Haplogroup C-M401 among Mongols

[Shubotai]

For clarification purposes, the term Mongolians will be used just for Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, while the term Mongols for all Mongols regardless of place of origin.

Haplogroup C-M401 (https://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/d/digx/20160818/20160818145856.gif) is found with a frequency 15% in Mongolians, 13% in Kyrgyz, 25% in Kazakhs (https://www.google.mn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjKjI7Knd3lAhVcQkEAHaKqCDsQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnblib.library.kz%2Felib%2Flibrary .kz%2Fjurnal%2F%25D0%2594%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BA%25D0 %25BB%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B4_06_2017%2520(2)%2F12-%2520Biology%2520E.E.Ashirbekov0617.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3AGTftBlap4HdlNHeM2c7p), 33% in Hazara and 40% in Uzbeks in Afganistan, 10% in Nogai in Russia, 4% in Turkmens, 7% in Pakistani, 0.7% in northern Han. C-M504* is also found in Mongolians and in northern China. Given its moderate frequency in Mongolia but also its presence in peoples historically associated with Mongol origins (https://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/d/digx/20160817/20160817013850.gif) like Jalair tribe in Kazakhstan or the Hazara in Afghanistan is the haplogroup best associated with original Mongols and is none other than the so called C2*-starcluster, previously C3*-starcluster or alternative mutation F4002.

The distribution (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41431-017-0012-3/MediaObjects/41431_2017_12_Fig1_HTML.jpg) of the starcluster C-M401 matches the extension of the Mongol empire (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png) at the time of Chinggis Khaan.

The ISOGG 2018 haplogroup C tree of C-M504, the marker most commonly found in Mongolians is:

• • • • • C2b1a3 M504
• • • • • C2b1a3~ AM01318/CTS5559/PF4730/Z1866, F914, F966, F1918, F2007, F2914, F3747, F3770, F3779, F3791, F3795, F3810, F3827, F3897, F3919, F3932, F3939, F3945, F3991, F4023, F4031, F4141, FGC16301/Y4523, FGC16306/SK1068/Y4527, FGC16313/Y4532, FGC16318/Y4536, FGC16319/Y4537, FGC16323/F9989/Y4464, FGC16326, FGC16328/SK1075/Y4541, FGC16329/Y4542, FGC16330, FGC16332/Y4544, FGC16335, FGC16336, FGC16349, FGC16361, FGC16365, FGC16377/Y4558, FGC16381, FGC16394, FC16397/Y4570, FGC16402, FGC16403/Y4576, FGC16411/Y4580, FGC16412/Y4581, FGC16422/F12057/Y8801, FGC16424/Y4589, FGC16437/Y4597, FGC16440/SK1067/Y6719, FGC16445/F12443/Y8813, FGC16447, FGC16448/Y4602, FGC16450/Y4605, FGC16453/Y4606, FGC16456/Y4608, FGC16460/Y4611, FGC16467/Y4614, FGC16469, FGC16470, FGC16471, FGC16472/Y4617, FGC16475/Y4620, FGC16476/Y4621, FGC16481/Y4626, FGC16486/Y4630, FGC16489/Y4633, FGC16492/Y4636, FGC16496/Y4639, FGC16502, FGC16508/Y4645, FGC16509/Y4646, FGC16512/Y4649, FGC16513, FGC16586/F10157/Y8781, FGC16596, Y4601, Y8789
• • • • • • C2b1a3a M401
• • • • • • • C2b1a3a1~ F3796, F4002, F12021/FGC16418/Y11098, F12308/FGC16431/Y1112
• • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a~ F9700/FGC16305/Y4526, F10216/FGC16336/Y8818, F10312/FGC16342/Y8792, F11134/Y8798, F11271/FGC16596/Y8808, F11508/FGC16387/Y4565, F11899/FGC16411/Y4580, F12521/FGC16447/Y8784, F12844/FGC16470/Y8821, F13055/FGC16486/Y4630, F13100/FGC16489/Y4633, F13923/FGC16526/Y8791, FGC16467/Y4614, FGC16509/Y4646, FGC16595/Y11097
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a1~ FGC16594/Y11137
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a1a~ Y20085
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a1a1~ Y20087
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a2~ Z43948, Z43949, Z43950, Z43951, Z43952
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3~ F5481/FGC16328/SK1075/Y4541
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3a Y12782
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3a1~ Z31703, Z31704, Z31705, Z31706, Z31707
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3a2 F5483/SK1074
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3a3~ Z44371, Z44372, Z44373
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3b~ F10091/ZQ31, F11945, F13625
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3c~ SK1076
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3c1~ SK1077
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a3d~ FGC16217, Y136036, Y136045, Y136046, Y136048
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4~ F9747, F10981, F11791/ZQ319, F11978
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4a~ F10001, F10868, F12703
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4a1~ F11885, F12330
• • • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4a2~ F14806
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4b~ F14768
• • • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1a4c~ BY31/F14779, F14763, F14770, F14772, F14778, SK1408.2
• • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1b~ F3960, F10077
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1b1~ F2763.2, F3845.2/L598.2
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1b2~ CTS9894.2/M3574.2/PF3036.2
• • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1c~ F10374, F12634/FGC27183/V3788, SK1072, SK1073
• • • • • • • • C2b1a3a1c1~ F11313, F11838, F12663, F12867
• • • • • • • C2b1a3a2~ F10283, F11301, F12257, F13806
• • • • • • • • C2b1a3a2a~ F14749, F14751, F14752, F14760, F14766, F14769, F14771, F14776, F14782, F14783, F14784, F14785, F14798, F14799, F14800
• • • • • • • • • C2b1a3a2a1~ F14750
• • • • • • C2b1a3b~ SK1069, SK1070
• • • • • • C2b1a3c~ SK1071


The subclades of Haplogroup C-M401 would be the best connected the dispersal of various Mongolic languages (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Linguistic_map_of_the_Mongolic_languages.png). The subclace F12308 should be the marker of main mongolic languages today like Khalkha and Oirat which all come from Middle Mongol language. The subclade F10283 is found among Daur, who are believed to descend from Karakhitai, a para-mongolic speaking people. So this subclade could represent para-mongolic languages. It is also the marker of the Qing dynasty, which had a Daur background, although Manchu were mainly C-M48. Main Oirat haplogroup is also C-M48.

On a sidenote, some changes from Middle Mongol to Khalkha language concern vowel harmony, for example the loss of ğ leading to long vowels:
nogoğon -> nogoon
ulağan -> ulaan
bağatur -> baatar
khağan -> khaan

This might lead to a new vowel harmony:
nogoon -> nogon
ulaan -> ulan
baatar -> batar
khaan -> khan

There are various classification schemes (http://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Mongolic_files/Mongolic%20languages%20classification%20distributi on.jpg) for the modern Mongolic languages. One of them is:

Mongolic

Daur (96,000 speakers)
Central Mongolic
Khamnigan (2,000 speakers)
Buryat (330,000 speakers)
Mongolian proper (5.2 million speakers)
Eastern and Central dialect
Khalkha
Chakhar
Khorchin
Ordos (123,000 speakers)
Oirat (including Kalmyk) (360,000 speakers)
Southern Mongolic (part of a Gansu–Qinghai Sprachbund)
Shira Yugur (4,000 speakers)
Shirongolic
Monguor (150,000 speakers)
Bonan (6,000 speakers)
Santa (Dongxiang) (200,000 speakers)
Kangjia (1,000 speakers)
Moghol (200 speakers)


1. Y-DNA Haplogroup C and its Subclades - 2018 (https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpC.html)
2. Whole-sequence analysis indicates that the Y chromosome C2*-Star Cluster traces back to ordinary Mongols, rather than Genghis Khan (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-017-0012-3)
3. Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan
(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622)4. Distribution of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups of the Kazakh from the South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, and Almaty Regions (https://www.google.mn/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjKjI7Knd3lAhVcQkEAHaKqCDsQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnblib.library.kz%2Felib%2Flibrary .kz%2Fjurnal%2F%25D0%2594%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BA%25D0 %25BB%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B4_06_2017%2520(2)%2F12-%2520Biology%2520E.E.Ashirbekov0617.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3AGTftBlap4HdlNHeM2c7p)
5. Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314501/)6. Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076748)
7. Paternal Population History of East Asia: Sources, Patterns, and Microevolutionary Processes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235490/)

[Kaspias]

What about Q?

[Leto]

What can you say about C-F4002? Is it Mongolian?

[Shubotai]

All existing Q subclades (https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/palaeo-siberian-haplogroup-y-dna.jpg) were found in Mongolia and the broader area of South Siberia in ancient times, but they are better ascribed to Xiongnu who were in control of Mongolia before, also in other siberian groups. In Mongolia Q-L330 1.4-3.1%, Q-M120 0.25-1.25%, Q-M25 0.25-0.63%, total 4-5% Q. Research (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418768/) on ancient Xiongnu tombs revealed 6 Q1a*, 4 Q1b, 2 Q*. Today Q-L330 is mostly found in Yeniseian groups like Ket, but the Xiongnu were also probably Yeniseian speaking, so it's maybe the most important Q subclade for Mongols. Like C-M504, D-M533, Q-L330 has a big number of initial mutations followed by lesser mutations in its subclades, pointing maybe to an initial shock of the most recent common ancestor upon the climate.

Other subclades would inlude Q-M25, the original haplogroup of the Turks, who were working in the iron mines in the Altai first for the Xiongnu, then for the Ashina clan who deserted the Xiongnu. The Ashina clan was R-Z93, whereas the clan who provided women for them, the Ashide, were Q-L54. The subclade Q-L275, carried by various groups going by the name of Khazar. The subclade Q-M120 of Q-NWT01, prominent in Inuit, is found along the Great Wall, but also in Yunnan and Inner Mongolia. When the Eskimo-Aleut substratum in north China is fully uncovered, this relation will be established. And even subclades which remind of Native American haplogroups, Q-M3, Q-Z780, Q-L804.

Also this thread about Q in Turkic peoples: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?247033-Haplogroup-Q-among-Turkic-peoples


The mutation C-F4002 had initially a status equivalent to C-M504, but was later degraded to C-M401 and now degraded as a subclade of C-M401 in the same level with F12308. In all three stages being under C-M504 is related to Mongols. As stated the confusion could come from the fact that haplogroups born in Mongolia have a long number of initial mutations, followed by random changes. Not that a haplogroup can really belong to a nation or language, it is nations or languages that belong to haplogroups, since they are cultural products, but yes. The stacluster will be referred to many times by researches as C-F4002 rather than C-M401.

[Leto]

I posted a Southwestern Russian guy with C-F4002. The irony is that autosomally he is very Slavic and scores barely 3% Mongoloid :)

[Sora]

Hi !

