Which Turkic ethnicity is genetically closest to Proto Turks?

[leonj]

Which Turkic ethnicity is genetically closest to Proto Turks?

[Blondie]

I think mongols or siberians.

[TheBalkanite]

Tuvans.

[Ülev]

^^https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_%C5%9Eoygu

now is clear why Turkey bought S-400 :rolleyes:

[Leto]

^^https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_%C5%9Eoygu

now is clear why Turkey bought S-400 :rolleyes:
He's biracial. If Tuvans are 83-85% mongoloid genetically and Western Russians are 2-4%, then I'd guess he's 42-44% East Eurasian/mongoloid. But he is probably an average Russian to many people, including yourself :roll eyes

[Leto]

Which Turkic ethnicity is genetically closest to Proto Turks?
Yakuts. :p

[Chelubey]

I think Tatars.

[Kaspias]

Bashkirs, Siberian Tatars.

[Altaylı]

Bashkirs Tatars Turkmens(Uzbek and Afghan Turkmen) and Uyghurs i think

[Leto]

I think Tatars.
Volga? You gotta be kidding. Some of them are less than 20% East Eurasian. I'd say the vast majority would range from 18 to 22%. And who's to say there was no pre-Bulgar Mongoloid in the region?
Take a DNA test and then contact me ;)

[Chelubey]

Volga? You gotta be kidding. Some of them are less than 20% East Eurasian. Well, what's wrong?

[Leto]

Well, what's wrong?
Read the OP question. Are you trying to tell me the Proto-Turks were only 20% East Eurasian?

[Altaylı]

I think proto Turks were 30-50% east eurasian

[Sora]

Bashkirs, Crimean (Steppe) Tatars, Siberian Tatars, Uyghurs & some Uzbeks. I guess

[Sora]

I think proto Turks were 30-50% east eurasian


This! There are many samples but people still insist on "they were 100% Mongoloid"(!)

[Chelubey]

Read the OP question. Are you trying to tell me the Proto-Turks were only 20% East Eurasian?
Do you think that Tatars received 20% of East Eurasia just from the Proto-Turkic people?

[Leto]

Do you think that Tatars received 20% of East Eurasia just from the Proto-Turkic people?
Lol. Your English skills are probably not good enough. Actually I did say this

"And who's to say there was no pre-Bulgar Mongoloid in the region?"

So if there was a certain amount of East Eurasian before the purported Bulgar migration sometime after 700 AD, then the Turkic share of the Tatar genepool would be even lower. Honestly I don't know if you're being serious or trolling. They are probably 25-30% Early Turkic, kinda like the Anatolian Turks who, unlike the Bulgars, came to mix with a zero Mong population in Anatolia.

[Altaylı]

Leto is proto Turkic.

[Mejgusu]

No one. Turkics always had a dynamic history and were influenced by less and more east eurasian admixed people. So having exactly the same amount of east eurasian admixture does not mean that the other components are the same like their ancestors. Mix a Bashkir with an Uzbek or Turkmen, then you have genetically a Proto-Turk, at least a very close one.

[Chelubey]

Lol. Your English skills are probably not good enough. Actually I did say this

"And who's to say there was no pre-Bulgar Mongoloid in the region?"

So if there was a certain amount of East Eurasian before the purported Bulgar migration sometime after 700 AD, then the Turkic share of the Tatar genepool would be even lower. Honestly I don't know if you're being serious or trolling. They are probably 25-30% Early Turkic, kinda like the Anatolian Turks who, unlike the Bulgars, came to mix with a zero Mong population in Anatolia.
Variant: Tatars descend from Turkic groups having little East Eurasia .
It looks strange, but it looks like Tatars had even less East Eurasia before coming to the Volga than they do now, since almost all neighbors of Tatars have more East Eurasia (excluding Russians and Mordovians).
Mixing with Mansi, Mari, Udmurts, Chuvashes and Bashkirs increases the East Eurasian component of Tatars.

[Mejgusu]

What i know that using the term „Tatar“ for all this groups is strictly wrong. Ortayli always say that they are of Bulgar origin, Tatar is a description for Turkomongol groups due the history and an ethnonym given to Turkic speaking people from east europe to ural region.

[Leto]

Variant: Tatars descend from Turkic groups having little East Eurasia .
It looks strange, but it looks like Tatars had even less East Eurasia before coming to the Volga than they do now, since almost all neighbors of Tatars have more East Eurasia (excluding Russians and Mordovians).
Mixing with Mansi, Mari, Udmurts, Chuvashes and Bashkirs increases the East Eurasian component of Tatars.
Well, in that case the incomers would've been already seriously mixed. You are right about the neighbors and their East Eurasian. Also I think there is some Mongol in Tatars too, after all the Golden Horde and Kazan Khanate period lasted for over 300 years.

[Leto]

What i know that using the term „Tatar“ for all this groups is strictly wrong. Ortayli always say that they are of Bulgar origin, Tatar is a description for Turkomongol groups due the history and an ethnonym given to Turkic speaking people from east europe to ural region.
In Russia when people say Tatar they usually mean the Volga Tatars. Other Tatar groups are too small and insignificant. Crimean Tatars are nearly non-existent in the Russian mainland.

[Fedora]

We don't know how Proto Turks were genetiaclly. The samples found in Xiognu themself are diverse, some are like east iranics, some like yakuts, some like uyghurs.

[Edgü]

Siberian Tatars and Bashkurts by Autosomal DNA

Tuvinians, Altai Kizhi and Todzhan Tuvans by Y DNA Haplogroup

[Chelubey]

Well, in that case the incomers would've been already seriously mixed.
We know nothing about it.

[Mejgusu]

In Russia when people say Tatar they usually mean the Volga Tatars. Other Tatar groups are too small and insignificant. Crimean Tatars are nearly non-existent in Russian mainland.

But in the past Tatars were a significant part of the population in some places of Eastern Europe. It wouldn’t be the first time where a people adopt their self designation from foreigners, the term Turk(ic) for example(from Chinese or Iranic?)comes from another language. I really doubt that Bulgars and other Turkic groups in that region disappeared without leaving any genetic and cultural trace. Bulgars, Khazars and Pechenegs, Turkuc groups who were far more Euro/F-Ugric shited than other Turkics definitely were major substrates of Russian/east European Turkics imo. I don’t deny some Mongolian influence but this is probably not visible or worth mentioning because it is washed out due the time and maybe only visible on Y/mt-Dna.

[Altaylı]

Even we can find west eurasian haplogroups among early Xiongnu
https://i.imgur.com/LPdyNCf_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

Interesting

[Dunai]

Since Proto-Turks were somewhere around halfway between Mongolic and Steppe Indo-Iranians, probably one of the Central Asian Turkic nations are the closest.

[Chelubey]

Also I think there is some Mongol in Tatars too, after all the Golden Horde and Kazan Khanate period lasted for over 300 years.
Yes,aristocratic families,as I know, have more East Eurasian haplogroups(C,O).

[Chelubey]

Since Proto-Turks were somewhere around halfway between Mongolic and Steppe Indo-Iranians, probably one of the Central Asian Turkic nations are the closest.
There is no need for such abstract formulations.
Can you indicate the archaeological culture that you associate with the Proto-Turkic? Then we can find out what the pro-Turkic people were like.

[Thracian]

We are all close to Proto-Turks equally. Our non Turkic part is negligible.

[Sora]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVL_gb2WkAIaOVR?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGsaLe_WsAAUfT-?format=jpg&name=medium

[Roy]

Do we know exactly genetically how Proto-Turks looked like?

[Edgü]

Do we know exactly genetically how Proto-Turks looked like?

Ask Kaspias he knows better

[Sora]

Do we know exactly genetically how Proto-Turks looked like?

Not yet. But I guess they looked like today's Eurasian mixes assuming by their autosomal dna

For examples:

https://theindependent.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Collage_Fotor.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-707114eb700b5db90b0b7728cf04506e

https://alchetron.com/cdn/may-j-512d696a-d7fc-47f6-a439-66d5c69079f-resize-750.png

https://netstorage-legit.akamaized.net/images/c8a9fe821c5acb0f.jpg?imwidth=1200&impolicy=default-amp

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/c0/bc/74/c0bc74a752dd12de1d05667674e76609.jpg

Today's Uzbek, Kazakh & Bashkir Turkic peoples may be closest to proto-Turks about phenotype

[Nykyus]

The Yugur people, direct descendants of the ancient Uyghurs. There are 10 thousand of them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPL3jyrrcPc

[Nykyus]

The Volga Tatars and Bulgars are descendants of the Scythians and Ugric peoples.

[Sora]

The Yugur people, direct descendants of the ancient Uyghurs. There are 10 thousand of them.


