest Scythian/Saka material culture was found in the Altai region and displays nearly a 50/50 admixture between Sintashta/Steppe ancestry and Khövsgöl/Deer Stone ancestry. Their material culture is strongly influenced by South Siberian forest culture styles, such as the famous “animal style”, which was absent from other Indo-European cultures to the West.
The linguistic identity of the initial Saka is unkown, but it is generally agreed to have been Eastern Iranic. It is yet possible, based on the large genetic input of South Siberian ancestry, that Yeniseian and early Turkic-speakers were among them.
The spread of Scythian/Saka material culture was from this hybid pastoralists from the East to the West:
Specifically, Central Sakas of the Tasmola culture were found to be of about 43% Sintashta ancestry, 50% Baikal_EBA ancestry and 7% BMAC ancestry.[7]
Genetic data across Eurasia suggest that the Scythian cultural phenomenon was accompanied by some degree of migration from east to west, starting in the area of the Altai region. In particular, the Classical Scythians of the western Eurasian steppe were not direct descendants of the local Bronze Age populations, but partly resulted from this east-west spread. This also suggests that Scythoïd cultural characteristics were not simply the result of the transfer of material culture, but were also accompanied by human migrations of Saka populations from the east.
This is compatible with a moderate westward increase of the Altaian genetic component in the Steppe during the Scythian period, implying the involvement of at least some degree of migration (east to west; the more complicated scenarios that have been proposed [11] are not supported by our results) in the spread of the Scythian culture. This fits the previous observation that the Iron Age nomads of the western Eurasian Steppe were not direct descendants of the Bronze Age population [2] and suggests that the Scythian world cannot be described solely in terms of material culture.[8]
This is evident in the lower Khövsgöl/South Siberian ancestry among Sarmatians, an Iranic tribal alliance.
A later different Eastern influx is evident in three outlier samples of the Tasmola culture (Tasmola Birlik) and one of the Pazyryk culture (Pazyryk Berel), which displayed c. 70-83% additional Ancient Northeast Asian ancestry represented by the Neolithic Devil’s Gate Cave specimen, suggesting them to be recent migrants from further East. The same additional Eastern ancestry is found among the later groups of Huns (Hun Berel 300CE, Hun elite 350CE), and the Karakaba remains (830CE). This movement can be associated with the expansive Xiongnu (main) and the major Turkic expansion westwards:
This is eviedent in the assimilation of the Eastern Sakas into the Xiongnu (e.g. Xiongnu West). Currenlty several Xiongnu samples have not been tested in their autosomal ancestry, therefore we have rather little Xiongnu Main samples, but this is helped out with Later Xiongnu Main samples displaying continuity to the Early Xiongnu (rest/main) and Elite.
At the same time, western Sarmatian-like and minor additional BMAC-like ancestry spread eastwards, with a Saka-associated sample from southeastern Kazakhstan (Konyr Tobe 300CE) displaying around 85% Sarmatian and 15% BMAC ancestry. Sarmatians are modeled to derive primarily from the preceding Western Steppe Herders of the Pontic–Caspian steppe. → Evident in Later Xiongnu Sarmatians; also some Sinitic geneflow evident in Late Xiongnu Han:
We can see three groups, an admixed Slab Grave - Han/YR_N group, and an Sarmatian-like migrant group (second Iranic contact period), and the Late Xiongnu (main) continuity to Early Xiongnu Elite and Slab Grave.
6: Out of the Xiongnu confederation, the later Turkic peoples would emerge, such as the Early Medieval Türks:
Primarily from the Xiongnu Main (Slab Grave-rich).
7: The Turkification of Central Asia happened in waves, including Xiongnu and Medieval Türk waves, assimilating remaining locals, giving rise to Central Asian Steppe Türks:
8: The formation of modern Turkic peoples includes contributions of these different Turkic waves, mainly Xiongnu, Early Medieval Türk, and Central Asia Steppe Türks:
Alternatively, we can also use Late Xiongnu (excluding later medieval assimilated locals):
Genetic data found that almost all modern Turkic peoples retained at least some shared ancestry associated with populations in "South Siberia and Mongolia" (SSM), supporting this region as the "Inner Asian Homeland (IAH) of the pioneer carriers of Turkic languages" which subsequently expanded into Central Asia. The main Turkic expansion took place during the 5th–16th centuries, partially overlapping with the Mongol Empire period. Based on single-path IBD tracts, the common Turkic ancestral population lived prior to these migration events, and likely stem from a similar source population as Mongolic peoples further East. Historical data suggests that the Mongol Empire period acted as secondary force of "turkification", as the Mongol conquest "did not involve massive re-settlements of Mongols over the conquered territories. Instead, the Mongol war machine was progressively augmented by various Turkic tribes as they expanded, and in this way Turkic peoples eventually reinforced their expansion over the Eurasian steppe and beyond."[9]
Summary by Lee & Kuang 2017 and Joo-Yup Lee 2023:[11]&[12]
…, an extensive study of the genetic legacy of the Turkic nomads across Eurasia based on autosomal dna analysis reveals that the source populations for the Turkic nomads who spread 'Asian genes' to non-Turkic peoples were (the ancestors of modern-day) Tuvinians, Mongols and Buryats, despite the fact that the latter two are Mongolic (Yunusbayev et al. 2015).81 In sum, one should note that the early eastern Turkic peoples were in all likelihood genetically closer to their neighbouring Mongolic peoples than to various later Turkic peoles of central and western Eurasia.
[…]
Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was the product of multiple processes of language diffusion85 that involved not only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European) groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups first Turkicised some non-Turkic groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’ groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes (who were mostly carriers of haplogroups R1a1) residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes, including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central Asian oases (who were carriers of haplogroups R1a1 and J, among others). Importantly, the [Oghuz] Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original Turkic and Turkicised elements (carriers of haplogroups Q, J, R1a1 and N, among others), reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations carrying haplogroups J, R1b, G, E, R1a1 and T, among others, who have now become ‘Turks’.
Lazaridis et al. 2022:[13]
East Eurasian ancestry also helps identify an intriguing set of outliers at Çapalıbağ in the Aegean coast of Turkey dating from the 14th-17th centuries (Fig. 4) (18). These have ~18% such ancestry unlike Byzantine-era individuals from Turkey (Fig. 4B), suggesting a Central Asian influence. An admixture date estimate of 12.2±1.4 generations prior to their time using Roman/Byzantine and Central Asian sources (Fig. 4C) suggests that the admixture occurred in the period surrounding the 11th century arrival and expansion of Seljuq Turks to Anatolia. Present-day Turkish individuals have an admixture date estimate of 30.6±1.9 generations (Fig. 4D), and thus from the same early centuries of the 1000s CE which coincided with the transfer of control of Anatolia from the Romans to the Seljuqs and eventually Ottomans. The genetic contribution of Central Asian Turkic speakers to present-day people can be provisionally estimated by comparison of Central Asian ancestry in present-day Turkish people (~9%) and sampled ancient Central Asians (range of ~41-100%) to be between 9100 and 941 or ~9-22%. People from Turkey were sampled from eight localities (n=58) (35), representing broadly the present-day population. The genetic data thus point to Turkish people carrying the legacy of both ancient people who lived in Anatolia for thousands of years covered by our study and people coming from Central Asia bearing Turkic languages.
Janhunen 2023:[14]
The Xiongnu were followed by the Ancient Turks (Kök Türk) as rulers of Mongolia. The shift from Bulgharic to Common Turkic was probably relatively easy because of the relationship of the two languages. The Turk khaganates (546–744 AD), followed by the Uighur khaganate (744–840 AD), constituted the political power that spread the Common Turkic language northward to southern Siberia, where it was divided into the later Lena Turkic (Yakut), Sayan Turkic (Tyva), Yenisei Turkic (Yenisei Kirghiz), and Altai Turkic branches (Schönig 1999), of which Lena Turkic later continued its expansion northeast to central and northern Siberia. After the transfer of the Uighur political center to the Tarim basin, the road was open to the Turkicization of the whole of Central Asia (Golden 1992). The process involved large-scale language shift in which the local populations, which had previously spoken Iranian languages, as well as, in the west, Greek, adopted a Turkic language (Janhunen 2009).