안녕하세요! ^.^ 정말 한국사람이세요?

[Chelubey]

Also this thread about Q in Turkic peoples: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?247033-Haplogroup-Q-among-Turkic-peoples
Tatars and Bashkirs display high frequencies (up to 15%) for haplogroup Q


It's some mistake. Bashkirs have less than 1% of hg Q. Volga Tatars - 3%. Crimean tatars is also a bit. Lithuanian Tatars -10%. Perhaps some sub-ethnic groups of Siberian Tatars have up to 15%. (Russian slavic have 1.5 % of hg Q, Kirgiz and Kazakh - 3-4%,Noghay-0%, Mongols - 6%).
Too few turkic owners of hg Q to be proto-turkic hg. Perhaps the turkic owners of the Mongolian subclades of the hg C are several times more than the owners of the hg Q.

[Sora]

네 한국인 입니다 ㅋㅋ

답변이 너무 늦어서 죄송합니다 ㅠㅠ 만나서 반갑습니다 ^.^

[porpozontokonto]

Other subclades would inlude Q-M25, the original haplogroup of the Turks,
Nope. That would be N-M231. Q-M25 was greatly replaced by N in Siberia long before proto Turkics appeared. And Ashina clan descended from Saka-Tigrakhauda nobility from around the area Lake Issyk is located. Also they were using the Orkhon script which evolved from some kind of writing system that's akin to the inscriptions found in a drinking cup from Issyk kurgan.


the Xiongnu were also probably Yeniseian speaking
Agree.

[Shubotai]

C-F1756 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/317316325/figure/fig1/AS:501451639017472@1496566795753/Distribution-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C3-DYS448del-referred-to-as-F1756-in-this.png) might be much more accurate to describe the various branches of mongolic language family, particularly due to its uncovering in sites in Mongolia and China like Jinggouzi, where proto-mongolic texts have also been found and overall their similar fragmentary distribution in Asia. It exists with an average frequency of 5% among all mongolic groups (https://languagesgulper.com/eng/Mongmap_files/Mongolic%20final%20corregido%20definitvo.jpg) but is rarer in turkic groups. Also, this removes some of the issues like a general absence of C-M401 from Kalmyk people but a presence thereof F1756 alongside 38% C-M48 and 10% C-M407, the blank that Dzungar genocide left in Xinjiang beyond some Oirat groups with F1756, the presence of the haplogroup in some eastern european countries and the fact that the leading chinggisid tribe of Tore in Kazakhstan belongs to F1756, while the majority of Kazakh tribes under C-M504>M401 would be of turkic background, each having their own turkic tamga, or that mongolic languages being difficult indeed could not spread further in more regions than where C-F1756 is concentrated. It also implies a greater mongolian ancestry for Kyrgyz and Uzbeks than for Kazakhs. Apparently, C-M401 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/322645447/figure/fig1/AS:585982265032704@1516720467804/Distribution-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C2-Star-Cluster-across-Eurasia.png) is more populous among turkic groups (https://livingintehran.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/turkic-language-map.gif), especially Kazakhs and chinese Kazakhs, but also Uzbeks, Kirghiz, Khazars, Nogai, Karachay-Balkars, Tatars, Azerbaijani, Turkish, as well as historical Turks in Mongolia. Its distribution is also reminiscent of the Turkic khaganate (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nV1KA2UoJIQ/WoRLvrpLWDI/AAAAAAAAS0o/PHQ-VZmN5cwvjqanL0KsrBgwN0JHZ99uQCLcBGAs/s640/Map_CentralAsia_AD600_BWB.jpg) of the Göktürks.

F1756 should be of Xianbei background, rendering Mongolic languages a branch of the historical Xianbeic languages (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/MongolicLanguagesGraph.jpg/1280px-MongolicLanguagesGraph.jpg?1580635443706), including also para-mongolic languages, Tabghach and others. The subclade C-F1756>F3889 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/317316325/figure/fig2/AS:501451744526336@1496566820859/Revised-phylogeny-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C3b-F1756.png) would have included the linguistic ancestors of the Mongols, like it is suggested in the research Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroup C3b-F1756, an important paternal lineage in Altaic-speaking populations (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317316325_Phylogeny_of_Y-chromosome_haplogroup_C3b-F1756_an_important_paternal_lineage_in_Altaic-speaking_populations) with subclades of F3889 representing Buryat, Yugur, Daur and Oirat branches. Other subclades of F1756 will be found in Xibe, Hui, Altaic people, presumably from a broader Xianbei origin.
So, either the starcluster C-M401 is turkic or the status of the starcluster should be transferred to C-F1756>F3889. In any case, C-F1756 is more numerous in Mongolia and C-M401 in Kazakhstan, while C-M86 is common in both countries.

N is a broad haplogroup and its main subclade N-M46/Tat is associated with the Uralic language family for the most part, with its phylogeny justifying a classifacation scheme of the Uralic languages where the Finnic branch is seperate from the Ugric-Samoyedic rather than a scheme where Finnic-Ugric is separate from the Samoyedic branch. But the subclade N-F2930 in the same level as M46, present from Altai until Turkey, could indeed bear a relationship to the Turkic language family.

The case with Q-M25 being on the same level with the Inuit Q-NWT01, is that even if turkic and inuit languages are not related there are similar words at a very basic level like ana/ananaq and ata/atataq which stand for mother and father, but now that proto-turkic forms like ög and kaŋ have been reconstructed for the same words the image in basic vocabulary/swadesh lists can change.

The Chukotko-Kamchatkan language family (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/rAjXzjvMWiYkjEF9LYxV1pMJMooBCea1S4uQ1pfteUb-M22cw1SC8F0g1YGSysH2WyZRlFvd8dVADpHGUkvNsGEKZKPtSz b6yKXD6w) must also have a C haplogroup origin, since in the lower parts and Kamchatka peninsula which have greater linguistic diversity within the family, Itelmen and Koryaks have mostly C-B90 and mtdna G1b (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/TurkicGenetics.htm), whereas Chukchi in the northern parts, have mostly Q but they also have small percentage of both C-B90 and mtdna G1b.

95066
95067
95068
95069
95070
95071

Haplogroup C-Z31698 is found in northern/eastern areas of Japan even from Jomon period and is associated with a stone type of culture and could bear a relationship to the Ainu languages, which have altaic traits. Its phylogeny renders it on the same level with the ancestor of mainland branches of altaic C-L1373, namely C-F4032.

C-M504>M401
Turkic languages
C-F1756>F3889
Mongolic languages
C-M48>M86/77
Tungusic languages
C-M48>C-B90
Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages
C-Z31698/Z31700
Ainu languages
C-F3918>P39
Na-Dene languages

[Speedy Freedy]

It's some mistake. Bashkirs have less than 1% of hg Q. Volga Tatars - 3%. Crimean tatars is also a bit. Lithuanian Tatars -10%. Perhaps some sub-ethnic groups of Siberian Tatars have up to 15%. (Russian slavic have 1.5 % of hg Q, Kirgiz and Kazakh - 3-4%,Noghay-0%, Mongols - 6%).
Too few turkic owners of hg Q to be proto-turkic hg. Perhaps the turkic owners of the Mongolian subclades of the hg C are several times more than the owners of the hg Q.

Ishtyak-Tokuz sub-group of Tobol-Irtysh group of Siberian Tatars have 38% of haplogroup Q. The percentage is even higher in Baraba group of Siberian Tatars.

[Yaglakar]

C-F1756 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/317316325/figure/fig1/AS:501451639017472@1496566795753/Distribution-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C3-DYS448del-referred-to-as-F1756-in-this.png) might be much more accurate to describe the various branches of mongolic language family, particularly due to its uncovering in sites in Mongolia and China like Jinggouzi, where proto-mongolic texts have also been found and overall their similar fragmentary distribution in Asia. It exists with an average frequency of 5% among all mongolic groups (https://languagesgulper.com/eng/Mongmap_files/Mongolic%20final%20corregido%20definitvo.jpg) but is rarer in turkic groups. Also, this removes some of the issues like a general absence of C-M401 from Kalmyk people but a presence thereof F1756 alongside 38% C-M48 and 10% C-M407, the blank that Dzungar genocide left in Xinjiang beyond some Oirat groups with F1756, the presence of the haplogroup in some eastern european countries and the fact that the leading chinggisid tribe of Tore in Kazakhstan belongs to F1756, while the majority of Kazakh tribes under C-M504>M401 would be of turkic background, each having their own turkic tamga, or that mongolic languages being difficult indeed could not spread further in more regions than where C-F1756 is concentrated. It also implies a greater mongolian ancestry for Kyrgyz and Uzbeks than for Kazakhs. Apparently, C-M401 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/322645447/figure/fig1/AS:585982265032704@1516720467804/Distribution-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C2-Star-Cluster-across-Eurasia.png) is more populous among turkic groups (https://livingintehran.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/turkic-language-map.gif), especially Kazakhs and chinese Kazakhs, but also Uzbeks, Kirghiz, Khazars, Nogai, Karachay-Balkars, Tatars, Azerbaijani, Turkish, as well as historical Turks in Mongolia. Its distribution is also reminiscent of the Turkic khaganate (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nV1KA2UoJIQ/WoRLvrpLWDI/AAAAAAAAS0o/PHQ-VZmN5cwvjqanL0KsrBgwN0JHZ99uQCLcBGAs/s640/Map_CentralAsia_AD600_BWB.jpg) of the Göktürks.

F1756 should be of Xianbei background, rendering Mongolic languages a branch of the historical Xianbeic languages (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/MongolicLanguagesGraph.jpg/1280px-MongolicLanguagesGraph.jpg?1580635443706), including also para-mongolic languages, Tabghach and others. The subclade C-F1756>F3889 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Wei/publication/317316325/figure/fig2/AS:501451744526336@1496566820859/Revised-phylogeny-of-the-Y-chromosome-lineage-C3b-F1756.png) would have included the linguistic ancestors of the Mongols, like it is suggested in the research Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroup C3b-F1756, an important paternal lineage in Altaic-speaking populations (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317316325_Phylogeny_of_Y-chromosome_haplogroup_C3b-F1756_an_important_paternal_lineage_in_Altaic-speaking_populations) with subclades of F3889 representing Buryat, Yugur, Daur and Oirat branches. Other subclades of F1756 will be found in Xibe, Hui, Altaic people, presumably from a broader Xianbei origin.
So, either the starcluster C-M401 is turkic or the status of the starcluster should be transferred to C-F1756>F3889. In any case, C-F1756 is more numerous in Mongolia and C-M401 in Kazakhstan, while C-M86 is common in both countries.