Indeed ancient Uyghur results came out as no different than today's Uyghurs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUckFLaX0Ac_KST?format=jpg&name=large

[Edgü]

Not yet. But I guess they looked like today's Eurasian mixes assuming by their autosomal dna

For examples:

https://theindependent.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Collage_Fotor.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-707114eb700b5db90b0b7728cf04506e

https://alchetron.com/cdn/may-j-512d696a-d7fc-47f6-a439-66d5c69079f-resize-750.png

https://netstorage-legit.akamaized.net/images/c8a9fe821c5acb0f.jpg?imwidth=1200&impolicy=default-amp

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/c0/bc/74/c0bc74a752dd12de1d05667674e76609.jpg

Today's Uzbek, Kazakh & Bashkir Turkic peoples may be closest to proto-Turks about phenotype

East Asian Farmer phenotypes doesn't represent the Proto-Turks

[Grace75]

Rats

[Nykyus]

Statues of the Seljuks of Iran

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578679/578679_original.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578047/578047_original.jpg

[Grace75]

Mongol larping rats

[Sora]

East Asian Farmer phenotypes doesn't represent the Proto-Turks

They aren't full Asians either. I only chose the Eurasian mixes which I've thought they may represent ancient-Turkic phenotypes.

For example, I think an anicent Kyrgyz would look no different than this redhead Eurasian child (ancient Kyrgyz were described as redhead in Chinese sources):

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/43/61/31/4361316cc4572ef18795e3829b4680cd.jpg

These blonde Tuvan(first) & Kyrgyz(second) kids would be the best example for ancient Turkic phenotype(especially for the light one):

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/b6/63/7eb66363715ba9bc98c9ca4af22b3e3e.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d7aedf1cc3ab481b2a88ceb8057d2c25

[Altaylı]

Reconstruction of the appearance of ancient people found in burial grounds on the territory of Kazakhstan. Plastic face reconstruction from the skull of a man / 20-25 years old / from the Karaoba burial ground / Kazakhstan /. End of the 1st millennium BC Excavations by Akan Ongarula, author Alexey Nechvaloda https://scontent-sof1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/136370486_2872358333048277_4484569469208044471_o.j pg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=6k9pRVn-r94AX9f1guW&_nc_ht=scontent-sof1-1.xx&oh=b126a99600918820f2ebc19f6758cb1e&oe=601DDB4E
https://scontent-sof1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/136448574_2872358579714919_710324758988653927_o.jp g?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=JBQEag8ESxIAX8-f7uG&_nc_ht=scontent-sof1-1.xx&oh=cf5fc9ed3570c3727374eb0d13c77b0c&oe=601CE9AE

Here is Gokturk Khagan reconstruction:
https://altynadamworld.com/en/exponaty/id/511
Oghuz Turk
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzjo9TUmkZS-hVb7oDLhMaCa1d_wXcV06_Lg&usqp=CAU

They look andronovo Turanid.

[Nykyus]

There in Mongolia, the population was heterogeneous. In East Turkestan in the Bronze Age, Europeans arrived, the closest in culture to the culture of Southern France. There were other branches of the Caucasians, as you pointed out in the Minusinsk basin (Kyrgyz Khaganate).

[Leto]

Statues of the Seljuks of Iran

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578679/578679_original.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578047/578047_original.jpg
Lol. More Mongoloid than fucking Xi Jinping himself!

The God of the Turks Tengri would have looked like that.

[Edgü]

https://i.ibb.co/gdkv8sY/meiramgul.jpg

This girl named Meryemgül is the direct descendant of a Scythian Amazon she is a Kazakh and a good example of Proto-Turks even though she lives in modern times...

[Altaylı]

Statues of the Seljuks of Iran

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578679/578679_original.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/578047/578047_original.jpg

Seljuks Begs from georgian church:
https://pin.it/X2Ynp1y

[Leto]

[img]https://i.ibb.co/gdkv8sY/meiramgul.jpg

This girl named Meryemgül is the direct descendant of a Scythian Amazon she is a Kazakh and a good example of Proto-Turks even though she lives in modern times...
She's prolly ca. 40% Caucasoid even with some North European whence the light hair comes from.

[Nykyus]

Lol. More Mongoloid than fucking Xi Jinping himself!

The God of the Turks Tengri would have looked like that.

But they were Christians, earlier than the Scandinavians. See the cross? Although of the heretical Nestorian branch

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/maximus101/19795028/576296/576296_original.jpg

[Altaylı]

Hunnic reconstructions
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ74_nXuO0FCNOG_DgaxxdRG5dJ8tekn LIXHA&usqp=CAU
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPnm0CHWS4kG-27aRI-C3n9NuAjufX9SSAlA&usqp=CAU
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrExP3pYvhZzg15Pa7dctnlABgU63Uo utGVg&usqp=CAU

Andronovo Turanids.

[Altaylı]

Leto has proto Turkic phenotype.

Leto looks same with Seljuks

[Leto]

The Andronovo were a Bronze Age Indo-European culture, nothing to do with Turkics. Plenty of samples available.

[Edgü]

She's prolly ca. 40% Caucasoid even with some North European whence the light hair comes from.

So ? What is your point ? By genetics she is still very close to Proto-Turks

[Nykyus]

Hunnic reconstructions
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ74_nXuO0FCNOG_DgaxxdRG5dJ8tekn LIXHA&usqp=CAU
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPnm0CHWS4kG-27aRI-C3n9NuAjufX9SSAlA&usqp=CAU
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrExP3pYvhZzg15Pa7dctnlABgU63Uo utGVg&usqp=CAU

Andronovo Turanids.

Lately I have been inclined to think that the Huns were not Turks. The Turks did not deform their skulls. The skulls were deformed by the Sarmatians, I consider the Huns to be a Sarmatian-Ugric mix. Relatives of the Huns were the ancestors of the Hungarians, the Mongoloids.

[Altaylı]

The Andronovo were a Bronze Age Indo-European culture, nothing to do with Turkics. Plenty of samples available.

Andronovo Turanid
http://humanphenotypes.net/AndronovoTuranid.html

[Leto]

Leto has proto Turkic phenotype.

Leto looks same with Seljuks
Please refrain from trolling, don't act silly. I don't mention you, so no need to provoke me.

[Dr_Maul]

Medieval Turks are 30-50% mongoloid but to be honest, in terms of logic the very first person to speak the Turkic language was most likely fully mongoloid

[Leto]

Andronovo Turanid
http://humanphenotypes.net/AndronovoTuranid.html
Alright, must be something else.

[Mejgusu]

Do we know exactly genetically how Proto-Turks looked like?

We don’t know, the origin of Turkics is still a mystery. There are different theories, what i have seen is that Eastern Scythians and Xiongnu are definitely best candidates for Proto-Turkic-origins(genetically!). Eastern Scythians were genetically totally different to Western Scythians, it seems nowadays Iranics aren’t influenced by eastern but directly descended by Western Scythians. The important thing is and i am very careful about calling eastern Scythian as Turkic. We only know they were a part of the Iranic empire, i wouldn’t be surprised if they spoke another language. We don’t have scripts or other archeological writings since Iranic was lingua franca, all this are just theories so calling them Turkic without linguistic proofs is wrong. Imo it is pretty clear that Xiongnu were the ancestors of Turks, i even believe the term Xiongnu is a Chinese version of another, Altaic word. Honestly i don’t think they look different to nowadays Turkics.


The Volga Tatars and Bulgars are descendants of the Scythians and Ugric peoples.

No. Only Cuvashes have substantial F-Ugric Dna, other Turkics in that region are Ugric shifted but definitely have enormous Turkic substrate in their genetics.

[Kaspias]

There is no need for such abstract formulations.
Can you indicate the archaeological culture that you associate with the Proto-Turkic? Then we can find out what the pro-Turkic people were like.

Afanasiyevo.

Volga Tatars are mostly Uralic, they are too far away from being Proto-Turk, and only partially Turkic.


Do we know exactly genetically how Proto-Turks looked like?