Conclusion
The Proto-Turkic peoples emerged out of the Northeast Asian gene pool and can best be associated with the MNG_North_N ancestral component, which fits the proposed homeland of Early Proto-Turkic and its extended Late Proto-Turkic homeland (with likely affilations with both the Slab Grave culture and the Khövsgöl Deer Stone complex culture).
Turkic languages expanded mainly during the Xiongnu period, which acted as major force for Turkification, in extension the Eastern Saka, and other turkified groups. The Turkification of Central Asia was carried out by an primarily Northeast Asian group (represented by Xiongnu) and part-Turkic/turkified groups side-by-side. This multi-layer expansion, peaking during the Mongol Empire period, resulted in the near total shift of the demographic and linguistic makeup of Central Asia (from Iranic/hybrid to Turkic).
All modern Turkic-speaking peoples derive at least some initial Proto-Turkic ancestry (Slab Grave/MNG_North_N), and or significant mounts of Late Xiongnu or Medieval Turkic ancestry.
With regards to the origin of the Saka/Scythian material culture, the initial Saka carried a significant Southern Siberian (Baikal_BA or Khövsgöl_LBA) component, which may support an early Turkic branch or a Turkic-Yeniseian component among their foundational elements. - Yet, the Saka were not the main source for the spread of Turkic languages and were also not the source of Proto-Turkic. This is rather to be found among the Khövsgöl & Slab Grave - Ulaanzuukh components; eg. the Xiongnu (main).
The correlating historical, linguistic, archaeologic and genetic data give us a "more clear than ever" view on the Turkic prehistory and origin of modern Turkic diversity. - A complex story of contact and expansions, ultimately outgoing from the Northeast Asian gene pool and linguistic-cultural area.
Thank you for reading!
14:08 UTC
The origin of the Turkic peoples：APS and MNG_North_N（Slab-grave）
Ancestral Native Americans originated from a similar admixture event as Ancient Paleo-Siberians（ANE+ANEA/Q+C2）≈30%-40%ANE+60%-70%ANEA
The East-Eurasian side（Tianyuan/K2b2/P）contributed the paternal lineage P1 towards the Ancient North Eurasians, which would give rise to Q and R respectively
ANE（R）≈22%-50%，50%-78% east and west Eurasian ancestry
P1 is 'Ancient North Siberians (ANS) (Yana RHS)
R or Q is Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) (Mal'ta+Afontova Gora)
Ancient Paleo-Siberian ancestry has been shown to be related to the early ancestors of Native Americans, and partially contributed to the gene pool of later populations of Siberia until the present time.
The Ust-Kyakhta (UKY) individual is a 14,000-year-old human fossil found near Lake Baikal in southern Siberia that is part of the Ancient Paleo-Siberian group
C-Y10418>F12319 Ust-Kyakhta（UKY001） - 14050-13770 ybp
Afontova Gora-2 (AG-2/Q-570) is a site in south-central Siberia that contains remains of Upper Paleolithic individuals who are considered to be part of the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) lineage.
Q-570(AG-2)>F746 (Mixed with ANEA)>YP1500>Y222276(Kolyma1/Ancient Paleo-Siberians/APS)
Kolyma1 is an individual whose genome is part of a distinct lineage called the Ancient Paleo-Siberians, a group of people who lived in northeastern Siberia
APS (Q-F746+C-F3918) Formation time: more than 14,000 years
C-Y10418>F3918（Cis-Baikal）>BY728>P39（Native Americans）
C-Y10418>F12319>Ust-Kyakhta
In 2021,Scientists managed to obtain genome-wide data from 25 individuals dated to 33.6–3.4 ka from the Amur region, indicating the earliest northern East Asian appeared in the Amur region at the end of the LGM.
The most amazing ancient individual in this study is AR9.2K_o. Q1a
Q-570(AG-2)>F746 (Mixed with ANEA)>YP1500>M120
Q-M120（AR9.2K，9200 years ago）>The Honghe site in Qiqihar（4,400 years ago）>Ulaanzuukh+Guifang（3000-4000 years ago）>Slab-grave+Guanzhuang Site
MNG_North_N is a good proxy for the Early Proto-Turkic (or also Pre-Proto-Turkic) peoples, with their homeland in the Mongolia and Baikal region, close to the Pre-Proto-Mongolic, Proto-Yeniseian, Early Proto-Uralic homelands
C2a1a1-Y10418>F3918（Cis-Baikal）>YP5260>F15910
ANE btw. is a Paleolithic Siberian hybrid of deep West Eurasian and Basal East Asian (2/3 – 1/3 West – East respectively, although some recent studies give more like 3/5 – 2/5 for West – East respectively). Haplogroup Q spreaded mainly with Paleo-Siberian ancestry, but was at that time already found among Northeast Asian rich and even a Yellow River branch rich groups.
00:18 UTC
Which Turkic language has the most/least Arabic influence?
Whether it’s indirectly (like Arabic words via Persian) or otherwise, which Turkic language has the most Arabic influence? Ottoman Turkish doesn’t count though since nobody speaks that anymore
19:12 UTC
Early Proto-Turkic peoples and their affilation with the MNG_North_N component
The Proto-Turkic homeland is generally agreed to have been located in the Mongolia region:
The ultimate Proto-Turkic homeland may have been located in a more compact area, most likely in Eastern Mongolia, that is, close to the ultimate Proto-Mongolic homeland in Southern Manchuria and the ultimate Proto-Tungusic homeland in the present-day borderlands of China, Russia and North Korea. This hypothesis would explain the tight connections of Proto-Turkic with Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Tungusic, regardless of whether one interprets the numerous similarities between the three Altaic families as partly inherited or obtained owing to long-lasting contact.[1]
Later on, the Late Proto-Turkic homeland streched from Northern Mongolia to the Baikal region, where our ancestors came into contact with Proto-Yeniseians and Early Proto-Uralic speakers, fitting linguistic data. To their west, in the Altai region, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian groups arrived and initially admixed with the local South Siberian forest cultures (primarily Yeniseian, but maybe also including Uralic groups), and later coming also in contact with Late Proto-Turks
The geographic locations give us some possible proxies for the Early Proto-Turkic speakers, such as the MNG_North_N, the Baikal_N, or the MNG_East_N, yet the highest affinity is evident for the MNG_North_N which also is the best according to the geographic location of the Early Proto-Turkic homeland. Baikal_N (not to be confused with Baikal_BA) shares affinities to the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry with is associated with Pre-Proto-Uralic/Yukaghir and Early Proto-Uralic (via Kra001; Krasnoyarsk_BA); while the later Baikal_BA is an admixture of Baikal_N and Kolyma-like APS (= Cisbaikal_LNBA) and associated with Early Yeniseian speakers
These complex interplay and contact events also explain the "Ural-Altaic" typological area, be it of partial shared genealogical links (Turkic vs Mongolic / Turkic vs Uralic / Mongolic vs Tungusic ...). E.g. Paleo-Siberians were partly replaced by expanding Neo-Siberian and Northeast Asian groups while WSHG/ANE-rich groups (such as the Central Asian Botai culture) by Paleo-Siberians, Neo-Siberians, Northeast Asians and Western Steppe Herders from the Pontic Caspian Steppes.