Starcluster is m-48 and m-407. More Kazakhs belong to the starcluster than other Central Asians. If Kazakhs have less Mongolic genetic impact than either Uzbeks or Kirghiz then Naimans, Kereits, Djalayirs and others who are part of modern Kazakh ethnos were after-all Turkic speaking?

[Chelubey]

Ishtyak-Tokuz sub-group of Tobol-Irtysh group of Siberian Tatars have 38% of haplogroup Q. The percentage is even higher in Baraba group of Siberian Tatars.

We must be careful about the subgroups . These small subgroups of small Turkic ethnic groups in Siberia are often just big families with founder ancestor, who lived 500 years ago. Therefore, in one subgroup there may be 30% of subclades of Q , in other - zero.
By the way, the Russians called the Uralic peoples - Ugrians, Samoyeds, Selkups - Ostyaks

[Chelubey]

to Shubotai.
Based just on genetic statistics is it impossible to draw the right conclusions.
Combinations of genetics + history + linguistics + genealogical legends can solve historical problems.
Look at the complex history of the Kazakh tribe Argyn:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8B
Their name possibly has a Mongolian origin (meaning 10).
However, their dominant subclade is the subclade of haplogroup G, which is very close to Iranian subclades.
Thus, we can reconstruct the history of this tribe like this:
The founders of this tribe are Mongolized Iranians, who were assimilated by Kazakhs, later parts of this tribe came to the Crimean Tatars, Bashkirs and Khakasses.
If you do not know these data, you might think that proto-turks, or proto-kypchaks had this subclades.
This is a typical story of Turkic tribes.
After the Turkic peoples linguistically divided , they mixed several times among themselves and with other non-Turkic tribes.
Therefore, we must be careful about "common haplogroups" of Turkic people.
How well does this combined method work?
Good enough. Look, even before genetic research, some scientists believed that 2 Bashkir tribes were of Ugric origin: one tribe had a Uralic name and a genealogical legend about Uralic origin, the other tribe had only a Uralic name. Genetic studies have shown the dominance of haplogroup N in these tribes.
Most of Turkic tribes having Mongolian names show a close genetic relationship with Mongols.
It works.

[gültekin]

to Shubotai.
Based just on genetic statistics is it impossible to draw the right conclusions.
Combinations of genetics + history + linguistics + genealogical legends can solve historical problems.
Look at the complex history of the Kazakh tribe Argyn:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8B
Their name possibly has a Mongolian origin (meaning 10).
However, their dominant subclade is the subclade of haplogroup G, which is very close to Iranian subclades.
Thus, we can reconstruct the history of this tribe like this:
The founders of this tribe are Mongolized Iranians, who were assimilated by Kazakhs, later parts of this tribe came to the Crimean Tatars, Bashkirs and Khakasses.

before pulled this out of blue, show us where is this supposed ıranian G?
https://docplayer.net/docs-images/80/81570980/images/83-2.jpg
not even here:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Iranian%20Y-DNA?iframe=yresults

[Synapsid]

Is Q-232 in Turkic the same sub-clades as those found in Xiongnu remains?

[Chelubey]

before pulled this out of blue, show us where is this supposed ıranian G?
not even here:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Iranian%20Y-DNA?iframe=yresults

From the link above:


Genetic studies on the Y-chromosome markers of nine genera of Argyns showed that the gene pool of the Argynian ancestors marks the Y-haplogroup G1 (67% of Argyns are carriers of haplotypes belonging to the haplogroup G1-M285) and on the paternal line goes back to the heritage of the Indo-Iranian language family: Argyns' genetic distances are minimal with the peoples of Iran (Assyrians, Balochis, Iranians, Mazenderans, Kurds).

[Speedy Freedy]

We must be careful about the subgroups . These small subgroups of small Turkic ethnic groups in Siberia are often just big families with founder ancestor, who lived 500 years ago. Therefore, in one subgroup there may be 30% of subclades of Q , in other - zero.
By the way, the Russians called the Uralic peoples - Ugrians, Samoyeds, Selkups - Ostyaks

Well, you mentined the sub-groups of Siberian Tatars in the first place, that's why I decided to contribute, because I thought it was relevant to you. While you may be right about the founder ancestor of haplogroup Q amongst the Siberian Tatars, it may also be true about any haplogroup, not just Q.

By the way, the only Samoyedic ethnic group with the high frequency of haplogroup Q are Selkups (over 66%), while it is almost absent amongst the Nenets (1-2%). Ob-Ugric Khanty and Mansi have moderate amounts of Q (21%), though. In Siberia, the Q haplogroup peaks in Kets (around 90%). But then again, the Kets number just over 1200 individuals.

[Chelubey]

Well, you mentined the sub-groups of Siberian Tatars in the first place, that's why I decided to contribute, because I thought it was relevant to you. While you may be right about the founder ancestor of haplogroup Q amongst the Siberian Tatars, it may also be true about any haplogroup, not just Q.

By the way, the only Samoyedic ethnic group with the high frequency of haplogroup Q are Selkups (over 66%), while it is almost absent amongst the Nenets (1-2%). Ob-Ugric Khanty and Mansi have moderate amounts of Q (21%), though. In Siberia, the Q haplogroup peaks in Kets (around 90%). But then again, the Kets number just over 1200 individuals.
I think the Q-Ugric people are assimilated Paleosibirians, not native Urals.
I am not very serious about the haplogroups of the Siberian Turks. Siberia before the Russians is a human desert with a very rare population. Turkic expansion did not start from there.
But I think that the self-name of the Yakuts (Sakha) is related to the ancient Saka. I think that the Scythians are the ancient Turkic, and the Sarmatians are a symbiosis of the Uralic and Turkic peoples.

[Shubotai]

They were always Turkic it seems, Jalayirs have an ethnonym traced to the turkic yaglakar and Kereits also had turkic titles in their early history and both these have C-M401, but Naimans have O(xM117) so they could have come from a broader Chinese origin, while the Tore tribe of Kazakhs should be of Mongol origin which has C-F1756. Of course Jalayirs and Kereits speak a Turkic language even today. There were numerous turkic tribes in Mongolia and 90% of the Mongol army were Turkic soldiers so it shouldn't be surprising.

[Yaglakar]

Shubotai you are not who you claim to be. A Mongol would never write that. And besides historical records don't support what you claim.

[Chelubey]

They were always Turkic it seems, Jalayirs have an ethnonym traced to the turkic yaglakar and Kereits also had turkic titles in their early history and both these have C-M401, but Naimans have O(xM117) so they could have come from a broader Chinese origin, while the Tore tribe of Kazakhs should be of Mongol origin which has C-F1756. Of course Jalayirs and Kereits speak a Turkic language even today. There were numerous turkic tribes in Mongolia and 90% of the Mongol army were Turkic soldiers so it shouldn't be surprising.

I agree that the Mongol word jalair comes from Turkic word yaglakar, but the origin of this tribe is mixed.
Orientalist Aristov about Jalairs:
Based on an analysis of tribal clan names of Jalairs Aristov came to the conclusion about theirs mixed Turkic-Mongolian origin.

[Yaglakar]

All of the above is nothing more than wordplay akin to Argyn-Argentina, Mongol-Ming Qol (thousand hands) and many other fake constructs. Yaglakar was not a "tribe", it was a family. Written sources do not support any kind of tribal divisions among the Turks of the old. What we see today aka tribal structures are the result of Mongol conquests, including the ones before Genghis Khan (whose forces by the way did not consist of 90% Turkics - max 20%). What mattered were blood-ties and family.

"Рассматривается сеок – социальный термин. В значении «группа кровных родственников» он встречается только у тюркских народов Южной Сибири. Письменные источники домонгольской эпохи не подтверждают наличия «родо-племенных отношений» у народов древнетюркского круга. Автор объясняет это заимствованием элементов админист- ративной системы монгольских государств. У монголов аналогичный термин уаsun нес такую же семантическую нагрузку. Сеок не может быть отнесен к родо-племенной структуре, так же как распространенные на коренное население русские административные термины «род» и «племя». Такой взгляд на социальную организацию искусственно ее «архаизирует».

Если продолжить ретроспективный анализ до- монгольского периода, то предварительный вывод может быть также в пользу мнения об отсутствии у народов древнетюркского круга социальной организации, основанной на «родовых» или «племенных» отношениях. Доступные источники по мировоззрению древних тюрков, кыргызов, уйгуров и кипчаков не свидетельствуют о засилье «родовой идеологии». Термины, обозначающие надсемейные социальные структуры, чрезвычайно расплывчаты и неопределенны. Не случайно с этим обстоятельством контрастируют памятники древнетюркской письменности, наиболее богатые социальной лексикой родства и свойства. Важнейшие связи индивидов сосредоточены именно в области категорий родственных отношений, а не «родо-племенного» взаи- модействия. Именно системы родства тюркоязычных народов Саяно-Алтайского нагорья устанавливали взаимоотношения личности и неопределенно широкого круга людей, помещали отдельного индивида в своеобразный «космос родства и брака». Социальный статус, круг обязанностей, материальные условия жизни были опосредованы его местом в структуре родства.

Очевидно, что концепция кровнородственного рода не подходит для анализа социальной организации тюрков Южной Сибири. Это приводит к «архаизированию» представлений исследователей об общностях, которые уже длительный исторический период были знакомы с более сложными типами общественного устройства [3]. Универсализм принципов родства позволял применять его в других видах общественного структурирования. Категории родственных отношений были своеоб- разной матрицей, на которую накладывались и государственные, политические институты."

http://sun.tsu.ru/mminfo/000063105/his/24/image/24-104.pdf

[Shubotai]

I am not Mongolian but should origin really be a hindrance to study and admire an other culture? And the Jalayirs of course have a great part in Mongol history regardless. Genetics can shed light to these linguistic and historical connections.

[Leto]

I am not Mongolian but should origin really be a hindrance to study and admire an other culture? And the Jalayirs of course have a great part in Mongol history regardless. Genetics can shed light to these linguistic and historical connections.
Not Mongolian? Why would you LARP as one? I mean some people jokingly put fake info but it's usually obvious when they do. That's bad, dude, you can put no info at all if you don't want to but don't mislead people into thinking you are Mongolian.
Are you a white guy?

[Kmakkmak]

What is haplogroup of yaglakar dynasty? I do not find it.

[Chelubey]

All of the above is nothing more than wordplay akin to Argyn-Argentina, Mongol-Ming Qol (thousand hands) and many other fake constructs. Yaglakar was not a "tribe", it was a family. Written sources do not support any kind of tribal divisions among the Turks of the old. What we see today aka tribal structures are the result of Mongol conquests, including the ones before Genghis Khan (whose forces by the way did not consist of 90% Turkics - max 20%). What mattered were blood-ties and family.