Steppe part:


Distance to: MNG_Afanasievo_1
0.01908156 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.02030301 RUS_Poltavka
0.02185087 RUS_Afanasievo
0.02257346 RUS_Catacomb
0.02586231 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
0.02672829 Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash
0.02790692 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.03077288 Yamnaya_UKR
0.03296872 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.03852571 Corded_Ware_POL_early
0.03915956 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.03916501 UKR_Catacomb
0.04362048 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.04467705 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.04581820 ROU_BA

Distance to: MNG_Afanasievo_1
0.11769365 Tajik_Rushan
0.11973994 Darginian
0.12346155 Mordovian
0.12455394 Kaitag
0.12491232 Tajik_Shugnan
0.12517281 Komi
0.12529920 Russian_Kostroma
0.12574624 Ingrian
0.12577996 Kubachinian
0.12634163 Avar
0.12661991 Finnish
0.12662578 Lak
0.12663936 Finnish_East
0.12701214 Karelian
0.12831376 Tajik_Yagnobi



Asian part:


Distance to: MNG_Afanasievo_2
0.04680302 RUS_Shamanka_N
0.04831020 MNG_EIA_3
0.04961437 RUS_Lokomotiv_N
0.04963249 KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian
0.05123819 MNG_Hovsgol_BA_o1
0.05278194 MNG_Xiongnu_EIA_7
0.05294710 RUS_Baikal_BA_o
0.05524182 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.05617175 RUS_Fofonovo_En
0.05830252 KAZ_Nomad_HP
0.05846317 MNG_Center_West_LBA_4
0.06265740 MNG_North_N
0.06695864 MNG_Ulgii_EBA_1
0.06699579 MNG_Xianbei_IA
0.06825737 RUS_Baikal_N

Distance to: MNG_Afanasievo_2
0.06078614 Khamnegan
0.07636600 Tuvinian
0.08163707 Mogush
0.08661159 Buryat
0.08904631 Kalmyk
0.09032413 Todzin
0.09084330 Oroqen
0.09463186 Mongolian
0.09803425 Nanai
0.09959244 Ulchi
0.10695147 Daur
0.10763390 Negidal
0.10778792 Hezhen
0.10800009 Nivkh
0.11801347 Altaian


Proto Turks from Afanasievo Mix


Distance to: Afanasievo_Mixed
0.04368730 MNG_Hovsgol_BA_o2
0.04488908 MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
0.04490771 CHN_Shirenzigou_IA
0.04871631 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.04944061 MNG_EIA_5
0.04970042 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.05370469 RUS_Altai_IA
0.05640717 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.07102542 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.07124857 KAZ_Karakhanid
0.07195320 KGZ_Turk
0.07234189 KAZ_Kimak
0.07321374 KAZ_Nomad_MA
0.07322822 MNG_Mongun_Taiga_LBA_3
0.07745319 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA_2

Distance to: Afanasievo_Mixed
0.05811461 Tatar_Siberian
0.07453513 Tubalar
0.07723235 Bashkir
0.07892836 Nogai
0.08123101 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
0.08523355 Karakalpak
0.09129603 Shor_Mountain
0.09229878 Uygur
0.09366362 Shor
0.09487153 Shor_Khakassia
0.09487226 Hazara_Afghanistan
0.09598066 Hazara
0.10125404 Uzbek
0.10396218 Kazakh
0.10946356 Yukagir_Forest



After the first genetic drift in Xiongnu:


Distance to: MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
0.02770397 CHN_Shirenzigou_IA
0.03655829 MNG_EIA_5
0.04923580 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.05030017 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.05106475 MNG_Hovsgol_BA_o2
0.05121353 KAZ_Kimak
0.05491901 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.05628911 RUS_Altai_IA
0.05643495 KAZ_Karakhanid
0.05846799 KAZ_Karluk
0.05989423 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.06299746 KAZ_Kipchak
0.06473272 MNG_Mongun_Taiga_LBA_3
0.07462935 KAZ_Nomad_MA
0.07467468 RUS_Nomad_MA



Distance to: MNG_Xiongnu_Central_Asian
0.06010046 Tatar_Siberian
0.06513876 Hazara_Afghanistan
0.06629377 Uygur
0.06935267 Nogai
0.06937529 Hazara
0.07142324 Uzbek
0.07317196 Bashkir
0.07855539 Karakalpak
0.08703692 Tubalar
0.09541224 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
0.10264987 Kazakh
0.10509331 Shor_Mountain
0.10724271 Shor
0.10929779 Shor_Khakassia
0.11715995 Yukagir_Forest


These drifts had been continued to occur until recently as they migrate and/or absorb other communities. Turks from Turan were bearing more Iranic, while Turks from Western Siberia bearing more Uralic.



The Yugur people, direct descendants of the ancient Uyghurs. There are 10 thousand of them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPL3jyrrcPc

Not likely, because ancient Uyghur's themselves were too mixed to be Proto-Turk. On the other hand, Eastern Yugurs today are genetically assimilated already. No samples so far from Western Yugurs.

Distance to: Yugur
0.02198553 Tu
0.02544024 Bonan
0.02768163 Tibetan_Gannan
0.02872575 Han_Shanxi
0.03264803 Tibetan_Xinlong



The Volga Tatars and Bulgars are descendants of the Scythians and Ugric peoples.

The Khazar-Bulgar sample shows a continuum with Turkic populations. Volga Tatars are partly descendants of Ugric peoples for sure, but Bulgars? They should be the people who Turkified the region.


Distance to: RUS_Nomad_MA
0.04448527 KAZ_Turk
0.04473372 Scythian_Zevakino_Chilikta_IA
0.04883940 Scythian_RUS_Urals
0.04981576 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.05018305 Hun_Tian_Shan
0.05021804 MNG_EIA_2
0.05069941 MNG_Mongun_Taiga_LBA_3
0.05085693 MNG_Center_West_LBA_5
0.05373434 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
0.05404046 Saka_Kazakh_steppe
0.05754766 RUS_Altai_IA
0.06046634 MNG_Pazyryk_EIA_6
0.06239766 MNG_Hovsgol_BA_o2
0.06251120 TUR_Ottoman
0.06328766 KAZ_Kipchak



Indeed ancient Uyghur results came out as no different than today's Uyghurs

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EUckFLaX0Ac_KST?format=jpg&name=large

Uyghur =/= Yugur. On the other hand, there is no correlation between ancient Uyghur and modern Uyghur results(giving clues of how the modern Uyghur population formed though). The samples used in this graph are partly Mongol, partly Sogdian, etc.

[Leto]

So ? What is your point ? By genetics she is still very close to Proto-Turks
Yes, I don't disagree, although some people would say Kazakhs are heavily Mongolic.

[Altaylı]

Lately I have been inclined to think that the Huns were not Turks. The Turks did not deform their skulls. The skulls were deformed by the Sarmatians, I consider the Huns to be a Sarmatian-Ugric mix. Relatives of the Huns were the ancestors of the Hungarians, the Mongoloids.

https://i.imgur.com/LPdyNCf_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
Is everything indo european?
You can see even early xiongnu carries western eurasian haplogroups

[Leto]

No. Only Cuvashes have substantial F-Ugric Dna, other Turkics in that region are Ugric shifted but definitely have enormous Turkic substrate in their genetics.
Volga Tatars do have a shit ton of Finno-Ugric blood, even Slavic, I suppose. A lot of captives from Russia were brought there, some of them must have been Islamicized. Later on, in the Russian Empire a number of Chuvash, Mari and Mordovians who didn't want to be baptized would have ironically been absorbed by Tatars.

[Nykyus]

Warriors-Mansi (Ugric) of the Ural

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/38/6c/09/386c09e0993ddb79baeb01675d0bf4d8--historical-costume-aries.jpg

[Mejgusu]

Volga Tatars do have a shit ton of Finno-Ugric blood, even Slavic, I suppose. A lot of captives from Russia were brought there, some of them must have been Islamicized. Later on, in the Russian Empire a number of Chuvash, Mari and Mordovians who didn't want to be baptized would have ironically been absorbed by Tatars.

Well i did not say they have not, Volga Tatars have still more Turkic admixture than Cuvashes which are nearly full Ugric.

[Nykyus]

We don’t know, the origin of Turkics is still a mystery. There are different theories, what i have seen is that Eastern Scythians and Xiongnu are definitely best candidates for Proto-Turkic-origins(genetically!). Eastern Scythians were genetically totally different to Western Scythians, it seems nowadays Iranics aren’t influenced by eastern but directly descended by Western Scythians. The important thing is and i am very careful about calling eastern Scythian as Turkic. We only know they were a part of the Iranic empire, i wouldn’t be surprised if they spoke another language. We don’t have scripts or other archeological writings since Iranic was lingua franca, all this are just theories so calling them Turkic without linguistic proofs is wrong. Imo it is pretty clear that Xiongnu were the ancestors of Turks, i even believe the term Xiongnu is a Chinese version of another, Altaic word. Honestly i don’t think they look different to nowadays Turkics.



No. Only Cuvashes have substantial F-Ugric Dna, other Turkics in that region are Ugric shifted but definitely have enormous Turkic substrate in their genetics.

I am ready to give examples of Iranian mythology among the Yakuts and Bashkirs, Chuvash. This is Azhi Dahaka

[Nykyus]

There is an article about this demon on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahhak

[Leto]

I find Altaians, Shors and Khakas interesting, soon there will be updates on them for Gedmatch (Balanovsky data). Some of those groups are heavily R1a, more than Afghanistan.