The Neosiberian turnover from the south, which largely replaced Ancient Paleosiberian ancestry [Yeniseians & co], can be associated with the northward spread of Tungusic and probably also Turkic and Mongolic. However, the expansions of Tungusic as well as Turkic and Mongolic are too recent to be associable with the earliest waves of Neosiberian ancestry, dated later than ~11 kya, but discernible in the Baikal region from at least 6 kya onwards. Therefore, this phase of the Neosiberian population turnover must initially have transmitted other languages or language families into Siberia, including possibly Uralic and Yukaghir. ~Sikora et al. 2019
This brings us back to the relevant MNG_North_N component:
While MNG_North_N can be associated with Early Proto-Turks, the MNG_East_N is not that clear, it may be affilated with Pre-Proto-Mongolic (Serbi-Avar Mongolic) just like the nearby but different Amur_EN (another possible source for Pre-Proto-Mongolic). If Turkic and Mongolic do not share any genealogical links, the Amur_EN is a hot candidate for Pre-Proto-Mongolic, and also explains certain features shared with Tungusic further East. MNG_East_N may be a relative of Turkic, Para-Turkic, or an own language. The Green component is WLR_BAo, a pastoralist outlier from the Liao civilization and with high affinity to ancient and modern Mongolic peoples.
Possible Pre-Proto-Mongolic proxy
I wont discuss the absurd claims for an Andronovo origin of Pre-Proto-Turkic. This is in contradiction with all known linguistic, historical and genetic data we have. The Andronovo horizon emerged by the expansion of Sintahsta-like pastoralists, which in turn are derived from the eastern Corded Ware culture in Central Europe. These Sintashta pastoralists largely replaced the pre-existing WSHG/Botai pastoralists, which genetic lineage went largely extinct today. E.g. there is no continuity between Botai and Andronovo. I am not sure how some people can come up with such ideas to associate Central European migrants with Pre-Proto-Turks, except they are among those guys claiming Etruscans were also Turkic, next to Sumerians etc. Most researchers associate the Andronovo horizon with early Indo-Iranian languages, though it may have overlapped the early Uralic-speaking area at its northern fringe and Yeniseian-speaking area to its eastern fringe.
Regarding the Khövsgöl_LBA, it was primarily Cisbaikal_LNBA+MNG_North_N, those may have spoken Yeniseian or adopted or became influenced by early Turkic. (The same is true for the related Deer Stone culture).
Now, lets look at the Slab Grave culture, a often mentioned material culture candidate for the Proto-Turkic peoples:
The Slab Grave culture does indeed derive most of their ancestry from the MNG_North_N component, with additional geneflow from the WLR_BAo component, as well as some Yellow River Neolithic inputs. There was some heterogenity for outlier samples.
Based on this, the Slab Grave culture is a valid candidate and is a good proxy for historical and modern Turkic peoples, but only partially relevant for Mongolic-speakers:
Mongolic peoples historically and modern have significant ancestry from a Slab Grave+Western_Liao_River_BA_o mixed profile. Yet two medieval Turkic samples react differently to it, needing Slab Grave+Saka, fitting the historical replacement/assimilation of Scythian groups by expanding Turkic tribes during and after the formation of the Xiongnu confederation. (First two models from "Cooper Axe" in Genoplot):
Two Khitan profiles and Early Med. Türks:
Modern ones:
E.g. the claim that Slab Grave is just Proto-Mongolic is absolutely wrong and primarily based on the usual Andronovo-Scythian agenda of certain individuals. It is not taken serious by normal users or academics. It is neither the dominant ancestry component for Mongols, nor absent from Turkic groups, but rather fit the historical developments of the slow replacement/assimilation of Eastern Turkic tribes by expanding Mongolic tribes from further East.
I mean this is hilarious nonsense:
What happened with the indigenous WSHG/Botai groups? Where does Andronovo/Sintashta came from? Why are their ancestry and subclades directly derived from the Corded Ware culture? What happened with the Yeniseian and Uralic tribes in northern Central Asia? I mean cmon... that can not be a serious claim or? The same is propagated by infamous Eren Karakoç.
Lets look at the makeup of the different Scythian groups:
Also lets look and compare at the Xiongnu and Huns:
Huns:
Fitting the academic concensus that Huns emerged as admixture of Xiongnu (main) and Sakas.
Conclusion
MNG_North_N is a good proxy for the Early Proto-Turkic (or also Pre-Proto-Turkic) peoples, with their homeland in the Mongolia and Baikal region, close to the Pre-Proto-Mongolic, Proto-Yeniseian, Early Proto-Uralic homelands, and later Indo-Iranian and Tocharian migrants.
The Slab Grave culture is indeed one of the possible candidates for a corresponding material culture of Proto-Turkic peoples. It can, but it must not.
There is a clear coherent genetic, linguistic, and historical link, explaining the different layers and the demographic history of Central Asia.
The diversification within the Turkic languages suggests that several waves of migrations occurred35, and on the basis of the impact of local languages gradual assimilation to local populations were already assumed36. The East Asian migration starting with the Xiongnu complies well with the hypothesis that early Turkic was their major language37. Further migrations of East Asians westwards find a good linguistic correlate in the influence of Mongolian on Turkic and Iranian in the last millennium38. These historical events transformed the Eurasian steppes from being inhabited by Indo-European speakers of largely West Eurasian ancestry to the mostly Turkic-speaking groups of the present day, who are primarily of East Asian ancestry.
[_]
…, an extensive study of the genetic legacy of the Turkic nomads across Eurasia based on autosomal dna analysis reveals that the source populations for the Turkic nomads who spread 'Asian genes' to non-Turkic peoples were (the ancestors of modern-day) Tuvinians, Mongols and Buryats, despite the fact that the latter two are Mongolic (Yunusbayev et al. 2015).81 In sum, one should note that the early eastern Turkic peoples were in all likelihood genetically closer to their neighbouring Mongolic peoples than to various later Turkic peoles of central and western Eurasia. … Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was the product of multiple processes of language diffusion85 that involved not only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European) groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups first Turkicised some non-Turkic groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’ groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes, including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central Asian oases. Importantly, the [Oghuz] Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original Turkic and Turkicised elements, reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations, who have now become ‘Turks’.
The ultimate roots of the Turkic peoples are to be found in the Northeast Asian gene pool. If we share closer linguistic ties to the Neo-Siberian Uralic branch or the Northeast Asian Amur (Mongolic-Tungusic) branch is not clear yet.
Also check out my post on continuity of paternal haplogroups: MNG_North_N, Slab Grave - Ulaanzuukh - Xiongnu paternal haplogroups
11:25 UTC
The origin of the Xiongnu：Qiemo/Shanshan/Loulan R1b2-PH155
A 2021 genetic study demonstrated that the Tarim mummies (R1b2-PH155) were unrelated to Afanasievo populations (R1b1a1b-M269) and instead were a genetic isolate descending mainly from Ancient North Eurasians
later, a further wave of immigrants (R1a-Z93/Z94), arrived from the west the Tarim Basin
R1b2-PH155>R1b2b-PH200（The Zagunluk Tombs 2400 years ago）>Y32801（DA41 Xiongnu 2179 years ago）
The Zagunluk Tombs are located in Qiemo County
Qiemo/Shanshan is considered one of the 36 kingdoms within the "Western Regions"
The Shanshan kingdom was originally an independent city-state, known in local Gandhari documents as Kroraïna (Krorayina, Kröran)
The archaeologist J. P. Mallory has suggested that the name Shanshan may be derived from the name of another city in the area, Cherchen (later known in Chinese as Qiemo/The Zagunluk ).
The first contemporaneous mention of Loulan(Shanshan), in Chinese records, are from 126 BCE.
A letter from the Chanyu of the Xiongnu to the Chinese emperor, in which the Chanyu boasted of conquering Loulan(Shanshan), as well as the Yuezhi, Wusun, Hujie (呼揭) and another "26 states nearby
Around 200-300 BC, the Xiongnu (Q-L330) probably conquered the Uyuk (R1a-S23592>YP1456) and Wusun (R1a-FGC82884)
Then they went on to conquer the Loulan Kingdom (Shanshan/R1b2b-PH200)
R1b2b-PH200（The Zagunluk Tombs 2400 years ago）>Early Xiongnu-West（SKT002，SKT006，SKT005）
Q-L330>L332>Y145452 (Modu?), the outbreak time is around 2200 years ago
From the Great Chanyu of the Xiongnu, the Heaven-ordained Ruler of the Steppes:
Know this, that the might of the Xiongnu has once again spread across the lands, and the once-proud city of Loulan now kneels before our power. Our armies, like a storm across the desert, have swept through their walls, bringing their arrogant rulers to their knees.