"Рассматривается сеок – социальный термин. В значении «группа кровных родственников» он встречается только у тюркских народов Южной Сибири. Письменные источники домонгольской эпохи не подтверждают наличия «родо-племенных отношений» у народов древнетюркского круга. Автор объясняет это заимствованием элементов админист- ративной системы монгольских государств. У монголов аналогичный термин уаsun нес такую же семантическую нагрузку. Сеок не может быть отнесен к родо-племенной структуре, так же как распространенные на коренное население русские административные термины «род» и «племя». Такой взгляд на социальную организацию искусственно ее «архаизирует».

Если продолжить ретроспективный анализ до- монгольского периода, то предварительный вывод может быть также в пользу мнения об отсутствии у народов древнетюркского круга социальной организации, основанной на «родовых» или «племенных» отношениях. Доступные источники по мировоззрению древних тюрков, кыргызов, уйгуров и кипчаков не свидетельствуют о засилье «родовой идеологии». Термины, обозначающие надсемейные социальные структуры, чрезвычайно расплывчаты и неопределенны. Не случайно с этим обстоятельством контрастируют памятники древнетюркской письменности, наиболее богатые социальной лексикой родства и свойства. Важнейшие связи индивидов сосредоточены именно в области категорий родственных отношений, а не «родо-племенного» взаи- модействия. Именно системы родства тюркоязычных народов Саяно-Алтайского нагорья устанавливали взаимоотношения личности и неопределенно широкого круга людей, помещали отдельного индивида в своеобразный «космос родства и брака». Социальный статус, круг обязанностей, материальные условия жизни были опосредованы его местом в структуре родства.

Очевидно, что концепция кровнородственного рода не подходит для анализа социальной организации тюрков Южной Сибири. Это приводит к «архаизированию» представлений исследователей об общностях, которые уже длительный исторический период были знакомы с более сложными типами общественного устройства [3]. Универсализм принципов родства позволял применять его в других видах общественного структурирования. Категории родственных отношений были своеоб- разной матрицей, на которую накладывались и государственные, политические институты."

http://sun.tsu.ru/mminfo/000063105/his/24/image/24-104.pdf

I think the author of this version is not convincing.
Pre-Mongol sources about the Turks are very scarce. This is probably why the tribal structure of the Turkic people is not mentioned in them.
In addition, the author probably projects total Mongolian cultural influence on the Siberian Turks on all Turkic peoples.
We have no reason to believe that the tribal structure of Bashkirs, for example, developed due the influence of the Mongols.

[Chelubey]

What is haplogroup of yaglakar dynasty? I do not find it.
It is not known. Subotai means that the Mongolian and Kazakh tribes Jalair descend from turkic Yaglakars, and Jalairs have many carriers of Hg C. This means (according to his version) that Hg C did not come to the Turkic people from Mongols.

[Shubotai]

Well, yes, I had noticed that as well and set it up in similar style. But I know it might be confusing, so I will update accordingly.

[Yaglakar]

I think the author of this version is not convincing.
Pre-Mongol sources about the Turks are very scarce. This is probably why the tribal structure of the Turkic people is not mentioned in them.
In addition, the author probably projects total Mongolian cultural influence on the Siberian Turks on all Turkic peoples.
We have no reason to believe that the tribal structure of Bashkirs, for example, developed due the influence of the Mongols.

The author (prominent scholar) runs the best Russian language youtube channel on Turco-Mongol history. You on the other hand constantly post links to "authors" who have not been published anywhere or talk about wild theories ultimately based on 'word play'.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_oTaIqOJ4e2b0d5Kcp6Fuw/videos

[Chelubey]

The author (prominent scholar) runs the best Russian language youtube channel on Turco-Mongol history.


Oh come'on. The author is good man, but has often original looks on turkic ethnogensis(I like original viewpoints). But it's just opinion among thousand opinions .



or talk about wild theories ultimately based on 'word play'.


What do you mean? You said:


All of the above is nothing more than wordplay akin to Argyn-Argentina, Mongol-Ming Qol (thousand hands) and many other fake constructs.

But this is(Yaglakar->Jalair) the viewpoint of "prominent scholar" orientalist Zuev and some other scholars.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D 0%B8%D0%B5%3A%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8B% D1%80

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9 _%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2% D0%B8%D1%87

Sometimes i joked with 'word play'.



You on the other hand constantly post links to "authors" who have not been published anywhere

No . I usually referred to real scholars or sound my own opinion.

[Shubotai]

The Xianbei could be the linguistic ancestors of the Mongols.

96634

From the research The Y-chromosome haplogroup C3*-F3918, likely attributed to the Mongol Empire, can be traced to a 2500-year-old nomadic group (https://www.nature.com/articles/s10038-017-0357-z):

Donghu (https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs10038-017-0357-z/MediaObjects/10038_2017_357_Fig1_HTML.jpg) -> Xianbei -> Shiwei -> Mongols

Jinggouzi 12/12 C-F3918 Donghu (1600-300 BCE)
Chenwugou 2/8 C-F3918 Xianbei (300 BCE - 500 CE )
Gangga 9/11 C-F3918 Shiwei (500-1200 CE)
1200+ CE - Mongols

C-F3918 is also the main haplogroup in the Manchu-speaking Xibe minority of the Xinjiang-Uyghur autonomous region of northwest China. But they also carry C-M48 which is more frequent in Manchu.

C-F3918 (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982218314957-gr3.jpg)
->C-F1756 Northeast Asia
->C-P39 North America

The Khitan language is still being deciphered, while the Tuoba language, the Tuyuhun language, the Rouran language could also be potentially related to the Mongolic languages and they could all have come after the Xianbei divided.

[SG_Jun]

Nope. That would be N-M231. Q-M25 was greatly replaced by N in Siberia long before proto Turkics appeared. And Ashina clan descended from Saka-Tigrakhauda nobility from around the area Lake Issyk is located. Also they were using the Orkhon script which evolved from some kind of writing system that's akin to the inscriptions found in a drinking cup from Issyk kurgan.

Agree.

According to Yunusbayev, genetic evidence points to an origin in the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity.

Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen, Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. According to Robbeets, proto-Turkic descends from the hypothetical proto-Transeurasian community. This Transeurasian community, is associated with the Houwa and with the Hongshan culture in the Liao river basin. With the onset of desertification in Inner Mongolia in 2200 BCE, people from the western part of the Hongshan culture moved west, adapting to anomadic pastoralist lifestyle in the eastern Eurasian steppes. Proto-Turkic may be identified with the millet cultivating Xinglongwa culture (兴隆洼文化).

Nelson et al. 2020 presented a study with additional evidence for ancestral “Transeurasian” origin for the Turkic peoples and language in Northeast China (Inner Mongolia and Manchuria), which was published in the Cambridge University. Their findings provide support for a population dispersal during the neolithic from the Liao river valley. They link proto-Turkic and the proto-Turkic people to the Hongshan culture in about 3000BC.

12 Y-DNA samples obtained from remains of the Hongshan-Xiaoheyan culture (红山小河沿文化) at the Halahaigou Archaeological Site (哈拉海沟遗址) in Inner Mongolia. Most of the Y-DNA samples obtained from the Xinglongwa-Hongshan continuum and Xinjiang/East Turkestan's Tianshan Beilu Archaeological Site (天山北麓遗址) have all turned out to be Haplogroup N. The westward migration of Haplogroup N peoples and the Turkic language could therefore also be linked to the spread of millet cultivation according to this research study: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/6/5/1024/3052682

All N-Hg-s identified in the Avars and Conquerors of Europe belonged to N1a1a-M178. We have tested 7 subclades of M178; N1a1a2-B187, N1a1a1a2-B211, N1a1a1a1a3-B197, N1a1a1a1a4-M2118, N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29, N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936 and the N1a1a1a1a2a1c1-L1034 subbranch of Z1936. The European subclades VL29 and Z1936 could be excluded in most cases, while the rest of the suclades are prevalent in Siberia from where this Hg dispersed in a counter-clockwise migratory route to Europe. Avar sample MM/58, did not go into any of the tested M178 subclades, while only N1a1a2 could be excluded for the KB/300 Avar khagan due to low coverage. All the 5 other Avar samples belonged to N1a1a1a1a3-B197, which is most prevalent in Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks and appears among Tuvans and Mongols with lower frequency. By contrast two Conquerors belonged to N1a1a1a1a4-M2118, the Y lineage of nearly all Yakut males, being also frequent in Evenks, Evens and occurring with lower frequency among Khantys, Mansis and Kazakhs.

All of this evidence suggests that Haplogroup N was likely found at very high frequency amongst the historic and prehistoric predecessors of the Turkic speaking peoples. Haplogroup Q is found at highest frequency today amongst the Yeniseian people and Native Americans, both of whom interestingly speak languages belonging to the same language family (Dene-Yeniseian) and they are also culturally linked, hence it is unlikely that the Proto-Turkic people were Haplogroup Q but rather the Haplogroup Q present in Turkic speaking people is due to admixture.

It is also believed that the Yeniseian people were active over a much larger area compared to today, even as far south as Northern China. The Yeniseian Kets tribe is seen as a possible candidate to the Jie (羯; Middle Chinese: *ket) tribe in ancient China, who were said to have been largely massacred by General Ran Min (冉闵).

Mongols on the other hand are mainly Haplogroup C2 which is present mainly amongst the Qongyrat tribe of the Kazakhs. It's important to note that Kazakhs are a very diverse people made up of many different tribes for example the Qongyrat which are predominantly C2 and Naiman which are predominantly O2.

Haplogroup N can be found at 90-95% frequency amongst the Yakuts (Sakha) today who are the purebred descendants of the Kurykan Tiele (also known in ancient records as the Dingling 丁零, Gaoche 高车; Tiele 铁勒 is derived from "Tereg" which means wheel) tribe of the Xiongnu in South Siberia who migrated north from Lake Baikal along the Lena River to modern day Yakutia / Sakha Republic. It can also be found at varying frequencies amongst most Turkic speaking people like the Shors and Syrgeli Kazakhs at 65%, Khakass, Dolgans, Buryats (Mongolised Turkic people) and Tuvans at 40-60%, Chuvash, Volga and Siberian Tatars at 30%, Northern Altaians at 20%.