[Nykyus]

Look, the Bashkirs have the mythology of the Persians. Translated via Google translit from Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аждаха_(башкирская_мифология):

Azhdaha (Bashkir Azhdaһa) is a character of Bashkir mythology, an evil demon in the form of a monstrous snake.

Description
In most cases, it is depicted as a multi-headed gigantic serpent with a fire-breathing mouth. In folk tales, there can be 3-, 5-, 7-, 9- and 12-chapters.

According to the Bashkirs, an ordinary snake, which has lived to a hundred years old, turns into azhdaha. Having lived up to 500-1000 years, she turns into the demon Juha.

Azhdaha can also act as a beautiful woman. For example, in the Bashkir legends, the azhdaha girl marries the khan, who later exposed her.

Inhabits rivers, lakes, swamps, sometimes in a well. People are obliged to sacrifice a girl to him so that he would allow the use of water from the source.

The size of the azhdakh can be judged by the fairy tale "The Red Pillow", in which the daughter of the king of snakes and her two friends hide the seven-headed azhdahu in the bushes, although there are ideas that it is several "dozen fathoms long"

[Mejgusu]

@Nykus, don’t spam here, its actually nice discussion although there are tons of other threads with the same topic.

[Kaspias]

Lately I have been inclined to think that the Huns were not Turks. The Turks did not deform their skulls. The skulls were deformed by the Sarmatians, I consider the Huns to be a Sarmatian-Ugric mix. Relatives of the Huns were the ancestors of the Hungarians, the Mongoloids.

Well, Xiongnu was a confederation first and foremost. What is clear that Mongols spread West with Xianbei and a good chunk of Mongolia was Turkic homeland at that time. It is widely spoken the elite was a Yeniseian speaker from the Southern branch and that claim lies on the Haplogroups found among the Xiongnu elite. Now evaluate what we have: Yeniseians absorbed into Turks, but when? If they were indeed elite in Xiongnu, then it should mean Turks gradually dominated the confederation and created the Turkic self-identification, while doing that, they absorbed also other subjects of confederation who are Iranic and Ugric speakers and caused a drift in their own DNA. If Turks were in power, this still gives them a chance to enlarge their ethnic expansion. But if Mongols were in power, how all the nation ended up being Turk after the dissolution? Simultaneously, how the Western Huns who claimed(actually proved by recent articles) to be connected with Xiongnu shows Turkic philology in the elite, but not Mongol? This might be explained with two options:

1- Yeniseian elite, and the Yeniseian population already assimilated into Turks until the Western Huns.
2- Elite was already Turkic.



Medieval Turks are 30-50% mongoloid but to be honest, in terms of logic the very first person to speak the Turkic language was most likely fully mongoloid

Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

[Altaylı]

Look, the Bashkirs have the mythology of the Persians. Translated via Google translit from Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аждаха_(башкирская_мифология):

Azhdaha (Bashkir Azhdaһa) is a character of Bashkir mythology, an evil demon in the form of a monstrous snake.

Description
In most cases, it is depicted as a multi-headed gigantic serpent with a fire-breathing mouth. In folk tales, there can be 3-, 5-, 7-, 9- and 12-chapters.

According to the Bashkirs, an ordinary snake, which has lived to a hundred years old, turns into azhdaha. Having lived up to 500-1000 years, she turns into the demon Juha.

Azhdaha can also act as a beautiful woman. For example, in the Bashkir legends, the azhdaha girl marries the khan, who later exposed her.

Inhabits rivers, lakes, swamps, sometimes in a well. People are obliged to sacrifice a girl to him so that he would allow the use of water from the source.

The size of the azhdakh can be judged by the fairy tale "The Red Pillow", in which the daughter of the king of snakes and her two friends hide the seven-headed azhdahu in the bushes, although there are ideas that it is several "dozen fathoms long"
https://scontent.fesb2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/123921085_1497669043765907_8212287054598121663_n.p ng?_nc_cat=102&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8024bb&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=IMCQGNgMSdAAX9wLfuc&_nc_ht=scontent.fesb2-1.fna&oh=558ac0692bc1f9f138ec31488556d3f6&oe=6024177C

[Nykyus]

Historical science considers Bashkir to be a people who arrived from Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Autonomy Karakalpakstan) in the 9th century together with the Pechenegs. Before resettlement, they had the state of Kangyui. They arrived and drove out the Hungarians.

But exactly the same myth exists among the Yakuts (Sakha), who broke away from the rest of the Turks very early. This myth was recorded by the German traveler Lindenau in the early 18th century.

[Dr_Maul]

Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

I mean, it would make more sense for Afanasievo_2 to be Turkic rather than 1. To be honest I doubt original Turkic speakers were fully steppe but speaking an NE Asiatic language like that

[Nykyus]

Well, Xiongnu was a confederation first and foremost. What is clear that Mongols spread West with Xianbei and a good chunk of Mongolia was Turkic homeland at that time. It is widely spoken the elite was a Yeniseian speaker from the Southern branch and that claim lies on the Haplogroups found among the Xiongnu elite. Now evaluate what we have: Yeniseians absorbed into Turks, but when? If they were indeed elite in Xiongnu, then it should mean Turks gradually dominated the confederation and created the Turkic self-identification, while doing that, they absorbed also other subjects of confederation who are Iranic and Ugric speakers and caused a drift in their own DNA. If Turks were in power, this still gives them a chance to enlarge their ethnic expansion. But if Mongols were in power, how all the nation ended up being Turk after the dissolution? Simultaneously, how the Western Huns who claimed(actually proved by recent articles) to be connected with Xiongnu shows Turkic philology in the elite, but not Mongol? This might be explained with two options:

1- Yeniseian elite, and the Yeniseian population already assimilated into Turks until the Western Huns.
2- Elite was already Turkic.




Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

At the time of the Xiongnu, the population of the Yenisei Kyrgyz was already mestizo. But still the majority of Europeans who did tattoos on the body. During the time of the Turkic khaganates, there lived a Chinese nobleman Li Lin, whose descendants became Mongoloids. Soviet scientists unearthed his palace.

[Nykyus]

I was wrong. According to Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ли_Лин_(полководец_империи_Хань), Li Ling lived before the creation of the Khaganates. During the Xiongnu.

[Nykyus]

Europeans who lived on the lands of the Kyrgyz Khaganate left masks on the deceased, where European features are traced. First there was the Tagar culture, then the Tashtyk culture (corresponding to the time of the Xiongnu). There are many of these masks

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Tashtyk_culture01.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/streetart_ekb/27404373/2669398/2669398_1000.jpg

[Nykyus]

Europeans who lived on the lands of the Kyrgyz Khaganate left masks on the deceased, where European features are traced. First there was the Tagar culture, then the Tashtyk culture (corresponding to the time of the Xiongnu). There are many of these masks

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Tashtyk_culture01.jpg

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/streetart_ekb/27404373/2669398/2669398_1000.jpg

[Kaspias]

I mean, it would make more sense for Afanasievo_2 to be Turkic rather than 1. To be honest I doubt original Turkic speakers were fully steppe but speaking an NE Asiatic language like that

Yeah. I'm just defending the idea that 2 was speaking a Proto-Asian language whose Mongol, Turkic are descendants of. And the revolution that led the Turkic language's itself to be emerge was the mixing with 1. And while doing that I'm referencing the interchangeability of Turkic languages. In this sense, the first Turkic speakers are the children of 1 and 2.

If we accept those children as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is 40-50% and Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs are the closest proxies. If we accept the Proto-NE Asian father as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is around 90% and the closest proxy is Tuvans. Finally, stating the fact that the Turkic language is like 7000-8000 years old just doesn't make sense to me when considering what we know, and I'm suggesting it emerged in BA. Therefore, I'm accepting 40-50% as the base amount. My assumptions can change in the future if it is discovered that Turkic was spoken before Afanasievo.



At the time of the Xiongnu, the population of the Yenisei Kyrgyz was already mestizo.


Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, too.

[Nykyus]

The Kyrgyz were not exactly nomads. They were sedentary and semi-sedentary. Therefore, they put up an army of 100 thousand soldiers. Their language was already different from Uyghur and our language (Kurykan tribe), which was part of the Uyghur Confederation. In 840, there was a crisis in the Uyghur Khaganate, which waged war against Tibet, the Karluks and the rebellious Kyrgyz. Taking advantage of this, the Kyrgyz revolted, massacred the majority of the population of the Confederation, and staged a genocide. Many went to Xinjiang. Our ancestors lived near Lake Baikal. Since then, Mongolia has become Mongolian, and the Mongolian element has been added. The first time was during the fall of the Xiongnu and the westward advance of the Xianbi, a people from Manchuria who wore braids.