10:43 UTC
What is your favourite Turkic language and why?
(Except your native language)
22:00 UTC
The origin of the Xiongnu：BMAC
The Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex is the modern archaeological name for a Bronze Age culture of Central Asia, dated to ca. 2300–1700 BCE.
The main source of BMAC：
Near East Neolithic farmers/JGET
ANE/R2+R1b2（PH155）
Indo-Iranians are actually a mix of Andronovo（R1a-Z93/Z94）and BMAC
The main sources of East-Scythians：
Western Steppe Herders>Andronovo Sintashta ( R-Z93）
Iranian Neolithic Farmers>BMAC/Oxus Civilization（J-F3133）
Deer Stone Khirigsuur Complex (DSKC, aka Khövsgol_LBA) （Q-N）
J-L25>F3133>Y15604>>Y26741（NAI001 Late Xiongnu...1955 ybp）
J-L25>F3133>Z7706 (Tian Shan Saka 800-1 BCE)>Y13534>>FGC61855（SKT012 Early Xiongnu）
The Anatolian Neolithic Farmer/ANF component peaks in present-day Sardinians (80-85%) and is one of the main components of West Eurasians(Especially Southern Europeans, such as Italians, Greeks...)
G2a2a-PF3147 >PF3148 (Anatolia_N,8895 ybp)>Z36520 (BMAC,2000-1600 BCE).
East-Scythians：R1a-Z93（S23592）
Wusun：R1a-Z93（FGC82884）
Xiongnu(Q-N) probably absorbed a lot of Altaic（Mongolian-Tungusic-Korean）and East-Iranian (Scythian, Wusun....) elements
05:27 UTC
The origin of the Xiongnu：Deer stone-khirigsuur complex
In archaeogenetics, the term Ancient Northern East Asian (ANEA), also known as Northern East Asian (NEA)，include：
“Ancient Northeast Asians“ (ANA)（"Amur ancestry"）
“Neo-Siberians"（Yumin hunter-gatherers）
"Yellow River farmers"
The main sources of Deer stone-khirigsuur complex：
1. Ancient Paleo-Siberians/APS (Q-L330+C-F1699)
Time range： 13,000-20000 years ago
2. Neo-Siberian/Yumin hunter-gatherers
N-TAT>F1419（B187+M2126）
Time range：7,000 years ago
3，Cisbaikal_LNBA/Baikal_EBA（APS+Yumin）
Time range：4000-6000 years ago
They cluster broadly with other Ancient Northeast Asian (ANA) populations, but are differentiated from them via drift associated with an earlier inland expansion route, and a minor Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) component at c. 11% (5-20%).
The ANE-like component is best explained via Ancient Paleo-Siberian-rich groups(APS).
They also display genetic affinities with the Yumin hunter-gatherers from Northeast China via Northeast Asia
4，Deer stone：Baikal_EBA+(Ulaanzuukh/Q-M120+Andronovo Sintashta/R-Z93)
Time range：3000-4000 years ago
The picture below is a chart of all Deer Stone Khirigsuur Complex (DSKC, aka Khövsgol_LBA) and Mönkhkhairkhan cultures males sequenced til now..
R-Z93>Z2123>FTB5268>Y95238>Y176484（Deer stone）
Y95238：Andronovo - Tangbalesay Cemetery，3571-3460 years ago
Ancient Paleo-Siberians/APS were a mix of an Ancient East Asian line (ANEA) and a North Eurasian line..
It's similar to the origins of Native Americans
The source for the East Asian component among Ancient Paleo-Siberians is to date best represented by Ancient Northern East Asian populations from the Amur region older than 13,000 years, such as AR14K
AR14K/C-F1699>F16224>F16878（Deer stones culture）
Yeniseian（Cisbaikal_LNBA/Baikal_EBA）via APS (Ancient Paleo-Siberian/Q-L330+C-F1699) and Inner Northeast Asian (Neo-Siberian/Yumin-like/N-TAT) merger
Also noteworthy is Proto-Uralic（N-L1026）originated from Baikal HGs（N-M2126）via Yakutia_LNBA and Krasnoryarsk_BA（kra001）
N-Z1979：Yakutia_LNBA
N-CTS6967：Krasnoyarsk_Krai_BA，kra001_BA
N-M2126/P298 Trans-Baikal Neolithic.6640-6469YBP
M2126>Z1979(Yakutia_LNBA)>CTS6967(kra001)>L1026（Proto-Uralic）
The Yumin hunter-gatherers from Northeast China, as well as the Neolithic and Bronze Age groups in Yakutia (Yakutia_LNBA) and Krasnoyarsk (kra001) in the Altai-Sayan region.
These populations are sometimes described as "Neo-Siberians" and can be differentiated from proper ANA/Amur populations represented by the Neolithic Devils Cave specimen, but share a common recent origin via their Ancient Northern East Asian ancestor.
Neo-Siberians are inferred to have expanded prior to the expansion of Neolithic Amur ancestry
.....................
Yumin hunter-gatherers>N-TAT/M46
M46 the Houtaomuga site in Northeast China.7430–7320 YBP
M46>F1419（B187+M2126）
1，B187 Ust'-Ida I cemetery.Cis-Baikal region.5050 YBP>Khakas+Shorians+Daurs
2，M2126 Transbaikal >M2019>Slab Grave/Yakuts/Turkic
M2126 Transbaikal>>L1026（Proto-Uralic）
M2126>Z1979(Yakutia_LNBA)>CTS6967(kra001)>L1026（Proto-Uralic）>B540/L1034( Khanty-Mansi)>Magyar conquerors
Historical Magyar conquerors had around ~37.5% Haplogroup N-M231
04:20 UTC
The origin of the Xiongnu：Slab Grave-Ulaanzuukh culture（Guifang）
Guifang was an ancient ethnonym for a northern people that fought against the Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BCE).
Chinese historical tradition used various names, at different periods, for northern tribes such as Guifang, Rong, Di,Xunyu, Xianyun, or Xiongnu peoples...
The transformation of the name "Xiongnu"：
Hunyu（獯鬻） > Rong（戎） > Guifang（Shang period (1600–1046 BC)）> Xianyun（Zhou period (1045–256 BC) ）> Xiongnu（Qin period (221–206 BC)）
Deer stones culture：Q-L330，N-TAT（L392）
Ulaanzuukh culture/Guifang：Q-M120
Slab-grave culture：Q-M120，Q-L330，N-TAT（M2019）
The Ulaanzuukh culture may have contributed to transfer to Shang dynasty China of the chariot and weapon technologies and designs which originated with the Deer stones culture of the Mongolian plateau
Several of the Shang dynasty artifacts from the tomb of Fu Hao are similar to Seima-Turbino culture artifacts These Late Shang artifacts were made precisely at the same time the Shang reported intense protracted conflicts with the northern tribes of the "Guifang"
1，Slab-grave（1300-300 BCE）
2，Ulaanzuukh（1450–1000 BC）
3，Deer stones（1400 — 700 BCE）
4，Pazyryk (6th to 3rd centuries BC) （East-Scythians）
5，Chandman （7th to 3rd centuries BC）（East-Scythians）
East-Scythians combination of West Eurasian Sintashta and Ancient Northeast Asian (Baikal_EBA>Deer stones) ancestry, with a small BMAC admixture.