On the other hand, the ancient Ashina (阿史那) clan, Wusun (乌孙), Yenisei Qirghiz (鬲昆) are ancient Iranian peoples who carry Haplogroup R1a, these have mixed with Turkic people on the steppes including modern day Altaians. The only reason why Altaians and Kyrgyz look "East Asian" while having R1a is because your Y-DNA Haplogroup does not fully determine your phenotype and appearance, you have to take into account mtDNA and autosomal DNA (in the case of the Kyrgyz and Altaians they probably do have Mongol admixture in terms of autosomal DNA due to close proximity) as well. The Ashina, Wusun and Yenisei Qirghiz are recorded in historical texts to have red/blonde hair and blue/green eyes and to have differed greatly in physiognomy from the Dingling/Gaoche/Tiele Turkic tribes.

Of course, the Turkic people (Haplogroup N) have long mixed with the Indo-European steppe peoples (Haplogroup R1a), Yeniseian peoples (Haplogroup Q) and also other Mongolic / Tungusic peoples (Haplogroup C2). Hence many ethnicities in the region of Central Asia are usually a mix of all 4 haplogroups today. Therefore the Turkic identity is more of a cultural and linguistic one that has expanded far beyond its original borders in the Mongolia-Manchuria-Siberia region, and most of the intermixing took place a very long time ago (almost since the very beginning, hence the Xiongnu is believed to be a confederacy made up of different steppe peoples, not a homogenous entity).

[Zoro]

. Haplogroup Q is found at highest frequency today amongst the Yeniseian people and Native Americans, both of whom interestingly speak languages belonging to the same language family (Dene-Yeniseian) and they are also culturally linked, hence it is unlikely that the Proto-Turkic people were Haplogroup Q but rather the Haplogroup Q present in Turkic speaking people is due to admixture.



I was reading up on my haplogroup Q-M25. It shows high frequency in Turkmen. Q-M25 has not been detected in pre-Columbian populations in the Americas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25

Q-M25 has been detected in the Northeast of East Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia), in South Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia), and across Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Malyarchuk2011-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Underhill2000-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7) Though present at low frequencies, it may be one of the more widely distributed branches of Q-M242 in Asia.

<tbody>
Population
Sampling Location
Paper
N
Percentage
SNP Tested


Turkmen
Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province), Iran
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
29/68
~42.6%
M25 & M143


Turkmen
Jawzjan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowzjan_Province), Afghanistan
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
23/74
~31.1%
M25 & M346/ (cf)Q1a3(currently Q1a2)=2/74 (Q total=33.8%)


Mixed
Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) & Siberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia)
Underhill 2000[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Underhill2000-6)
6/184
~3.26%
M25 & M143


Kalmyk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmyks)

Malyarchuk 2011[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Malyarchuk2011-5)
1/60
~1.70%
M25


Han
Shanxi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanxi)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/56
~1.79%
M25


Uyghur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs)
Xinjiang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/71
~1.41%
M25


Uyghur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs)
Xinjiang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/50
~2.00%
M25


Uzbek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks)
Jawzjan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowzjan_Province), Afghanistan
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/94
~1.06%
M25


Mongol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols)
Mongolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/160
~0.63%
M25

</tbody>
West Asia[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_Q-M25&action=edit&section=4)]The frequency of Q-M25 varies greatly across West Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Asia). An extreme peak is seen in the Turkmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people) of Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4) Across the whole of Iran it varies from over 9 percent of the population in the north to only 2 to 3 percent of the population in the south.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8) The frequency of Q-M25 drops to only about 1 percent of the population of Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon)'s Muslims, and it is absent from the non-Muslim population there.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9) However, its presence in the Marsh Arabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs)(related to Sumer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer)) of Iraq hints that Q-M25's West Asian history extends beyond a single localized recent founder.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)

<tbody>
Population
Sampling Location
Paper
N
Percentage
SNP Tested


Marsh Arabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs)

Al-Zahery 2011[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)
1/143
~0.70%
M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=2.1%


Iraqis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqis)

Al-Zahery 2011[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)
0/154
~0.00%
M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=1.9%


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Iran (North) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Iran)
Regueiro 2006[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8)
3/33
~9.09%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Mazandaran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazandaran_Province)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/13
~7.69%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Iran (South) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
Regueiro 2006[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8)
3/117
~2.56%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Esfahan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfahan_Province)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/42
~2.38%
M25


Azeris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Azerbaijanis)
Iran (Azeri) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
1/63
~1.60%
M25


Turkmens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmens)
Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province)
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
29/68
~42.6%
M25


Lebanese (Non-Muslim) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people)
Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon)
Zalloua 2008[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9)
0/482
~0.00%
M25


Lebanese (Muslim) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people)
Lebanon
Zalloua 2008[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9)
4/432
~0.93%
M25

</tbody>

[SG_Jun]

I was reading up on my haplogroup Q-M25. It shows high frequency in Turkmen. Q-M25 has not been detected in pre-Columbian populations in the Americas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25

Q-M25 has been detected in the Northeast of East Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia), in South Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia), and across Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Malyarchuk2011-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Underhill2000-6)[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7) Though present at low frequencies, it may be one of the more widely distributed branches of Q-M242 in Asia.

<tbody>
Population
Sampling Location
Paper
N
Percentage
SNP Tested


Turkmen
Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province), Iran
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
29/68
~42.6%
M25 & M143


Turkmen
Jawzjan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowzjan_Province), Afghanistan
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
23/74
~31.1%
M25 & M346/ (cf)Q1a3(currently Q1a2)=2/74 (Q total=33.8%)


Mixed
Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) & Siberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia)
Underhill 2000[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Underhill2000-6)
6/184
~3.26%
M25 & M143


Kalmyk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmyks)

Malyarchuk 2011[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Malyarchuk2011-5)
1/60
~1.70%
M25


Han
Shanxi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanxi)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/56
~1.79%
M25


Uyghur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs)
Xinjiang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/71
~1.41%
M25


Uyghur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs)
Xinjiang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang)
Zhong 2010[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zhong2010-7)
1/50
~2.00%
M25


Uzbek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks)
Jawzjan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jowzjan_Province), Afghanistan
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/94
~1.06%
M25


Mongol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols)
Mongolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/160
~0.63%
M25

</tbody>
West Asia[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_Q-M25&action=edit§ion=4)]The frequency of Q-M25 varies greatly across West Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Asia). An extreme peak is seen in the Turkmen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people) of Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4) Across the whole of Iran it varies from over 9 percent of the population in the north to only 2 to 3 percent of the population in the south.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8) The frequency of Q-M25 drops to only about 1 percent of the population of Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon)'s Muslims, and it is absent from the non-Muslim population there.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9) However, its presence in the Marsh Arabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs)(related to Sumer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer)) of Iraq hints that Q-M25's West Asian history extends beyond a single localized recent founder.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)

<tbody>
Population
Sampling Location
Paper
N
Percentage
SNP Tested


Marsh Arabs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs)

Al-Zahery 2011[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)
1/143
~0.70%
M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=2.1%


Iraqis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqis)

Al-Zahery 2011[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Al-Zahary2011-10)
0/154
~0.00%
M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=1.9%


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Iran (North) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Iran)
Regueiro 2006[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8)
3/33
~9.09%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Mazandaran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazandaran_Province)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/13
~7.69%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Iran (South) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
Regueiro 2006[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Regueiro2006-8)
3/117
~2.56%
M25


Iranians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples)
Esfahan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfahan_Province)
Di Cristofaro 2013[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Cristofaro2013-3)
1/42
~2.38%
M25


Azeris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Azerbaijanis)
Iran (Azeri) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
1/63
~1.60%
M25


Turkmens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmens)
Golestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golestan_Province)
Grugni 2012[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Grugni2012-4)
29/68
~42.6%
M25


Lebanese (Non-Muslim) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people)
Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon)
Zalloua 2008[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9)
0/482
~0.00%
M25


Lebanese (Muslim) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people)
Lebanon
Zalloua 2008[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25#cite_note-Zalloua2008-9)
4/432
~0.93%
M25

</tbody>

Haplogroup Q does indeed have a very interesting distribution. I'm aware of the moderately high frequency of Haplogroup Q amongst the Turkmens but in my opinion it is unlikely that Haplogroup Q was indeed the haplogroup associated with Proto-Turkic because the evidence doesn't seem to stack up. Yakuts (Sakha) are one of the earliest branches to have split from the rest of the Turkic ethnolinguistic family and they have gone to live in relative isolation of NE Siberia, therefore they are often considered one of the most ancient Turkic tribes, speaking one of the most archaic form of the Turkic language (AFAIK Sakha/Yakut language is the only Turkic language that Turkish people find barely intelligible with Turkish). The fact that there are Yakuts who are Turkic speaking with such uniformity in having Y-DNA Haplogroup N and on the other hand also the Yeniseians who are not Turkic speaking with such uniformity in having Y-DNA Haplogroup Q suggests that Haplogroup Q couldn't have been associated with Proto-Turkic peoples.

Haplogroup Q1a1-M120 has also been found at high frequency amongst some of the ancient Chinese remains, most notably belonging to that of the Peng aristocracy during the Western Zhou Dynasty. However today Haplogroup Q is only found at very low frequency amongst Chinese people.

[Chelubey]

It seems to me that SG_Jun does not take into account the Samoyed admixture among the Siberian-Turkic peoples and take it for the ancient Turkic component .
About Sayan Samoyeds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_% D1%81%D0 % B0% D0% BC% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% B8% D0% B9% D1% 86% D1% 8B


Sayan Samoyeds is collective name of several Samoyed peoples and nationalities living (or living) mainly in taiga on the northern slopes of the Sayan Highlands.Sayan Samoyeds spoke the dialects of the Kamasin and Mator languages.Some of the Koibals, according to some observations, spoke a dialect of the Kamasin language, but were subsequently assimilated by the Khakasses. The Soyots who underwent Mongolization switched to the Buryat language. Sayan Samoeds were assimilated mainly by the Khakasses, partly by the Tuvans and Western Buryats, and at the end of the 20th century by the Russians.

80 % of information of Sg is incorrect.
-Yakuts are not pure descendants of the Kyrukans, who, in turn, before migration, taking into account genetic and linguistic data, were possibly already a mixture of Turkic, Mongol and Samoedic tribes(Wikipedia : According to archaeological and ethnographic data, Yakuts were formed as a result of the absorption by the southern Turkic-speaking immigrants of local tribes of the middle reaches of the Lena) .On the network you can find a lot of information about the complex ethnogenesis of Yakuts.
- Yunusbaev interpratation of genetic data is not corellated with documented historic data wich is priority
- According to Chineese sources, Yenisei Kyrgyz's language is mutually understood with Uyghur, not Iranian one.
- The vast majority of Mongolian and Turkic subclades of hg N are within the pool of variations of the Uralic subclades (Including Yakut subclades). There are Turkic subclades that are closer to the some Uralic subclades than other Uralic subclades.
- Buryats is mongolized turkic people????.
- and many other bla-bla-bla
What is the point of creating hypotheses based on incorrect data, and which can be refuted by modern data, fifty years old data, and even thousand years old data?