[Nykyus]

Chinese sources indicate the ancestral home of Mongol, these are lands near the Amur River. While the Uighur Kaganate was alive, the Mongols did not dare to settle in the steppes of present-day Mongolia, they were vassals of the Turks. The ancestors of the Mongols were called Tatars.

[Chelubey]

Medieval Turks are 30-50% mongoloid but to be honest, in terms of logic the very first person to speak the Turkic language was most likely fully mongoloid We need more medieval turkic samples outside Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Medieval samples from Central Asia are already too multicomponent (and even include a Han component).

[Nykyus]

Chinese nationalists therefore consider Xinjiang not the land of the Uyghurs. Because Uyghur refugees emerged from the lands of Mongolia in the 840s and 860s.

The reality seems even more complicated. Because those modern Uyghurs are not exactly those ancient Uyghurs, they all died, except for a small number of yellow Uyghurs. Modern Uyghurs are members of the Confederation of Uighurs, who were called Toguzghuz (Nine Tribes).

[Leto]

The founders of the modern Kyrgyz were some kind of Aryanic (50-60% R1a).

[Chelubey]

Volga Tatars do have a shit ton of Finno-Ugric blood, even Slavic, I suppose. A lot of captives from Russia were brought there, some of them must have been Islamicized. Later on, in the Russian Empire a number of Chuvash, Mari and Mordovians who didn't want to be baptized would have ironically been absorbed by Tatars.
Yes. Tatars may possibly have a total Uralic component of 35% (derived from Chuvashes and Bashkirs, among others). But this does not mean that they are the farthest from the proto-Turkic people. Other Turkic groups may have much more admixture. Some Siberian Turkic people (such as Khakass) may have even more Uralic component (Samoyeds + Ugric) than Tatars.

[Dr_Maul]

Yeah. I'm just defending the idea that 2 was speaking a Proto-Asian language whose Mongol, Turkic are descendants of. And the revolution that led the Turkic language's itself to be emerge was the mixing with 1. And while doing that I'm referencing the interchangeability of Turkic languages. In this sense, the first Turkic speakers are the children of 1 and 2.

If we accept those children as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is 40-50% and Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs are the closest proxies. If we accept the Proto-NE Asian father as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is around 90% and the closest proxy is Tuvans. Finally, stating the fact that the Turkic language is like 7000-8000 years old just doesn't make sense to me when considering what we know, and I'm suggesting it emerged in BA. Therefore, I'm accepting 40-50% as the base amount. My assumptions can change in the future if it is discovered that Turkic was spoken before Afanasievo.


Then I would probably say the first linguistic Turk speakers were fully Mong but the first "'real"" Turks as we know them in general would be half and half. I think a similarity can be found within Iranic speakers as the original Iranic speakers were more or less fully Yamnaya/Steppe but "Aryans" would be after a generation of mixes with BMAC/Oxus

[Leto]

Yes. Tatars may possibly have a total Uralic component of 35% (derived from Chuvashes and Bashkirs, among others). But this does not mean that they are the farthest from the pro-Turkic. Other Turkic groups may have much more impurities. Some Siberian Turkic people (such as Khakass) may have even more Uralic component (Samoyeds + Ugric) than Tatars.
The word you were looking for is "admixture", not "impurities" ;)

[Chelubey]

Afanasiyevo.

Volga Tatars are mostly Uralic.


This is too bold a statement. Can you prove it?

[Chelubey]

The word you were looking for is "admixture", not "impurities" ;)Yes, I forgot this word and used a translator.

[Sora]

Meryemgul is probably how ancient Kipchak-Cuman people looked like. Because they were described as "blonde" by many neighboring nations for many times. But I think they still looked very different from Germanic & Slavic populations they've met.

Also I don't agree Volga Tatars are pure Turkic either. The purest Tatars are (for me) Crimean Steppe & Lipka Tatars. Correct me if I'm wrong

[Chelubey]

A lot of captives from Russia were brought there, some of them must have been Islamicized.
Based on haplogroups, Russian-Slavic genetic contribution to the Tatars is very small. It's good that there is modern genetic research and we can reject some myths.

[Mejgusu]

Meryemgul is probably how ancient Kipchak-Cuman people looked like. Because they were described as "blonde" by many neighboring nations for many times. But I think they still looked very different from Germanic & Slavic populations they've met.

Also I don't agree Volga Tatars are pure Turkic either. The purest Tatars are (for me) Crimean Steppe & Lipka Tatars. Correct me if I'm wrong

Tbh i really doubt that Cumans were predominantly blond, at least not those ethnic Cumans. Blondism with Turanid look is really rare among Turkics, they were probably mixed with Ugrics or others. Bashkirs for example are one of the most Steppe shifted Turkics and nevertheless still look like lighter version of Central Asia but nothing more.

[Chelubey]

Also I don't agree Volga Tatars are pure Turkic either. The purest Tatars are (for me) Crimean Steppe & Lipka Tatars. Correct me if I'm wrong
I will correct. Steppe Crimean Tatars are actually Nogais. Their clans - Shirin, Argun, Baryn are possibly of Mongolian origin(Mongols have the same clans).
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogais

[Leto]

Based on haplogroups, Russian-Slavic genetic contribution to the Tatars is very small. It's good that there is modern genetic research and we can reject some myths.
Well, it may be small, I don't know. But fact is Tatars have a lot more European in them (autosomally and in terms of Y DNA) than many people realize. Usually it's us who are trolled and scorned as Tatar mixed bastards and some shit like that (people who say so are either ignorant or malicious). And based on DNA studies we have practically nothing Mongolian in us. Sure, modern Russians have more Mongloid admixture than other Europeans except Finno-Ugrics but that has nothing to do with the Golden Horde. Even to this day Volga Tatars are still heavily concentrated in the Volga and Ural Federal Districts, like 80+% of them live between Penza and Tyumen (these claims are easy to fact-check).

[Mejgusu]

Well, it may be small, I don't know. But fact is Tatars have a lot more European in them (autosomally and in terms of Y DNA) than many people realize. Usually it's us who are trolled and scorned as Tatar mixed bastards and some shit like that (people who say so are either ignorant or malicious). And based on DNA studies we have practically nothing Mongolian in us. Sure, modern Russians have more Mongloid admixture than other Europeans except Finno-Ugrics but that has nothing to do with the Golden Horde. Even to this day Volga Tatars are still heavily concentrated in the Volga and Ural Federal Districts, like 80+% of them live between Penza and Tyumen (these claims are easy to fact-check).

You shouldn’t take trolls serious. It’s clear Russians have no Mongolian admixture. I rather use the term east eurasian than mongoloid like west eurasian instead of Caucasian. Golden horde was a Turkomongol-confederation and didnt left any genetic trace. Like i said, Turkic admixture of Russian Turkics mostly came from Bulgars but also from Khazars. Mongols only left genetic impact to Kazakhs, Kirgiz and Hazaras. That east eurasian admixture of some people for example Uzbeks or other people in Central Asia comes from Mongols is a myth.

@Edgü i reported you, its not funny anymore.

[Kaspias]

This is too bold a statement. Can you prove it?

Yes:

https://i.ibb.co/fDqqQdV/Ads-z.png

Explanation of references





Distance to: RUS_Chalmny-Varre
0.02369731 Saami
0.03665417 Saami_Kola
0.05636610 Udmurt
0.05916953 Besermyan
0.06004001 Komi



Distance to: TKM_Gonur3_BA
0.05457273 Iranian_Mazandarani
0.06974449 Iranian_Fars
0.07001048 Iranian_Seyyed
0.07001823 Iranian_B
0.07058469 Iranian_Zoroastrian



Distance to: HUN_Avar_Szolad
0.01630492 Polish
0.01868995 Ukrainian
0.02144231 Russian_Voronez
0.02219225 Cossack_Ukrainian
0.02244739 Ukrainian_B



Distance to: Afanasievo_Mixed
0.05811461 Tatar_Siberian
0.07453513 Tubalar
0.07723235 Bashkir
0.07892836 Nogai
0.08123101 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye




Although Uralic-like admixture is naturally part of Turkic groups, Chuvash and Volga Tatars have increased scores. Therewithal, the Kazan Tatars model like a mix of Turkic, Uralic, and Slavic. Chuvashes turns out to be fully Uralic except for a negligible amount of Turkic. Crimean, Lipka, and Mishar Tatars also have the "native" admixture.

[Leto]

You shouldn’t take trolls serious. It’s clear Russians have no Mongolian admixture. I rather use the term east eurasian than mongoloid like west eurasian instead of Caucasian. Golden horde was a Turkomongol-confederation and didnt left any genetic trace. Like i said, Turkic admixture of Russian Turkics mostly came from Bulgars but also from Khazars. Mongols only left genetic impact to Kazakhs, Kirgiz and Hazaras. That east eurasian admixture of some people for example Uzbeks or other people who in Central Asia cones from Mongols is a myth.