Q1a1a1（F1626）formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp
The above picture shows the modern distribution map of Q-M120
Q1a1a1（Q-F1626）>MF1647>>>>F1827（Pengbo (倗伯), Monarch of Peng Kingdom）>>>>MF214736>>MF10602 Song Dynasty（Zhao Kuangyin's family）
In 2021,Scientists managed to obtain genome-wide data from 25 individuals dated to 33.6–3.4 ka from the Amur region, indicating the earliest northern East Asian appeared in the Amur region at the end of the LGM.
The authors also noted the earliest northern East Asian population, represented by AR19K, appeared in the Amur region during the last stage of the LGM and is basal to all Ancient Northern East Asians.
The most amazing ancient individual in this study is AR9.2K_o.（Q1a）
Different from other samples (mainly C2)
“One outlier population, AR9.2K_o, is genetically close to ancient populations in the Amur region after 14 ka. Interestingly, this individual also shares some genetic affinity with ancient Shandong populations”
The above picture shows the origin of the typical East Asian Phenotype （"Mongoloid" Phenotype）
EDARV370A Gene also spread from Northeast Asia（carriers C2 and Q1a ）
23:35 UTC
Seljuk lady's dna analysis
Were Seljuks like her predominantly West Eurasian in genetic ancestry? She apparently scored 20% East Asian afaik in the video dna analysis.
Thoughts?
Thank you!
01:38 UTC
Thoughts on this video? Shocking DNA Breakdown of Original Turks
20:11 UTC
95-Year-Old Kyrgyz Fisherman by the Issyk-Kul Lake
05:45 UTC
Today marks 953 years since the Battle of Manzikert. What curiosities and interesting things can you tell me about this event?
15:46 UTC
02:42 UTC
Can anyone translate this text in the picture?
17:02 UTC
Evidence that the Xiongnu were Turkic
I am an Anatolian Turk from Isparta, born and raised in Lyon, France, and I will present very strong evidence that the Xiongnu are Turkic. Some fools on the internet deny that Xiongnu are Turkic and claim that they are Mongolic, Yeniseian, Indo-Iranian or Tungusic, and they do not have any solid evidence. Of course, it is normal that there are ethnic minorities in Xiongnu just like there are in today's states, but this does not change that Xiongnu are mostly Turkic. Today I will present very strong evidence that Xiongnu are Turkic. Now let's look at the historical documents.
Weishu, an ancient Chinese book, says Xiongnu and Tiele were almost same.
"The Gaoche are probably remnants of the ancient Red Di. Initially they had been called Dili. Northerners take them as Chile. Chinese take them as Gaoche Dingling. Their language, in brief, and Xiongnu [language] are the same yet occasionally there are small differences. Or one may say that they [Gaoche] are the junior relatives of the Xiongnu in former times."
"The Gaoche migrate in search of grass and water. They dress in skins and eat meat. Their cattle and sheep are just like those of the Rouran, but the wheel of their carts are high and have very many spokes."
— Weishu, 103
It is already known that Gaoche/Tiele/Tegreg is Turkic without exception. The book states that the Xiongnu and Tiele spoke the same language, but also notes that their dialect was different. The Proto-Turkic language was divided into “ShaZ" (Common Turkic) and "LiR" (Oghur Turkic). That's exactly what the guys who wrote Weishu are talking about. Shaz Turkic speakers lived in the north, LiR Turkic speakers lived in the south. In other words, peoples such as Ancient "Di", "Tuoba" and "Xiongnu/Huns" spoke LiR/Oghur Turkic. Turkic people like Tingling, Kyrgyz, Tiele/Gaoche spoke Shaz/Common Turkic. "SH" and "Z" sounds were absent in Proto-Turkic and Oghur languages. All Turkic origin words containing "SH" and "Z" in Common Turkic turn into "L" and "R" in Proto-Turkic and Oghur Turkic languages. That's why Oghur Turkic called “LiR" and Common Turkic called “ShaZ".
When Mongolic Xianbei conquered the Xiongnu, too many Common/Shaz Turkic migrated to south to Mongolia from Siberia. And too many Oghur/LiR Turkic migrated to west to Kazakhstan and Europe as European Huns and rest were assimilated by Common/Shaz Türks, Para-Mongolic and Sino-Tibetan peoples from 3th century to 7th century. Probably after the Xiongnu dispersed, many Oghur Turkic speakers assimilated into Common Turkic speakers.
"According to the Book of Zhou, History of the Northern Dynasties, and New Book of Tang, the Ashina clan was a component of the Xiongnu confederation but this is contested. Göktürks were also posited as having originated from an obscure Suo state (索國), north of the Xiongnu. According to the Book of Sui and the Tongdian, they were "mixed barbarians" (雜胡; záhú) from Pingliang."
"Fang Xuanling, in Jinshu, (Ch. 110) states that around 349-370 CE the Xiongnu leader, titled Chanyu, Hèlàitóu (賀賴頭) (lit. "Alat head", "leader of the Alat tribe") brought his tribe of 35 thousand to the Xianbei Former Yan state and submitted to its emperor Murong Jun. Helaitou was bestowed a title of General Pacifying the West, and settled in the Daizong district. The Helai was listed as the 14th of 19 tribes of the Southern Xiongnu Shanyu."
"According to the Chinese annals, the home of the Southern Xiongnu tribe Alat was either Alashan Mountains or the basin of the Narym River."
"Yueban (Chinese: 悅般) (Middle Chinese: */jiuᴇt̚-pˠan/ < Late Han Chinese: */jyat-pɑn/), colloquially: "Weak Xiongnu", was the name used by Chinese historians for remnants of the Northern Xiongnu in Zhetysu, now part of modern-day Kazakhstan."
"According to the Book of Wei, the Yuebans' language and customs were the same as the Gaoche, who were Turkic speakers. Yuebans cut their hair and trimmed their ghee-smeared, sun-dried, glossy eyebrows evenly, and washed before meals three times every day."
"The Book of Jin, compiled by Fang Xuanling et al., listed Chile as the fifth of 19 Southern Xiongnu tribes (種). By the time of the Rouran domination, the Gaoche comprised six tribes and twelve clans (姓)."
"Around 202 BCE, Xiongnu chanyu Modun conquered the Kyrgyz –then known to Chinese as Gekun (鬲昆), along with the Hunyu (渾庾), Qushe (屈射), Dingling (丁零), and Xinli (薪犁)."
"Culturally and linguistically, the Yenisei Kyrgyz were Turkic."
Chinese sources state that the Tiele/Dingling/Tegreg, Ashina, Yueban/Örpün, Alayuntluğ and Yenisei Kyrgyz tribes, which are proven to speak Turkic, are of Xiongnu origin. In fact, the Xiongnu dynasty belongs to the Xulianti, or Alayuntluğ, tribe and there was even a Xiongnu ruler named Alat. Now, to those who claim that the Xiongnu are not Turkic, if you still reject this fact despite all the documents I have, I will present you with linguistic and genetic evidence.
"Jie (simplified Chinese: 羯语; traditional Chinese: 羯語; pinyin: Jiéyǔ[5]) is an unclassified extinct language formerly spoken in northeast China during the Later Zhao dynasty by the Jie people, who were formerly part of the Xiongnu confederation. It has been variously considered to be of either Yeniseian or Turkic affiliation."
"Only one phrase in the native language of the Jie is known. The source for this phrase was the Kuchean Buddhist monk and missionary Fotudeng. It was recorded in the Book of Jin as 秀支替戾岡，僕穀劬禿當 and said to have a connection to Shi Le's fight against Liu Yao in 328."
Different linguists have translated it in different ways. But I will write here the most probable one in my opinion.
"su-Ø kete-r erkan
boklug-gu tukta-ŋ"
English translation: "When/as the army goes out,
capture the Boklug!"
This can be translated from today's Turkic languages to Anatolian Turkish as follows:
"sü gider iken
bokluğu tutun"
The word "Sü", although not used much, came to Anatolian Turkish from Proto-Turkic, that is, from Xiongnu and before. Now let's look at the etymology of Yeniseian.