[mutabor]

The case with Q-M25 being on the same level with the Inuit Q-NWT01, is that even if turkic and inuit languages are not related there are similar words at a very basic level like ana/ananaq and ata/atataq which stand for mother and father, but now that proto-turkic forms like ög and kaŋ have been reconstructed for the same words the image in basic vocabulary/swadesh lists can change.


I listened to Inuit language from Canada and found that it has related sound structure to Turkic. It is especially evident in guttural K sound which is very characteristic to Turkic languages.

@Shubotai Which country are you from?


https://youtu.be/r0lrGBaawsk

[mutabor]

By the way, the only Samoyedic ethnic group with the high frequency of haplogroup Q are Selkups (over 66%), while it is almost absent amongst the Nenets (1-2%). Ob-Ugric Khanty and Mansi have moderate amounts of Q (21%), though. In Siberia, the Q haplogroup peaks in Kets (around 90%). But then again, the Kets number just over 1200 individuals.

Interestingly Selkup language doesn't sound like Nenets but resembles Turkic, Ket and Yukaghir languages.


https://youtu.be/EKo7Wot1kKQ


https://youtu.be/xwTYP1N-1HQ

[SG_Jun]

It seems to me that SG_Jun does not take into account the Samoyed admixture among the Siberian-Turkic peoples and take it for the ancient Turkic component .
About Sayan Samoyeds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_% D1%81%D0 % B0% D0% BC% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% B8% D0% B9% D1% 86% D1% 8B

80 % of information of Sg is incorrect.
-Yakuts are not pure descendants of the Kyrukans, who, in turn, before migration, taking into account genetic and linguistic data, were possibly already a mixture of Turkic, Mongol and Samoedic tribes(Wikipedia : According to archaeological and ethnographic data, Yakuts were formed as a result of the absorption by the southern Turkic-speaking immigrants of local tribes of the middle reaches of the Lena) .On the network you can find a lot of information about the complex ethnogenesis of Yakuts.
- Yunusbaev interpratation of genetic data is not corellated with documented historic data wich is priority
- According to Chineese sources, Yenisei Kyrgyz's language is mutually understood with Uyghur, not Iranian one.
- The vast majority of Mongolian and Turkic subclades of hg N are within the pool of variations of the Uralic subclades (Including Yakut subclades). That is, there are Turkic subclades that are closer to the some Uralic subclades than other Uralic subclades.
- Buryats is mongolized turkic people????.
- and many other bla-bla-bla
What is the point of creating hypotheses based on incorrect data, and which can be refuted by modern data, data of fifty years ago, and even thousand years ago?

If anything your theory that Yakuts/Sakha were formed through the absorption of southern Turkic speaking tribes further proves that the original Turkic speakers were mainly Haplogroup N. Higher frequencies of Haplogroup N has been found amongst Yakuts/Sakha in the southern part of Yakutia/Sakha Republic near the Vilyuy River compared to the northern part.

Notice how I said the Yenisei Kyrgyz were made up of Iranian pastoralists, their ancestry. I mentioned absolutely nothing about their language. In ancient Chinese records the Yenisei Kyrgyz indeed spoke a language which was Turkic and intelligible with Huihu aka Uyghur. However it was also mentioned that the Yenisei Kyrgyz were not ethnically homogenous and they were made up of physiognomically diverse peoples. In fact, Kyrgyz literally means "40 tribes" that were unified to overthrow the Uyghur Khaganate. The Yenisei Kyrgyz were a conglomeration of both Indo-Iranian/Scythian, Wusun and Turkic peoples. This is clearly stated in ancient Chinese records as well.

About the Buryats, you quoted that the Soyots who underwent Mongolisation switched to the Buryat language. The Soyots are not Samoyedic. They are Turkic. This is in line with my argument that the Buryats are Mongolised Turkic people.

About the Yakut subclades of Haplogroup N being N-TAT and therefore closer to that of Finnic peoples than the Ugric and Samoyedic Nenets and Nganasan, both Turkic and Uralic people are believed to have originated in the same area. Haplogroup N-P43 which are predominantly Samoyedic split away first and developed independently in the area of North Siberia and the Ural Mountains before N-TAT emerged from South Siberia, with one branch migrating east to form the Turkic Yakuts and another branch west to form the Finno-Ugric peoples. Some of the Ugric tribes who stayed in Siberia merged with the Samoyedic people to form the Khanty, Mansi etc. who are a mix of N-P43 and N-TAT, whereas most of the Finnic tribes did not and migrated west across the Ural Mountains to Europe.

If anything you have got it entirely wrong. The Samoyedic branch of Hg N is N-P43 which is completely absent from the Yakuts. The Yakuts are entirely N-TAT, and they could not have been Turkified Samoyedic people lol.

http://trog.narod.ru/et/N-tree.jpg

You didn't provide me with any data to refute my theory at all, what are you talking about? Also the prevailing theory that the Avars are Turkic further lends to the fact that N-TAT was indeed originally found amongst Turkic speakers, because most of the Y-DNA samples exhumed from the early Avars have shown that they were carries of Hg N-TAT. Unless you are trying to say that the Avars are Samoyedic which cannot be the case because they do not have N-P43. Even the Avar khagan was found to be N-TAT.

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-53105-5/MediaObjects/41598_2019_53105_Fig1_HTML.png

Here you see two very strong examples of Turkic speaking, N-TAT people groups: the Yakuts/Sakha and the Avars. Neither of which carry the same subclade of N-P43 which is the predominant subclade of Samoyedic people. Unless you are going to keep using the same excuse that these people are all Turkified Samoyeds?

[mutabor]

Funny I found that Papuan Melpa language sounds distantly familiar to Turkic languages. Papuans from this region have haplogroups M and S which derived from K2b and K2b is parental to haplogroup P which split into Q and R.

Let's imagine that Papuan language didn't change from ancient times because of isolation. Then a language of their cousins haplogroup P could have sounded distantly alike to Papuan Melpa language.


https://youtu.be/hD1EN7od05k

[SG_Jun]

I listened to Inuit language from Canada and found that it has related sound structure to Turkic. It is especially evident in guttural K sound which is very characteristic to Turkic languages.

@Shubotai Which country are you from?


https://youtu.be/r0lrGBaawsk


Funny I found that Papuan Melpa language sounds distantly familiar to Turkic languages. Papuans from this region have haplogroups M and S which derived from K2b and K2b is parental to haplogroup P which split into Q and R.

Let's imagine that Papuan language didn't change from ancient times because of isolation. Then a language of their cousins haplogroup P could have sounded distantly alike to Papuan Melpa language.


https://youtu.be/hD1EN7od05k

Are you seriously basing your ethnogenesis hypotheses and Y-DNA migration patterns on a single guttural K sound? If that's the case I'm sure Chadic should sound an awful lot like Spanish because they are both Haplogroup R1b. Oh and the Indo-European languages definitely should sound like Papuan because I guess they would have preserved that language making the trek all the way from Papua across Southeast Asia and much of the Eurasian mainland to Europe.

Australian Aboriginal languages must sound an awful lot like Mongolian as well because they are both Haplogroup C

[mutabor]

Are you seriously basing your ethnogenesis hypotheses and Y-DNA migration patterns on a single guttural K sound? If that's the case I'm sure Chadic should sound an awful lot like Spanish because they are both Haplogroup R1b. Oh and the Indo-European languages definitely should sound like Papuan because I guess they would have preserved that language making the trek all the way from Papua across Southeast Asia and much of the Eurasian mainland to Europe.

Australian Aboriginal languages must sound an awful lot like Mongolian as well because they are both Haplogroup C

You are oversimplifying things. Very often there is continuity and resemblance passed through thousands of years, in many cases there is no continuity. We should make judgment according to situation. For example haplogroup R1a managed to carry its language even towards India. This idea sounded fantastic hundreds years ago. In cases of some Turkic populations R1a was assimilated. Again we should analyze and compare.

Inuit language sounds close not because of only guttural K sound but in general. I hear familiar structure in how the flow goes and how different sounds get together. Also haplogroup Q is common in region where Turkic language got formed. Tuvans have haplogroup Q = 50%. Ancient DNA from Mongolia is mostly Q haplogroup. Ancient Uyghur samples have Q haplogroup. Turkmen people have haplogroup Q up to 40%. Also there are common words in Turkic and languages of Native Americans.

About Papuans. First of all Native Americans have 1) partially facial features of Papuans 2) carry feathers on their heads just like Papuans and Siberian shamans. It means that for some reasons haplogroup Q was closer to Papuan ancestry than haplogroup R.

About Australian aborigines. Interestingly their music of shamanic vibrating sounds is in character close to resonating throat singing of Mongolic and Altaic populations. Also Siberian populations have vibrating Jew's harp in addition to throat singing.


https://youtu.be/nN-542IYoE0

[Chelubey]

If anything your theory that Yakuts/Sakha were formed through the absorption of southern Turkic speaking tribes further proves that the original Turkic speakers were mainly Haplogroup N.
Yakut Turkic speaker ? Possibly , Yes.


However it was also mentioned that the Yenisei Kyrgyz were not ethnically homogenous and they were made up of physiognomically diverse peoples. In fact, Kyrgyz literally means "40 tribes" that were unified to overthrow the Uyghur Khaganate.

Tribes does'nt mean ethnos in Turkic system. This is typical turkic name for big unions of tribes: 5 tribes,7 tribes,10 tribes. But i'm not sure that Kyrgyz means 40 tribes. Possibly, there was samoedic component among Kyrgyzes - this is scientific version.


About the Buryats, you quoted that the Soyots who underwent Mongolisation switched to the Buryat language. The Soyots are not Samoyedic. They are Turkic. This is in line with my argument that the Buryats are Mongolised Turkic people.

Read that :
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B
Russian ethnologists understand it better.



About the Yakut subclades of Haplogroup N being N-TAT and therefore closer to that of Finnic peoples than the Ugric and Samoyedic Nenets and Nganasan, both Turkic and Uralic people are believed to have originated in the same area. Haplogroup N-P43 which are predominantly Samoyedic split away first and developed independently in the area of North Siberia and the Ural Mountains before N-TAT emerged from South Siberia, with one branch migrating east to form the Turkic Yakuts and another branch west to form the Finno-Ugric peoples. Some of the Ugric tribes who stayed in Siberia merged with the Samoyedic people to form the Khanty, Mansi etc. who are a mix of N-P43 and N-TAT, whereas most of the Finnic tribes did not and migrated west across the Ural Mountains to Europe.