@Edgü i reported you, its not funny anymore.
Well, didn't Mongols actually settle in parts of Central Asia? In Russians it's definitely a myth (first Western European, then specifically promoted by both the Nazis and the Soviets). But Uzbeks for example have a lot of C, O. Not to mention the Hazaras who are known for their Mongolian ancestry.

[Leto]

Edgü, you can thumb down once or twice but don't do that too often, buddy.

[Renekton]

Turkmens

[Mejgusu]

Well, didn't Mongols actually settle in parts of Central Asia? In Russians it's definitely a myth (first Western European, then specifically promoted by both the Nazis and the Soviets). But Uzbeks for example have a lot of C, O. Not to mention the Hazaras who are known for their Mongolian ancestry.

You are right about haplogroups but this can be explained otherwise, in my knowledge Afghanistan Uzbeks for instance have not many east eurasian haplogroups. Uzbeks have even a lot of Oghuz and „original“ Kipchak roots.

[Chelubey]

Yes:

Although Uralic-like admixture is naturally part of Turkic groups, Chuvash and Volga Tatars have increased scores. Therewithal, the Kazan Tatars model like a mix of Turkic, Uralic, and Slavic. Chuvashes turns out to be fully Uralic except for a negligible amount of Turkic. Crimean, Lipka, and Mishar Tatars also have the "native" admixture.
I don't see any solid evidence here. Do we know the genetics of proto-Turkic people and the genetics of the Turkic people who formed Tatars? Please ,explain it.

[Leto]

You are right about haplogroups but this can be explained otherwise, in my knowledge Afghanistan Uzbeks for instance have not many east eurasian haplogroups. Uzbeks have even a lot of Oghuz and „original“ Kipchak roots.
It's not easy to tell whether something is Turkic or Mongolic. Particularly after so many centuries of migrations and admixture.

[Dr_Maul]

You shouldn’t take trolls serious. It’s clear Russians have no Mongolian admixture. I rather use the term east eurasian than mongoloid like west eurasian instead of Caucasian. Golden horde was a Turkomongol-confederation and didnt left any genetic trace. Like i said, Turkic admixture of Russian Turkics mostly came from Bulgars but also from Khazars. Mongols only left genetic impact to Kazakhs, Kirgiz and Hazaras. That east eurasian admixture of some people for example Uzbeks or other people in Central Asia comes from Mongols is a myth.

@Edgü i reported you, its not funny anymore.

I think it is related to language. Besides Siberian Tatar, everyone in the Aralo-Caspian branch of Kipchak has some present Mongolian affinities. People speaking that branch include Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Karakalpak and Nogai.
Look at this Y-DNA Project for Karakalpaks. You will not even find this % of C and O in most of Mongolia....
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/karakalpak/default.aspx?section=yresults
Nogai are basically western Kazakhs (according to Kazakhstan reddit) so thats not surprising

[Mejgusu]

It's not easy to tell whether something is Turkic or Mongolic. Particularly after so many centuries of migrations and admixture.

I only know that Uzbeks have also other Turkic ancestry than Karluk. At least, they aren’t very different from Karakhanids or Karluks.

[Kaspias]

I don't see any solid evidence here. Do we know the genetics of proto-Turkic people and the genetics of the Turkic people who formed Tatars? Please ,explain it.

The point is we have enough materials to conclude about Proto-Turks, but we lack samples labeled "Proto_Turk," there is no remedy to wait for such a label because it will never come unless we come with theories on what we have already.

It actually does. I used Afanasievo as a melting pot but even if you don't use it, and go with BA Turkic samples that are concretely present, Chuvash still will be getting Chalmny-Varre, and Tatar groups still will be modeling as I posted. If you mean Chalmny-Varre was part of Turkic's, then I can agree with that to some degree because the Steppe part of Proto Turks already has that kind of admixture, but what I pointed out is Chuvash and Kazan Tatars are definitive outliers compared to the rest in terms of Chalmny-Varre admixture. So, this should tell something.

[Chelubey]

Mongols only left genetic impact to Kazakhs, Kirgiz and Hazaras. That east eurasian admixture of some people for example Uzbeks or other people in Central Asia comes from Mongols is a myth.

Mongols took part in the ethnogenesis of Uzbeks. Historical sources say about it. But we cannot pinpoint the Mongolian contribution to Uzbek genetics.

[Chelubey]

The point is we have enough materials to conclude about Proto-Turks, but we lack samples labeled "Proto_Turk," there is no remedy to wait for such a label because it will never come unless we come with theories on what we have already.

It actually does. I used Afanasievo as a melting pot but even if you don't use it, and go with BA Turkic samples that are concretely present, Chuvash still will be getting Chalmny-Varre, and Tatar groups still will be modeling as I posted. If you mean Chalmny-Varre was part of Turkic's, then I can agree with that to some degree because the Steppe part of Proto Turks already has that kind of admixture, but what I pointed out is Chuvash and Kazan Tatars are definitive outliers compared to the rest in terms of Chalmny-Varre admixture. So, this should tell something.
I agree about Chuvash.
Tatars have 35% of Chalmny-Varre. If this is whole Uralic component of Tatars, then I will also agree.
But I do not imagine Siberian Tatars as model Turkic people. This multicomponent Turkic group was formed relatively recently.
If you want, you can read Russian sources about the genetics and ethnogenesis of the Siberian Tatars.
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=15461

[Dr_Maul]

The point is we have enough materials to conclude about Proto-Turks, but we lack samples labeled "Proto_Turk," there is no remedy to wait for such a label because it will never come unless we come with theories on what we have already.

It actually does. I used Afanasievo as a melting pot but even if you don't use it, and go with BA Turkic samples that are concretely present, Chuvash still will be getting Chalmny-Varre, and Tatar groups still will be modeling as I posted. If you mean Chalmny-Varre was part of Turkic's, then I can agree with that to some degree because the Steppe part of Proto Turks already has that kind of admixture, but what I pointed out is Chuvash and Kazan Tatars are definitive outliers compared to the rest in terms of Chalmny-Varre admixture. So, this should tell something.

Can you post the mixed Afanasievo code?

[Kaspias]

I agree about Chuvash.
Tatars have 35% of Chalmny-Varre. If this is whole Uralic component of Tatars, then I will also agree.
But I do not imagine Siberian Tatars as model Turkic people. This multicomponent Turkic group was formed relatively recently.
If you want, you can read Russian sources about the genetics and ethnogenesis of the Siberian Tatars.
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=15461

Well, I was thinking of the non-Turkic component of Kazan Tatars are fully Uralic and that's why I said "mostly Uralic", but apparently there is some Slavic input as well. They seem to be a mixed population that absorbed a degree of Slavic population inside, together with Turkic conquerors and native Uralic community.

I do not mean Siberian Tatars are proto-Turks, I do mean Siberian Tatars are the closest proxy to proto-Turks. That's because Siberian Tatars have a similar meta admixture breakdown with Proto-Turks. Of course, modern Siberian Tatars have other trigger factors.


Can you post the mixed Afanasievo code?


Afanasievo_Mixed,0.07796875,-0.15740675,0.06052775,0.0512765,-0.05147125,0.001255,0.00182125,0.000346,-0.02367375,-0.034215,-0.01140775,-0.00359675,0.00089175,-0.019439,0.019476,0.00914875,0.00136925,-0.000127,0.00012575,0.01638275,-0.01169825,0.00744975,-0.0013865,0.00674775,0.00119725

[Chelubey]

Well, I was thinking of the non-Turkic component of Kazan Tatars are fully Uralic and that's why I said "mostly Uralic", but apparently there is some Slavic input as well. They seem to be a mixed population that absorbed a degree of Slavic population inside, together with Turkic conquerors and native Uralic community.

This is just a hint. The age of some subclades of some hgs of Tatars suggests that the ancestors of Tatars were in contact with northern, northeastern Europeans about 1500-2000 years ago.

[Nykyus]

I agree about Chuvash.
Tatars have 35% of Chalmny-Varre. If this is whole Uralic component of Tatars, then I will also agree.
But I do not imagine Siberian Tatars as model Turkic people. This multicomponent Turkic group was formed relatively recently.
If you want, you can read Russian sources about the genetics and ethnogenesis of the Siberian Tatars.
http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=15461

Southwestern Siberia, where the Siberian Tatars live, became Turkicized late. Researchers consider them the ancestral home of the Hungarians. These lands were the Great Hungary, the birthplace of the Huns and Hungarians.
The Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus named the ancestors of the Hungarians Savarts-Asphals. Savart is a tribe of Sabir, Siberia.