"Alexander Vovin (2000) gave the following translation based on Yeniseian, corroborating Pulleyblank's findings. Vovin (2000) suggests a connection with the Southern Yeniseian branch, which has found support from other Yeniseianists."
"suke t-i-r-ek-ang
bok-kok k-o-t-o-kt-ang"
"Armies have gone out. [They] will catch Bokkok."
The etymology of Vovin is somewhat debatable, but it seems safe. Since we have very little information, we assume that the Jie tribe of the Xiongnu was Turkic or Yeniseian.
"The words "tarqan", "tegin", and "kaghan" originate from Xiongnu, and they may therefore have a Yeniseian origin."
"Certain Xiongnu words appear to be cognate with Yeniseian:"
"Xiongnu kʷala "son" compared to Ket qalek "younger son"."
"Xiongnu sakdak "boot" compared to Ket sagdi "boot"."
"Xiongnu gʷawa "prince" compared to Ket gij "prince"."
"Xiongnu dar "north" compared to Yugh tɨr "north"."
And if the -r in the Xiongnu word tɨr is converted to -z in Common Turkic, a word like "tız" emerges, and "tüz" in Common Turkic means straight.
"According to Pulleyblank, the consonant cluster /rl/ appears word-initially in certain Xiongnu words. This indicates that Xiongnu may not have a Turkic origin. Most of the attested vocabulary also appears Yeniseian in nature."
There is something that scientists have forgotten here: Xiongnu spoke Oghur Turkic, and -r and -l consonant clusters were also found in Oghur Turkic.
"Vovin remarks that certain horse names in Xiongnu appear to be Turkic with Yeniseian prefixes."
Only a few words can be explained as Yeniseian, and most of these words also sound like Turkic. Vovin said that Xiongnu horse names are Turkic with Yeniseian prefixes, I don't know, maybe that's possible. But even this sentence explains that Xiongnu is Turkic. As for the words similar to Yeniseian, either they are just coincidences, or a Yeniseian soldier, an ethnic minority among Xiongnu, was captured by the Chinese, and the Chinese recorded his words as Xiongnu language. Or similar scenarios.
The words tarqan, tegin and qaghan were used even by the Göktürks, regardless of their origin, and these words are of Xiongnu origin. In other words, the Göktürks, who are Turks, are also the continuation of the Xiongnu.
Let us now examine the claims that the Xiongnu were Mongolic.
"Ancient Chinese sources also designate various nomadic peoples to be the ancestors of the Xiongnu:"
"The Kumo Xi, speakers of a Para-Mongolic language
The Göktürks, who spoke the Orkhon Turkic language (or Göktürk), a Siberian Turkic language.
"The Tiele, who also spoke Turkic."
"The Book of Wei indicates that the Rouanrouans were descendants of the Donghu. The Book of Liang adds:"
"They [the Rouanrouans] also constituted a branch of the Xiongnu."
No Xiongnu word is suggested as Mongolic. The sources I mentioned imply that Mongolic peoples were also part of the Xiongnu, and this is normal because there were also ethnic minorities within the Xiongnu other than the Turks.
There is no need to look at the other proposed claims, because some of them are West Eurasian peoples, and some of them have nothing to do with the Xiongnu at all. The Xiongnu are East Eurasian people.
Now, let's look at the Turkic etymology, which is most likely correct.
His name is reconstructed as *mǝk-tuənC in Later Han Chinese and mək-twən in Middle Chinese. The name's Old Chinese pronunciation might have represented the pronunciation of the foreign word *baɣtur, a relative of the later attested Central Eurasian culture word baɣatur "hero". According to Gerard Clauson, bağatur, transcribed by Chinese with -n for foreign -r, was by origin almost certainly a Hunnic (Xiongnu) proper name."
"Lanhai Wei and Hui Li reconstruct the Old Chinese pronunciation of 挛鞮 as *lyuan-tlïγ, evolving from an earlier 虚连题 (*Hala-yundluγ), as a result of a historical sound shift involving the initial dropping of *h- by demonstrating its occurrence in several historical sources. Furthermore, the conjugation of the roots *hala, meaning colorful; *yund meaning horse, *-luγ as the participle suffix would have resulted in the semantic meaning "tribe with skewbald horses" in an early Turkic dialect, allowing it to be further identified with the historical Ulayundluğ tribe."
"孤涂(kwa la) = qutluğ (son)
居次(kə tsih) = qız (daughter)
阏氏(ʔˤen ke) = jeŋge (wife of the elder brother)
瓯脱(ʔu lot) = ordu (army)
撑犁(teŋ ri) = tengri/tanrı (heaven)
屠耆(da gri) = toğrı/doğru (wise, kind)
匐勒(bək lək) = beklik/beylik (principality)
熐蠡(bek le) = balık (city)
伊稚(ʔi dih) = yiğit (hero)
逗落(doh lak) = dağlık (tumulus)
呼韩邪(qa ɣan la) = qağan (kaghan)"
The name Touman, the first ruler of the Xiongnu, can be translated from the Turkic word "Tümen" meaning 10,000, or "Tuman" meaning smoke.
At the same time, the Xiongnu dynasty belongs to the Alayuntluğ tribe, and there is even a Xiongnu ruler named Alat. So we have tons of evidence that the Xiongnu could be Turkic. Now, before looking at the language of the European Huns, let's look at the origin of the European Huns:
"Genetic data is difficult to apply to steppe nomad societies, because they frequently migrated, intermixed, and were assimilated into each other. Nevertheless, genetics can supply information on migrations from East Asia to Europe and vice versa."
"In a genetic study of individuals from the around the Tian Shan mountains of central Asia dating from the late second century CE, Damgaard et al. 2018 found that these individuals represented a population of mixed East Asian and West Eurasian origin. They argued that this population descended from Xiongnu who expanded westward and mixed with Iranian Sakas. This population in the Tian Shan mountains may be connected to the European Huns by individual burials that contains objects stylistically related to those used by the European Huns, although this could be a sign of the exchange of goods and the connections between elites rather than a sign of migration."
"As of 2023, there is little genetic data from the Carpathian basin in the Hunnic period (5th century), and the population living there during the Hunnic period shows a variety of genetic signatures. Maróti et al. 2022 showed that the genomes of nine Hun-era individuals who lived in the basin varied from European to Northeast Asian connections, with those individuals showing associations with Northeast Asia being most similar to groups found in Mongolia such as the Xiongnu and the Xianbei. An analysis of Hun-era genomes by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2022 likewise found a wide range of genetic variability, with two individuals showing a connection to ancient Northeast Asians and others showing European ancestry."
"A genetic study published in Scientific Reports in November 2019 examined the remains of three males from 5th century Hunnic cemeteries in the Pannonian Basin. The three specimens were found to have had mixed European and East Asian ancestry. They carried paternal haplogroups Q1a2, R1b1a1b1a1a1 and R1a1a1b2a2. Q1a2 is closely associated with Tian Shan Huns and Scytho-Sarmatian populations, while R1b1a1 is associated with Germanic speakers, and R1a-Z93 is broadly associated with Indo-Iranian and Xiongnu populations. The haplogroup results were consistent with a Xiongnu origin of the Huns. All of the Hunnic males studied were determined to have had brown eyes and dark brown hair or black hair, and two had intermediate skin color, while another had dark-to-black skin color."
"However, Savelyev & Jeong et al. 2020 reports while there is East Eurasian genetics detected in the Huns, no ancient genome from the Carpathian basin has been reported to test the Eastern Eurasian genetic connection, but such a conclusion was also based on the lack of Xiongnu archaeogenetics samples. At the same time, the Western Eurasian population connected with various Indo-European languages of Europe (Germanic and Ossetic, in particular) played a crucial role in the formation of Huns. Many of the Huns' names suggest they were European locally but have connection with Turkic speakers. While the Huns do have some steppe ancestry there isn't even enough evidence to directly link the Huns only with the Xiongnu. In the same year Keyser et al. 2020 examined 52 Xiongnu skeletal remains and found that the Xiongnu shared paternal (R1a1a1b2a-Z94, R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124, Q1a and N1a) and maternal haplotypes with the Huns, and suggested on this basis that the Huns were descended from Xiongnu, who they in turn suggested were descended from Scytho-Siberians."
"Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021 analyzed the remains of two elite 4th century Huns from Kazakhstan and Hungary. Their paternal haplogroups were assigned to R1a-Z94 and R1a-Z645. One of these Huns carried the maternal haplogroup D4. They clustered closely with Hunnic remains from Inner Asia and more broadly with Ancient Northeast Asians. The next year, Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2022 examined a 5th-century male from Árpás, Hungary. He belonged to paternal haplogroup R1a-Y57 and maternal haplogroup H5, and clustered closely with West Eurasians."
"A 2022 study by Maróti et al. 2022 described the ancestry of Hunnic remains. Hunnic remains from Asia were assigned to a group designated Asia_Hun_Core, which was of predominantly East Asian ancestry and closely related to the Xiongnu. On the other hand, other Hunnic remains from Europe showed substantially higher Sarmatian ancestry. A third segment of the Hunnic samples clustered closely with Northwestern Europeans. The authors described the paternal haplogroups of 23 Asian and European Hunnic samples: 43% belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93, while 39% belonged to Q-M242, both of which were likely inherited from the Xiongnu. 17% belonged to sub-clades of R1a that are associated with modern Northwestern Europeans, in line with the Germanic affinities of some specimens."
The European Huns are proven to be Xiongnu, genetically heavily mixed with native Europeans, and have the same autosomal DNA and Y-DNA as the Xiongnu. Even the two peoples have the same name. And like the Xiongnu, they are descendants of the Scytho-Siberian Pazyryk and Chandman/Sagly-Bazhy/Uyuk cultures. Now let's look at the language of the European Huns.
"Otto Maenchen-Helfen took the ending -ich for the Turkic diminutive -iq; he proposed that Basich came from basiq, meaning "little captain". Omeljan Pritsak instead understood there to be a suffix -siġ, meaning "like something"; he derived Basich from Turkic *bars-siġ with loss of the -r- and degemination, giving a meaning "feline-like". Gerhard Doerfer takes the name as having a Hunnish origin, but has criticized both Turkic explanations as relying on unproductive suffixes that are not easily proven to have existed."
"Omeljan Pritsak, following an earlier suggestion by A. Vámbéry, derived the root Chara- from Altaic xara - qara, with the meaning of "black" and "great; northern". He derived the second part -ton from a Saka loanword into Turkic, thauna > *taun > tōn, "garment, clothing, mantel". Pritsak concluded that the name Qara-Ton (black clad; with black coat) was an intentionally cryptic term for horse, possibly related to Hunnic totemism."
"Omeljan Pritsak derived the name Octar from Turko-Mongolic word *öktem (strong, brave, imperious; proud, boastful; pride) and verb ökte- / oktä- (to encourage). He argued that the deverbal Turkic-Mongolian suffix m was replaced in Turkic by z while in Mongolian by ri. The reconstructed form is appellative *öktä-r."
"The name recorded as Δεγγιζίχ (De(n)gizikh) by Priscus has abbreviated variant Διν[γι]ζι (Din(gi)zi) in Chronicon Paschale, Den(git)zic by Marcellinus Comes, and Din(gi)tzic by Jordanes. Din(t)zic and Denzic render a Germanic pronunciation *Denitsik, with the frequent dropping of "g". Otto Maenchen-Helfen considered it a derivation from Turkic *Däŋiziq, meaning "little lake". Omeljan Pritsak considered the reconstructed form deŋir + čig > deŋičig, with the meaning "ocean-like"."
"Omeljan Pritsak derived the name from Turkic erän, irregular plural of ēr, meaning "man, real man, hero". He argued that the ending -nik was a diminutive suffix, -näk or -nik, found only in the Altai dialects, sometime also used as an augmentation. The name, reconstructed by Pritsak as Hērnäk, could thus mean both "hero" and "little [lucky] man"."
"Gyula Németh and László Rásonyi argued that the name is a transcription of Turkic munčuq, munʒuq, minʒaq, bunčuq, bonʒuq, mončuq, with the potential meanings of "jewel, pearl, bead" or "flag". Gerhard Doerfer argues that this derivation is unlikely because in the oldest Turkic inscriptions this word is written beginning with a b (*bunčuq) rather than an m."
"Pritsak considered that the name is a transcription of Turkic Oibars, meaning "yellow leopard" (hence "lion"). According to Hyun Jin Kim, his name is connected to Turkic Aybars, meaning "leopard of the moon", an ongon in the Turkic mythology."
"Alp is an Old Turkic word meaning "hero", though it also sometimes was used as a personal name. Ilutuer or Elteber is believed to be a cognate of the ancient Turkic title for a vassal ruler (in this case, vassal to the Khazars). Therefore, it is unclear whether Alp Ilutuer is a proper name, a title, or a combination of the two."
"In the 670s, he provoked raids against the Khazars and heroically died in war. Alp Iluetuer is still remembered in Bulgar and Chuvash legend."
"His name is reconstructable in Old Turkic as *Alp (H)elitbär."
All European Hun names can be constructed as Turkic and Indo-European, proving that the European Huns are descended from the Xiongnu. Now let's look at the genetic components of the medieval Turkic peoples.
Target: Anatolia_Oghuz
Distance: 3.1925% / 0.03192497
79.0 Xiongnu
21.0 Indo-Iranian
Target: Kazakhstan_Kipchak
Distance: 3.0952% / 0.03095247
75.6 Xiongnu
21.2 Indo-Iranian
3.2 Han_Chinese
Target: Kazakhstan_Kimak
Distance: 4.1952% / 0.04195221
85.4 Xiongnu
14.6 Indo-Iranian
Target:
Kayalyk_Medieval_Karluk_Period
Distance: 3.2693% / 0.03269255
57.8 Xiongnu
42.2 Xianbei
Target: Kyrgyzstan_Medieval_Turk
Distance: 3.4803% / 0.03480313
100.0 Xiongnu
Target: Kazakhstan_Medieval_Turk
Distance: 3.5784% / 0.03578417
68.8 Xiongnu
28.4 Indo-Iranian
2.8 Han_Chinese
The fact that the genetic distances are a bit high is the result of insufficient sources, excuse me. But these results prove that the main source of the Turkic peoples is the Xiongnu. After all, the Xiongnu is definitely a Turkic empire, but there are also some minority ethnic groups within the Xiongnu. Now, I say to those who say that the Xiongnu are not Turkic, despite all this evidence, do you still continue to claim that the Xiongnu are not Turkic?