As i remember, even Mari have subclades that are farther from the Finnish than the Yakut ones.
Does this not mean that the Yakut subclades are of Uralic origin?
N-p43 among Finish and North-West Russians.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-P43/




You didn't provide me with any data to refute my theory at all, what are you talking about? Also the prevailing theory that the Avars are Turkic further lends to the fact that N-TAT was indeed originally found amongst Turkic speakers, because most of the Y-DNA samples exhumed from the early Avars have shown that they were carries of Hg N-TAT. Unless you are trying to say that the Avars are Samoyedic which cannot be the case because they do not have N-P43. Even the Avar khagan was found to be N-TAT.

Here you see two very strong examples of Turkic speaking, N-TAT people groups: the Yakuts/Sakha and the Avars. Neither of which carry the same subclade of N-P43 which is the predominant subclade of Samoyedic people. Unless you are going to keep using the same excuse that these people are all Turkified Samoyeds?

From your previous post:


All the 5 other Avar samples belonged to N1a1a1a1a3-B197, which is most prevalent in Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks and appears among Tuvans and Mongols with lower frequency. By contrast two Conquerors belonged to N1a1a1a1a4-M2118, the Y lineage of nearly all Yakut males, being also frequent in Evenks, Evens and occurring with lower frequency among Khantys, Mansis and Kazakhs.


and next quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars


The language or languages spoken by the Avars are unknown.[13][15][16][17] Classical philologist Samuel Szadeczky-Kardoss states that most of the Avar words used in contemporaneous Latin or Greek texts appear to have their origins in possibly Mongolian or Turkic languages.[75][76] Other theories propose a Tungusic origin.[77] According to Szadeczky-Kardoss, many of the titles and ranks used by the Pannonian Avars were also used by the Turks, Proto-Bulgars, Uighurs and/or Mongols, including khagan (or kagan), khan, kapkhan, tudun, tarkhan, and khatun.[76] There is also evidence, however, that ruling and subject clans spoke a variety of languages. Proposals by scholars include Caucasian,[15] Iranian,[3] Tungusic,[78][79][80] Hungarian[81] and Turkic.[10][82] A few scholars speculated that Proto-Slavic became the lingua franca of the Avar Khaganate.[83] Historian Gyula László has suggested that the late 9th century Pannonian Avars spoke a variety of Old Hungarian, thereby forming an Avar-Hungarian continuity with then-newly arrived Hungarians.

So, what do we have?
We have a people (Avars) having unclear ethnolinguistic attribution, representing possibly a genetic mix of the Mongols, Eastern Turks, Uralic peoples and other Easten groups. Most avars had a subclade found with a low frequency among Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks(not turkic peoples). 1-2 Avars had a subclade found in the Yakuts(turkic), Kazakhs(turkic),Evenks(tungus), Khanty and Mansi(uralic).
Is this the foundation of your hypothesis?

[mutabor]

In case of Papuan Melpa language I made a crazy guess and assumption. It should be clear from my language.

My assumption how haplogroup P and Q looked like before intermixing with East Asians in Siberia based on Papuan phenotype.

Papuans

https://photos.wildjunket.com/Pacific/Papua-New-Guinea/Tari/i-29rTqnc/0/M/IMG_4758-M.jpghttps://anywayinaway.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/papua-new-guinea-gulf-festival-006.jpghttps://c8.alamy.com/comp/CRTWMF/portrait-of-a-woman-from-the-highlands-of-papua-new-guinea-CRTWMF.jpghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6793977790_71889dc006_o.jpg

[SG_Jun]

Yakut Turkic speaker ? Possibly , Yes.

Tribes does'nt mean ethnos in Turkic system. This is typical turkic name for big unions of tribes: 5 tribes,7 tribes,10 tribes. But i'm not sure that Kyrgyz means 40 tribes. Possibly, there was samoedic component among Kyrgyzes - this is scientific version.

Read that :
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B
Russian ethnologists understand it better.


As i remember, even Mari have subclades that are farther from the Finnish than the Yakut ones.
Does this not mean that the Yakut subclades are of Uralic origin?
N-p43 among Finish and North-West Russians.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-P43/



From your previous post:


and next quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonian_Avars

So, what do we have?
We have a people (Avars) having unclear ethnolinguistic attribution, representing possibly a genetic mix of the Mongols, Eastern Turks, Uralic peoples and other Easten groups. Most avars had a subclade found with a low frequency among Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks(not turkic peoples). 1-2 Avars had a subclade found in the Yakuts(turkic), Kazakhs(turkic),Evenks(tungus), Khanty and Mansi(uralic).
Is this the foundation of your hypothesis?

Again you're at it with the Samoyeds, even when the Kyrgyz clearly show that they have little to no genetic affinity with the Samoyed subclade of Haplogroup N, Kyrgyz are predominantly Haplogroup R1a. What are you talking about? Are you having trouble understanding English? Yes Kyrgyz does mean "40 tribes" and while it doesn't mean "40 different ethnic groups", these tribes could have very well been diverse. The probability of that is extremely high as previously mentioned that the Kyrgyz were made up of very physiognomically different people groups

N-P43 (ex. N2) is found amongst Finns and Northwest Russians, but only at low frequency. N-P43 remains predominant only amongst Samoyedic peoples and it is a Samoyedic subclade of N. Anyone who does not have N-P43 does not have Samoyedic admixture. What I'm saying is, because the Yakuts do not have N-P43, it is impossible that their Haplogroup N is derived from Samoyedic admixture.

https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/ejhg/journal/v16/n10/images/ejhg2008101f1.jpg

Lastly, yes it is unknown what type of language the Avars spoke or who they were, but the prevailing theory by experts is that they were Turkic, it is clearly stated in the quote that the 2 CONQUEROR samples had the Yakut subclade of N. The remaining samples of Haplogroup N which belong to subclades found amongst Chukchi, Eskimos and Koryaks was clearly a later addition, since only the Yupik in Siberia have Haplogroup N, and not the Inuit across the Bering Straits in North America, who are predominantly Haplogroup Q. This means that B197 is predominantly in Buryats who are Mongolised Soyots (Turkic people) as we mentioned.

Tungusic and Mongolic tribes are predominantly Haplogroup C2 in origin. Any N in the Evenks are later additions as well.

This all means that the Avars were likely made up of a Turkic ruling class elite (including the khagan) related to modern day Yakuts, whereas the other samples belonging to the warriors belonged to Buryat and/or Khanty and Mansi subclades which suggests that they could have been a Turkic-Uralic mix or perhaps a subjugated Ugric class.

[Chelubey]

Okay, let's do it in order.
1.
The Yenisei Kyrgyz were a conglomeration of both Indo-Iranian/Scythian, Wusun and Turkic peoples. This is clearly stated in ancient Chinese records as well.

Give a link to a Chinese source that the Kyrgyz had an Indo-Iranian component.

In fact, Kyrgyz literally means "40 tribes" that were unified to overthrow the Uyghur Khaganate.
No. Its just a version.

2.

Unless you are going to keep using the same excuse that these people are all Turkified Samoyeds?

I didn’t say that.
I said:


before migration, taking into account genetic and linguistic data, were possibly already a mixture of Turkic, Mongol and Samoedic tribes

After migration to the river Lena, it is believed that the Yakuts assimilated the Yukagirs and Evenks.
The author, analyzing the name of the Yakut clans, claims that part of Yakut clans has Evenk origin:
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evenki-i-saha-obschie-momenty-v-etnogeneze-sibirskih-narodov/viewer


The self-name of the Yakuts - Yako and Sakha - researchers associate with the Tungus component...
The name of the largest genus of Yakuts — Nam — researchers associate with namyat — is the name of genus among the Transbaikal Evenks.
Ksenofontov connects ethnogenesis of Yakuts with migration of a compact group of native speakers of Turkic language and its spread among Evenks along with cattle breeding.

Try to refute the author’s linguastic arguments.
3.
About the Buryats, you quoted that the Soyots who underwent Mongolisation switched to the Buryat language. The Soyots are not Samoyedic. They are Turkic. This is in line with my argument that the Buryats are Mongolised Turkic people.
You do not read my links?
Russian ethnographers who studied the Soyots do not doubt their Samoyed origin. Soyots call their dwelling Urasa (it typologically close to the dwellings of Samoyeds) as Yakuts (only for summer dwellings), Evenks, Yukagirs (the word possibly has Evenk origin). The main branch of their economy is reindeer husbandry, as in the case of Samoyeds.
4.
If anything your theory that Yakuts/Sakha were formed through the absorption.
You do not understand. I do not create a theories in this case, I only broadcast the facts and theories of some experts.
You have created a hypothesis and you must defend it.
It sounds spectacular - “30% of the Tatars have Huplogroup N”. But which Tatars? Crimean Tatars have just a few percent. In Siberian Tatars, Hg N has maximum number in groups that are of Ugric origin.
On example of subclades of the hg N of the Volga Tatars, can you show which subclades are of the Uralic and which of Turkic origin?
And what is the percentage of Turkic subclades Volga Tatars have?

[Chelubey]

double

[Chelubey]

I did not find information about the Turkic-Buryat relations, but there is data on the Buryat-Evenk relations.
http://evenkiteka.ru/stellages/ethnography/o-roli-tungusskogo-komponenta-v-etnogeneze-buryat/
This article talks about the influence of the Evenk language on the Buryatian one, about the presence of clans of Evenk origin among the Buryats, and even there is documented data on the assimilation of Evenks by Yakuts and Buryats.
The conclusion of this article:


Thus, the available facts allow us to say quite definitely that the ethnic specificity of the Buryat people is largely determined by the presence in its composition of a rather large substrate component of Tungus origin.
Possibly, Evenks are the same common element that unites the Yakuts and Buryats.

[Chelubey]

Here are the calculated data on the number of Evenks and Yakuts in different periods
17-18 centuries:
Evenks: 36 thousands
Yakuts: 28 thousands
Buryats: 27 thousands
The end of the 19th century:
Evenks: 61 thousands
Yakuts: 226 thousands
Buryats: 288 thousands
These data significantly devalue the statistical argument that the N1c-rich groups of Evenks descended from the Yakuts. The number of Yakuts at the turn of the 17-18 centuries was less than numbers of the Evenks.

[SG_Jun]

Okay, let's do it in order.
1.
Give a link to a Chinese source that the Kyrgyz had an Indo-Iranian component.

No. Its just a version.