[Nykyus]

Real Turks, the first people who called themselves Turks, were formed in Altai, in Chinese the Golden Mountains. In 740, they were exterminated by the rebellious Uyghurs, who even destroyed the gravestones. Before that, they managed to create a Vast Empire, the First Turkic Khaganate from Manchuria to the shores of the Azov Sea. Their commanders on the monuments have pronounced Mongoloid facial features. Most likely they come from Xianbei, which corresponds to the Chinese annals.

Kul Tegin from the Ashina dynasty, a brave knight and protector of the Turkic people.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/S9GC5Z_u35gxokbpz2EmbSO6gpfHAsJjM0PpGwp_2VsumQmSa9 0d0duEZ4cXX-fIlwbxPYpgzeMZDiKlenh9K-SSIxWLBDeEx0eG9iMngKBk

Unlike the ruling elite, their subjects, the Uyghurs, are considered Caucasians.

[Nykyus]

Turkmens

Most of the Turkmens and Turks are descendants of the Parthians, who were descendants of Saka Haomavargа. Haoma is a sacred drink of the Aryan tribes.

Here they are at the monument to Darius I

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/UY4r9Ozgt_x3Q-knCKqtoxj_Z4sp-w4JZ0nZnEufl3Vk-cOPLWMLskalxTPvEfsJHzxUChoHK6hfCMElyz6mjzIeSujRNXS RoWg5WtGM

[Dr_Maul]

Most of the Turkmens and Turks are descendants of the Parthians, who were descendants of Saka Haomavargа. Haoma is a sacred drink of the Aryan tribes.

Here they are at the monument to Darius I

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/UY4r9Ozgt_x3Q-knCKqtoxj_Z4sp-w4JZ0nZnEufl3Vk-cOPLWMLskalxTPvEfsJHzxUChoHK6hfCMElyz6mjzIeSujRNXS RoWg5WtGM

But they have mostly Q and are up to 40% East Asian

[Altaylı]

Nykus stop spamming random pls :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Nykyus]

Nykus stop spamming random pls :rotfl: :rotfl:

I gave scientific data in general. No fiction. There are of course many mysteries. This is, for example, the change of the Scythian Iranian-speaking tribes that lived up to Western Mongolia to the Turkic Mongoloid ones.

The Iranian substrate predominates among the Turkmens and Azerbaijanis. They are too Caucasian. The first capital of Parthia, Nisa, is located in Turkmenistan, the ruins of which are protected by UNESCO.

[Altaylı]

I gave scientific data in general. No fiction. There are of course many mysteries. This is, for example, the change of the Scythian Iranian-speaking tribes that lived up to Western Mongolia to the Turkic Mongoloid ones.

The Iranian substrate predominates among the Turkmens and Azerbaijanis. They are too Caucasian. The first capital of Parthia, Nisa, is located in Turkmenistan, the ruins of which are protected by UNESCO.

Are Turkmens too caucasoid? Lol they have mostly y dna Q
Also these arent scientific you are just posting randomly Wikipedia sources about myth
Just Kaspias is posting science about this thread others are just posting random things

[Chelubey]

I do not mean Siberian Tatars are proto-Turks, I do mean Siberian Tatars are the closest proxy to proto-Turks. That's because Siberian Tatars have a similar meta admixture breakdown with Proto-Turks. Of course, modern Siberian Tatars have other trigger factors.

One could agree with you about the Siberian Tatars in general, but the Zabolotniye_Tatars are even closer to your proto-Turkic people than the Siberian Tatars in general.
Here are generalized data on the ethnogenesis of the Zabolotniye_Tatars :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabolotnie_Tatars
They have very little Turkic component, but they are almost model of proto-Turkic people according to your tools.
Thus, this tool cannot correctly determine the size of non-Turkic component in individual Turkic ethnic groups. This is more important, since we do not know the real genetics of the proto-Turkic people.

[Nykyus]

The First Credible Turkic State is the First Turkic Khaganate with its center in Mongoliahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Turkic_Khaganate. There is no evidence that the Xiongnu were Turkic-speaking. One word preserved from the state of the Huns of Attila has a Slavic affinity. Or vice versa, the Hunnic word got into the emerging Slavic ethnos. This word is trizna. This word means a competition of the brave during a funeral.

[Nykyus]

Also these arent scientific you are just posting randomly Wikipedia sources about myth

I have more than just Wikipedia. These are the works of Soviet scientists and orientalists based on Chinese sources. But I didn't include genetics.

[Nykyus]

Interestingly, all the Turkic peoples of Central Asia in the 10-11 centuries spoke a single Turkic language with small dialect differences. This statement is based on the work of Mahmud Kashgari.
But Mahmud Kashgari did not know the Chuvashes and Yakuts, remote and isolated peoples, because their differences between the rest of the Turkic peoples are significant.

[princeton90]

Uighurs, probably.

[Mejgusu]

The First Credible Turkic State is the First Turkic Khaganate with its center in Mongoliahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Turkic_Khaganate. There is no evidence that the Xiongnu were Turkic-speaking. One word preserved from the state of the Huns of Attila has a Slavic affinity. Or vice versa, the Hunnic word got into the emerging Slavic ethnos. This word is trizna. This word means a competition of the brave during a funeral.

Mongolia didn’t exist then, nice try. Xiongnu were most probable ancestors of Turkics, regardless which language they spoke. Since they had also non-Turkic-related people like Iranics or others inside them, it is difficult to say how homogeneous or heterogeneous they were.


Uighurs, probably.

Uyghurs are predominantly Turkic with a bit Sinid/Iranic influence. Early Turkics weren’t Sinid influenced.

[Leto]

Uyghurs are predominantly Turkic with a bit Sinid/Iranic influence. Early Turkics weren’t Sinid influenced.
Do you support their large scale resettlement in Turkey? After all, they are Turkic speakers and Sunni Muslims, so their integration will go smoothly.

[Mejgusu]

Do you support their large scale resettlement in Turkey? After all, they are Turkic speakers and Sunni Muslims, so their integration will go smoothly.

Actually Turkish government is not very interested in any Turkic related policy, besides of that most Turks have not Turanistic ideology neither they want any migrants, not even Turkics. Personally i would support taking them from China but it is just wishful thinking, i once opened a thread about it and ended as dump for stupid thoughts. I think it is too off topic and i don’t want discuss about it nor it should be discussed here.

[Nykyus]

Mongolia didn’t exist then, nice try. Xiongnu were most probable ancestors of Turkics, regardless which language they spoke. Since they had also non-Turkic-related people like Iranics or others inside them, it is difficult to say how homogeneous or heterogeneous they were.



Uyghurs are predominantly Turkic with a bit Sinid/Iranic influence. Early Turkics weren’t Sinid influenced.

Mongolia was used as a geographical concept. The Xiongnu originated in Eastern Mongolia, because Western Mongolia was part of the sphere of influence of the Caucasoid race.
Here is a political map of the world 500 BC. The Xiongnu are designated number 113, the ancestors of the Mongols are number 114, further to the east are the Korean states of Buyeo, Goguryeo. Number 109 - Yuezhi, Caucasians.

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/chronosophy/images/atlasVBC.png

[Sora]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325047876_137_ancient_human_genomes_from_across_th e_Eurasian_steppes

[Roy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVL_gb2WkAIaOVR?format=jpg&name=medium

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGsaLe_WsAAUfT-?format=jpg&name=medium

So Bashkirs?

[Altaylı]

So Bashkirs?

Yes Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs are the closest proxy to proto Turks

[Nykyus]

Protomagyars lived in the places where Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs live. Want to refute?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Territory_of_the_Kangju_in_200_CE.jpg

[Altaylı]

Protomagyars lived in the places where Siberian Tatars and Bashkirs live. Want to refute?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Territory_of_the_Kangju_in_200_CE.jpg

That doesn't mean anything.

[Nykyus]

That doesn't mean anything.

Your attempts to refute the official story are highly questionable. Because this story was based on the works of archaeology and written sources:picard1:.

Burdjans and Bajgards in Asia

Stay in the 1st millennium AD e. ancestors of the southeastern Bashkir tribes in Central Asia, or rather in the Syr Darya regions and in the Aral Sea region, is of fundamental importance for understanding the ethnogenesis of the Bashkirs. Therefore, it is important to compare ethnographic material with other sources [1].

The ancestors of the Usergan, Tangaur, as well as some other Bashkir tribes in the early Middle Ages and Arab-Persian sources were known under the general name Badjgard, Badjgurd, Basjirt or Bashhart. Burzyans under their own name (Arabic - Burdjans, Borjana) from the end of the 1st millennium AD. e. until the XIV century. are constantly mentioned in the territory from the Caspian to Byzantium. Information about the Badjgards and Burdjans is available from Al-Biruni, Al-Masudi, Gardizi, Al-Idrisi and in the works of other oriental writers.