Sources:
https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Xiongnu-Turkic
https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9Fina
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alat_tribe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yueban
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiele_people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yenisei_Kyrgyz
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jie_people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu_language
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modu_Chanyu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luandi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Huns
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basich
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charaton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octar
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengizich
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernak
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundzuk
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oebarsius
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alp_Iluetuer
https://www.exploreyourdna.com
Xianbei:Mongolia_Xianbei,0.0387,-0.387932,0.073916,-0.02907,-0.06155,-0.037929,0.011281,0.012923,-0.000205,0.017312,-0.048392,0.001649,-0.000149,0.00234,0.005836,0.007955,0.001173,0.002407,0.010433,0.022011,-0.02009,-0.018053,-0.023787,-0.008917,-0.001078
Xiongnu:Buryatia_IA_Xiongnu_Late,0.035712,-0.39783375,0.0880105,-0.022327375,-0.07674525,-0.04525,0.013572,0.022960375,0.0107375,0.01346275,-0.020359625,-0.0005245,-0.00312175,0.001324625,-0.001883125,-0.000315,-0.001564625,-0.001868625,0.003236625,0.0105675,-0.016798375,-0.006012625,-0.01750125,0.000421625,0.002769125
Xiongnu:Mongolia_IA_Xiongnu_Early_(Scytho-Siberian_Intermediate_Profile),0.073778,-0.15713009,0.044054545,0.038789364,-0.052849091,0.0026113636,0.0056188182,0.0043004545,-0.017347273,-0.021487182,-0.016799909,-0.0040464545,-0.00062181818,-0.014337818,0.016409727,0.0034231818,-0.011699,0.0020386364,0.00097127273,0.00070472727,-0.015699545,0.00095554545,-0.00036972727,0.0034178182,0.0017962727
Xiongnu:Mongolia_IA_Xiongnu_Late,0.035000625,-0.40195919,0.077144563,-0.028121187,-0.064762062,-0.040177688,0.014658875,0.019975,0.01077575,0.012711,-0.032873625,0.0004495,-0.00065975,-0.00090325,-0.001899875,0.000024875,-0.0001629375,-0.0020270625,0.0034568125,0.013991063,-0.01821,-0.0058734375,-0.020528375,-0.0048724375,0.001130125
Xiongnu:Mongolia_IA_Xiongnu_Late_(Scytho-Siberian_Intermediate_Profile),0.075561,-0.15693838,0.046618,0.020771385,-0.047227692,-0.0018234615,0.0073214615,0.0067630769,-0.013388538,-0.012938769,-0.015651692,0.00057638462,0.0021155385,-0.014831462,0.010283385,0.005222,-0.0051550769,-0.00043861538,0.0025719231,0.0047906923,-0.014042462,0.00073238462,-0.0053659231,0.0022337692,-0.00014753846
Han_Chinese:Han_Beijing_(Northern_China_Profile),0.01935,-0.44480175,0.01187925,-0.0599165,0.056395,0.02447275,0.0100465,0.00663425,-0.01181125,0.003007,-0.07364325,-0.00989125,0.01077825,-0.00543625,-0.00159475,0.00132575,0.001858,-0.000285,-0.00094275,-0.011693,0.01263425,0.006492,0.00406725,0.00078325,0.002006
Indo-Iranian:Mongolia_Early_Medieval_(Iranian_Profile),0.094473,0.081242,-0.062979,0.001615,-0.066782,0.012271,0.00893,-0.000692,-0.046836,-0.030616,-0.005684,-0.001649,0.001933,-0.012248,0.015608,0.016441,-0.007432,0.003927,0.007793,-0.024887,-0.001123,-0.010263,0,-0.005784,-0.000599
Kazakhstan_Medieval_Turk,0.0774,-0.0873355,0.0254555,0.0150195,-0.025543,0.00251,0.0048175,0.0077305,-0.0172825,-0.009385,-0.019568,-0.002921,-0.0030475,-0.010735,0.0007465,0.0057675,-0.00013,0.001457,0.003331,0.000438,-0.005116,0.0059355,-0.005608,-0.0006025,0.002874
Kyrgyzstan_Medieval_Turk,0.064879,-0.206152,0.062602,0.028747,-0.056934,-0.011713,0.00893,0.006461,-0.011249,-0.007836,-0.016564,0.002698,0.004162,-0.020781,0.005429,0.006099,0.008605,-0.008361,0.002514,0.008129,-0.021961,0.01558,-0.001232,-0.00964,-0.006706
Kayalyk_Medieval_Karluk_Period,0.034147,-0.38387,0.090132,-0.022933,-0.072321,-0.045738,0.023501,0.022845,0.001841,0.017677,-0.025982,0.001349,0.000149,0.006606,0.010179,0.000796,-0.008866,-0.000887,0.012696,0.026012,-0.023958,-0.017435,-0.036728,0.001325,0.000239
Kazakhstan_Kimak,0.080814,-0.140143,0.043746,0.027455,-0.050471,-0.011435,0.00376,0.000462,-0.020043,-0.018224,-0.007632,-0.003147,-0.006244,-0.002064,0.008822,0.007425,-0.019558,0.005448,-0.003142,-0.027013,-0.02533,-0.010387,-0.001479,-0.010363,0.001317
Kazakhstan_Kipchak,0.0705705,-0.1269415,0.0273415,0.0046835,-0.039546,-0.00502,0.00564,0.013961,-0.003784,-0.007836,-0.012991,0.000225,0.0037165,-0.005092,0.000746,0.010607,0.007497,-0.0023435,0.005845,0.005065,-0.0101695,0.000742,-0.0027115,0.0013255,-0.002455
Anatolia_Oghuz,0.072847,-0.144205,0.035449,-0.000969,-0.045855,-0.02008,0.009165,0.004154,-0.014112,-0.011299,-0.006008,-0.006594,-0.001189,-0.013349,0.004072,0.00053,0.005476,0.002914,-0.005405,0.007879,-0.012104,0.000495,-0.011339,-0.006386,-0.004191
18:29 UTC
which culture owns this dance
I recently went to a Fire of Anatolia dance concert and saw this dance. I wonder which culture has it.
20:33 UTC
The origin of the Turkic peoples：Haplogroup N-related wave（Yakuts，Tuvans，Anatolian Turks，Khitan）
A 2013 study by Yinqiu Cui et al. found that the main paternal lineage in the prehistoric populations of the West Liao River Valley in Northeast China was N1 (xN1a, N1c). The study also found that N1 was the predominant haplogroup in the region during the Neolithic period at 89%
Haplogroup N1a has two main internal divisions, N1a1 and N1a2..
Differentiation of N-P298：
N1a1a1a1a (L392, L1026) Proto-Uralic
N1a1a1a1b (M2118, M2019) Turkic（Slab Grave）
N1a1a1a1a (L392, L1026):
N1a1a1a1a1-CTS10760（VL29）Balto-Finnic
N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936 Finno-Permic
N1a1a1a1a3-B197 Avar elite
N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936：
B539 Ugric
B540 Ob-Ugric
The primary Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup for the Yakut is N-M231
N1a1a1a1b (M2118,M2019)>Y10755>M2058（Slab Grave）>Yakuts
The remaining haplogroups :
R1a-M17 (including subclade R1a-M458/Slavic )
C-M217 (including subclades C-M48 and C-M407/Buryats)
N-P43
Y DNA from Hun, Avar and Hungarian nomadic conquerors of the Carpathian Basin（Hun，Early Middle and late Avars period）
East Eurasian：
N1a1a1a1a3（F4205）
Q1a2- M25
R1a- Z2124（S23592？）
The rest：
R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 “Germanic”
E-V13 Mediterranean
I1-M253 Northern European
N1a2a-M128 and N1a2b-B523/P43 are estimated to share a most recent common ancestor in N1a2-F1008/L666 approximately 8,600 [95% CI 7,500 <-> 9,800] years before present
N-VL73（N1a2b-P43>VL73）was one of the major paternal lineages of the Oghuz tribes that migrated to Anatolia.
Differentiation of N1a2b-P43：
N1a2b1-VL63（B478）
N1a2b2-Y3195 Samoyedic（Vepsas, Maris，Udmurds）
N1a2b3-VL73（B525）Turkic
N1a2b1-VL63 :
N1a2b1b1-VL64 Samoyedic（Nganasan,Nenet ）
N1a2b1b2-B175 Tuvans
VL67>VL63>VL64/VL65>B175 Tuvans
VL67>VL73>VL83/VL85 “Anatolian Turks”
Few know about the importance of haplogroup N in China. N1a2 split into N1a2b and N1a2a in the Liao region or Northeast Asia
N1a2b carriers travelled west in 3000BC and founded the Samoyedic and Turkic nations, while N1a2a went south to Yellow River, and according to geneticists, founded the Zhou and Khitan dynasty
N1a2a-F1360：King Wen of Zhou's fifteenth son, Bi Gonggao
N1a2a* -M128：Khitan Royal Family (Yelü/耶律羽之)
12:11 UTC