According to Al-Biruni, "the area occupied by the seventh climate" and inhabited "by various categories of Turks ... passes through the Bashhart mountains, through the Pechenegs, the cities of Suvar and Bulgar ..." [2]. Al-Biruni's message, which is based on an earlier tradition (Ibn-Khordadbeh, IX century), is repeated in many Arab-Persian sources. Almost unchanged, it was borrowed by the 13th-century cosmograph-compiler. Al-Qazvini, from whose work this message passed into the works of Eastern authors of the XIV-XV centuries. So, in the first half of the 15th century. Abd ar-Rashid al-Bakuvi wrote that the seventh climate "passes through the Bashkird mountains, to the limits of al-Badjanak, the cities of Suvar and Bulgar and ends at the sea of ​​al-Muhit" [3]. In historical research, the "Bashhart Mountains" have long been identified with the Ural Mountains, but this thesis is based solely on the fact of the modern settlement of the Bashkirs in the South Urals. The author, from whom Al-Biruni borrowed the quoted message, obviously had in mind a different situation, reflecting the historical and ethnographic map of the 8th-9th centuries. or earlier. The thesis about the settlement of the Pechenegs in the second half of the 9th century, firmly established in science, can hardly be shaken. in the emba-Yaik-Volga interfluve [4]. In recent years, he has found convincing confirmation in archaeological research, which notes that the Pechenezh-Toric antiquities in the Volga region did not spread north of the latitude of the Zhiguli mountains [5]. Consequently, the "limits of the Pechenegs" could not be between the Ural ridge and the cities of Suvar and Bulgar. According to the Arab geographical tradition, the seventh climate "begins in the east, where forests and mountains are inhabited by some [groups of people] from the Turks, similar to savages" [6]. The "Bashhart Mountains", which Al-Biruni and his compilers mention up to the Pechenezh limits, could be located somewhere in the east, most likely in the eastern neighborhood of the Pechenegs who roamed at the turn of the 8th-9th centuries. but in the middle course of the Syr Darya and in the steppes adjacent to it from the north and south. As we will see below, the argumentation of this conclusion can be extended with the involvement of other materials.

The sources also contain direct indications indicating the presence of the ancient Bashkirs in the Syrdarya and in the Aral Sea region. Al-Masudi (X century), speaking about the reasons for the movement of the Turkic nomads from east to west, mentions the battle of the “four Turkic tribes” “near the sea of ​​Gurganch” (Aral Sea - R.K.) with the Guzes, Karlukamps and Kipchaks. Masudi cites the names of these "Turkic tribes": Badjanak, Badjan, Badjgard and Nauverde [7]. Al-Masudp repeats the same information in Kitab at-tanbih wa-l-ishraf with reference to another work that has not come down to us and with some new details: “... but we mentioned in the book Kitab funun al-ma 'arif va majera fi-d-duhur as-sa-valif "the reasons for the resettlement of these four Turkic tribes from the east and what happened between them, the Guzes, Karluks and Kimaks from the wars and raids on Lake Djurdjani" (MITT, 1939, p. . 166). Doubts about the reliability of the message of Al-Masudi, expressed in their time by I. Marquart and A. Yu. Yakubovsky, disappeared after the possibility of contact in the 8th-9th centuries was proved. on the Syr Darya and in the Aral Sea region, the Oguzes, Karluks and Kimak-Kipchak tribes with the Pechenegs [8]. It is known that the tribes mentioned by Al-Masudi (at least three of them: Badjanak, Badjan and Badjgard) after the defeat at the "Djurzhani Lake" (Aral Sea - R.K.) moved to the North Caucasus, in the environment of the Khazars and Alans [ nine]. It is very important for our topic to establish the time of these events. Based on the general chronology of the Pechenezh history in the 9th century, researchers attribute them to the era between the middle and the end of the 9th century [10]. An earlier and probably reliable date is named by N. Kurat. Referring to an unknown message from Al-Balazuri (IX century), he writes that the Pechenegs and their allied tribes were defeated and left the Aral steppes during the time of Caliph Abdullah ibn-Gakhir, i.e. in 830-844.
After moving from the Aral Sea region to the west, the Bashkirs are mentioned in the work of Gardizi (XI century). According to him, “Bashgird was one of the highest ranks of the Khazars. He settled between the Khazars and Kimaks with 2000 horsemen. The Khazar Khakan sent a person to Bashgird with a proposal to oust the Saklab ... ”[12].

[Sora]

So Bashkirs?

Yes, seems so. Also Uyghurs & Uzbeks seem very close to ancient Turkics too. For example;

Uzbek(around 43% Mongoloid & less Iranic admixed than average Uzbeks)

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 25.55
2 Gedrosia 19.84
3 Siberian 17.08
4 North_European 13.21
5 Caucasus 12.9
6 Atlantic_Med 5.1
7 South_Asian 3
8 Southwest_Asian 2.25
9 Southeast_Asian 0.83
10 Northwest_African 0.26

Distance to: Uzbek
5.46026556 Uzbeks
8.07970296 Hazara
8.30399904 Uyghur
9.21689753 Turkmen_Afghanistan
10.07504342 Uzbek
11.88161184 Karakalpak
13.05166656 Nogai_Astrakhan
14.98541291 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
17.00040294 Kazakh
19.42555791 Kyrgyz
21.09822030 Crimean_Tatar_Steppe
21.84468585 Turkmen_Iran
23.83653708 Bashkir
24.42534340 Tajik_Mountain
25.88298089 Turkmen_TM
26.82387556 Tajik_Lowland
27.69282037 Lipka_Tatar
29.54851265 Nogai
29.97975317 Altai
30.30013036 Tajik_Herat
31.42825480 Pamiri_Shughnan
31.84172734 Pamiri_Ishkashim
31.95105476 Kalmyk
32.17324976 Pamiri_Rushan
32.25077984 Tajik_Kabul

Uyghur (it seems there is no Uyghur reference in Dodecad k12b)

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 27.44
2 Siberian 17.54
3 Gedrosia 16.01
4 North_European 12.2
5 Caucasus 9.54
6 South_Asian 4.98
7 Southeast_Asian 4.86
8 Atlantic_Med 4.58
9 Southwest_Asian 2.85

Distance to: Uyghur
6.76985967 Hazara
9.06718810 Uzbeks
9.14126359 Karakalpak
11.38567521 Nogai_Astrakhan
13.11194112 Turkmen_Afghanistan
13.28655335 Uzbek
13.35837191 Kazakh
15.16859585 Kyrgyz
18.60490258 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
22.50986228 Crimean_Tatar_Steppe
24.07484787 Bashkir
25.99133509 Turkmen_Iran
27.48439193 Altai
27.93328660 Kalmyk
28.88874867 Tajik_Mountain
29.25454324 Lipka_Tatar
29.46831858 Mongol_Khalka
30.07026604 Turkmen_TM
30.65407151 Nepali_Newar_Shrestha
31.05454073 Tajik_Lowland
32.99711806 Mongol
33.34469673 Nogai
34.20006871 Tajik_Herat
35.29698429 Brahmins_from_Uttaranchal
35.40746249 Tajik_Kabul

[Leto]

Uyghur (it seems there is no Uyghur reference in Dodecad k12b)

There is. You are using the exact same reference name, so it gets replaced. Put something like UZ instead of Uzbek and try again.

[reboun]

Siberian Tatars maybe?

[Mejgusu]

Yes, seems so. Also Uyghurs & Uzbeks seem very close to ancient Turkics too. For examplel

This Uzbek has lower NE than i expected.

[Sora]

This Uzbek has lower NE than i expected.

I've seen many Uzbek results (on a graphic) which have 20%-24% European admixture and also had 38%-50% Mongoloid. I'll post it here if I find the graphic's photo

[Chelubey]

Let's treat the proto-Turkic people as a normal ethnic group, not a phantom. What archaeological culture can be associated with ancient Turkic people?
In Eurasia, these are Scythians/Sarmatians, Sibirian Scithians, Huns and Slab Graves culture.
In the last work, the first part of Early Huns were a mixture of Siberian Scythians and Slab Graves. Other Huns were pure Sarmatians.
Modern Mongols are modeled as 50-60% of Slab Graves, 30% of Han, 10% of Sarmatians. If Slab Graves was proto-Mongols, then early Turkic people were Scythians and Sarmatians.
So, the Slab Graves is only fully Asian Mongoloid archaeological culture that can claim to be Proto-Turkic. The rest variants: European Scythians/Sarmatians, Asiatic Saks, "Sibirian Scythians".