2.
I didn’t say that.
I said:

After migration to the river Lena, it is believed that the Yakuts assimilated the Yukagirs and Evenks.
The author, analyzing the name of the Yakut clans, claims that part of Yakut clans has Evenk origin:
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evenki-i-saha-obschie-momenty-v-etnogeneze-sibirskih-narodov/viewer

Try to refute the author’s linguastic arguments.
3.
You do not read my links?
Russian ethnographers who studied the Soyots do not doubt their Samoyed origin. Soyots call their dwelling Urasa (it typologically close to the dwellings of Samoyeds) as Yakuts (only for summer dwellings), Evenks, Yukagirs (the word possibly has Evenk origin). The main branch of their economy is reindeer husbandry, as in the case of Samoyeds.
4..
You do not understand. I do not create a theories in this case, I only broadcast the facts and theories of some experts.
You have created a hypothesis and you must defend it.
It sounds spectacular - “30% of the Tatars have Huplogroup N”. But which Tatars? Crimean Tatars have just a few percent. In Siberian Tatars, Hg N has maximum number in groups that are of Ugric origin.
On example of subclades of the hg N of the Volga Tatars, can you show which subclades are of the Uralic and which of Turkic origin?
And what is the percentage of Turkic subclades Volga Tatars have?

‘堅昆部落非狼種, 其先所生之窟在曲漫山北。自謂上代有神與牸牛交於此窟. 其人髮黃, 目綠, 赤髭髯"

The Qirghiz, who destroyed the Uighur Khaganate in 840 AD, were centred in the upper Yenisei region, not in the Mongolian steppes. According to the Miscellany of Youyang,written by Duan Chengshi in the ninth century AD, the Qirghiz regarded themselves as progenies of a god and a cow. The Jiankun (堅昆) [Qirghiz] tribe, [unlike the Türks], is not of wolf descent. Their ancestors were born in a cave located to the north of the Quman Mountain. They themselves say that in the ancient times there was a god who mated with a cow in that cave. The people’s hair is yellow, eyes are green, and beards are red. The Qirghiz are distinguished from the Uighurs and other Tiele tribes in Chinese histories. The Xin Tangshu, which provides detailed information on the Qirghiz and the Tiele tribes, does not include the former among the latter (Xin Tangshu 217b.6139–6145). In addition, while the Xin Tangshu states that 'their language and script were identical to those of the Uighurs (其文字言語，與回鶻正同)’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6148), it also notes the peculiar physical phenotype of the Qirghiz. The Xin Tangshu relates: ‘The people are all tall and big and have red hair, white faces, and green eyes (人皆長大，赤髮、皙面、綠瞳)’ According to the Xin Tangshu, their neighbouring tribe named Boma (駁馬) or Bila (弊剌) resembled the Qirghiz, although their language was different (Xin Tangshu 217b.6146). This may imply that the Qirghiz were originally a non-Turkic people who became Turkicized during the Kök Türk period at least partly through inter-tribal marriages.

You linked a source entirely in Russian language without providing any translation and you asked me if I read it? Are you kidding me? How am I going to refute an argument in a language I don't fully understand? How about I provide you with the above Chinese source without any translation?

https://realnoevremya.ru/uploads/article/62/3a/8576813255278388.jpg

Crimean Tatars are the one of the least homogenous groups of Turkic people, I wouldn't expect them to have a high frequency of Haplogroup N. Many of them are simply descendants of Turkified Greeks, Romans, Germanic Goths who predated the Turkic invasion of Crimea.

[SG_Jun]

Here are the calculated data on the number of Evenks and Yakuts in different periods
17-18 centuries:
Evenks: 36 thousands
Yakuts: 28 thousands
Buryats: 27 thousands
The end of the 19th century:
Evenks: 61 thousands
Yakuts: 226 thousands
Buryats: 288 thousands
These data significantly devalue the statistical argument that the N1c-rich groups of Evenks descended from the Yakuts. The number of Yakuts at the turn of the 17-18 centuries was less than numbers of the Evenks.

Only the MATERNAL lineage of Yakuts suggests admixture with Tungusic populations like the Evenks. The original haplogroup of Tungusic peoples is C2 which is found in the vast majority of Evenks and other Tungusic speaking groups like the Oroqen, Manchu etc;. If these figures are supposed to suggest that many Evenk (Tungusic) men with Haplogroup C assimilated to become Yakuts, that would simply be untrue, otherwise the frequency of Haplogroup C amongst Yakuts today would be a lot higher. Yakut (Turkic) men with Haplogroup N did however take Evenk women as wives.

98256

The paternal lineage of Yakuts does not cluster with the Evenks, and if anything after the supposed "assimilation" of Evenks you claim happened between the 18th and 19th centuries, the paternal lineage of Yakuts seems to have drifted even further away from the Evenk lineage? Evenks are depicted as being closer to Mongols on the chart which is accurate because they are both Haplogroup C2.

https://images.ctfassets.net/cnu0m8re1exe/3Ly38XyxGYFLoYIv33vFox/18329ffbc3ae3da2eda90b06e834a26b/yakgendistanceY.png?w=650

The low diversity and extremely high frequency of Haplogroup N found amongst Yakuts is indicative of a founder effect, that is Haplogroup N amongst the Yakuts originated from a group of Turkic (Kurykan Tiele) men who migrated north from Lake Baikal along the Lena River and began mating aggressively through polygamy etc. with the local Tungusic women and killing off Tungusic (C2) men until the entire population became very homogenous in terms of paternal lineage. From this we can infer that the compact group of Turkic men that the Yakuts originated from were indeed Haplogroup N.

This does not change my argument that the original Turkic haplogroup is N, if anything it fortifies it. You are merely mentioning Tungusic / Evenk admixture in terms of maternal lineage which is not even related to what we are talking about here which is paternal lineage

[SG_Jun]

Also, according to the FTDNA Oghuz Turks project, out of 122 Y-DNA samples obtained from Anatolian Turks, 16.39% of them belonged to Haplogroup N which is surprisingly actually the haplogroup with the 2nd highest frequency after J2 at 25.41%. Are you going to argue that these Anatolian Turks with Haplogroup N are the descendants of Tungusic and Samoyedic peoples as well?

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-dd1895c6a561bce3ba28ec8c0c27fee6

[SG_Jun]

Double post

[Chelubey]

Give a link to a Chinese source that the Kyrgyz had an Indo-Iranian component.


‘The people are all tall and big and have red hair, white faces, and green eyes.
:picard2:
Have you ever seen live Indo-Iranians?
You, as an oriental man, very fetishize this factor. American Turkologist already answered you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yenisei_Kyrgyz


A number of researchers have been tempted to see the early Kyrgyz as a non-Turkic people or, at the very least, an ethnically mixed people with a large non-Turkic component. Many scholars have supported this idea after identifying what they believe to be examples of non-Turkic (particularly Samoyed) words among the Kyrgyz words preserved in Chinese sources. It should be noted, however, that the connection between language and "race" is highly inconclusive. The physical appearance of the Kyrgyz can no more be considered as indicating that they were not a Turkic people than can the lexical appearance of a few possibly non-Turkic words, whose presence in the Kyrgyz language can be explained through the common practice of linguistic borrowing. The Kyrgyz inscriptions of the Yenisei (eighth century CE and later) are in fact written in a completely Turkic language, and T'ang Chinese sources state clearly that the Kyrgyz written and spoken language at that time was identical to that of the Turkic Uygurs (Chinese Hui-ho, Hui-hu). Most of the Kyrgyz words preserved in Chinese sources are, in fact, Turkic. There is no reason to assume a non-Turkic origin for the Kyrgyz, although that possibility cannot be discounted.

[Harkonnen]

The low diversity and extremely high frequency of Haplogroup N found amongst Yakuts is indicative of a founder effect, that is Haplogroup N amongst the Yakuts originated from a group of Turkic (Kurykan Tiele) men who migrated north from Lake Baikal along the Lena River and began mating aggressively through polygamy etc. with the local Tungusic women and killing off Tungusic (C2) men until the entire population became very homogenous in terms of paternal lineage. From this we can infer that the compact group of Turkic men that the Yakuts originated from were indeed Haplogroup N.



This is a fact. I've read many papers about this. I see if I manage to dug them up.

[Chelubey]

https://realnoevremya.ru/uploads/article/62/3a/8576813255278388.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabolotnie_Tatars
75% of Zabolotniy Tatars have Hh N.
I am still waiting that you at the subclade level to prove the Turkicity of haplogroup N.
But I think you can’t. As I said earlier, Siberia before the Russians is a human desert with a very rare population.
28 thousand of Yakuts in the 17-18 centuries! Imagine how many there were during the times of the Avars. These Avars were a small marginal group from Siberia that almost had no descendants.
If you adhere to the theory of the recent expansion of the Turkic people, you should be orient to Central Asia / Mongolia as the ancestral home of the Turkic people.

[Harkonnen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabolotnie_Tatars
75% of Zabolotniy Tatars have Hh N.
I am still waiting that you at the subclade level to prove the Turkicity of haplogroup N.
But I think you can’t. As I said earlier, Siberia before the Russians is a human desert with a very rare population.
28 thousand of Yakuts in the 17-18 centuries! Imagine how many there were during the times of the Avars. These Avars were a small marginal group from Siberia that almost had no descendants.
If you adhere to the theory of the recent expansion of the Turkic people, you should be orient to Central Asia / Mongolia as the ancestral home of the Turkic people.

You have the typical IQ of Russian/Tatar

[Chelubey]

Kurykans did not have a clear ethnicity.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B


In the "Collection of Chronicles" Rashid ad-Din, among the "nationalities that are now called the Mongols" are mentioned Kurkan, Jalair, Sunni, Tatars, Merkit, Tumat, Bulagachin, Keramuchin Oirat, Barghut, Measles, Uryanka and others .

[Chelubey]

You have the typical IQ of Russian/Tatar
I have enough

[Harkonnen]

"As for the paternal lineages, although all North Tungusic subgroups have high frequencies of Y-chromosomal haplogroup C3c1, there is no sharing of C3c1 haplotypes between Evenks and Evens, indicating a fairly deep split between these populations and lack of subsequent admixture The network analysis of Y-chromosomal haplogroup N1c (Figure 10) provides a clear indication of gene flow from Yakuts into the Sakkyryyr Evens, in that seven STR haplotypes are shared with Yakuts, with an additional haplotype separated by only one mutational step. Furthermore, a haplotype that was not included in the analysis because of a duplication in DYS393 is also shared with Yakuts (with the exception of the duplication [15]). Thus, 32% - 36% of the Sakkyryyr Even Y-chromosomes are most likely to be of Yakut origin."

[Harkonnen]

Yakuts themselves are essentially Turkified Evenks.

[SG_Jun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabolotnie_Tatars
75% of Zabolotniy Tatars have Hh N.
I am still waiting that you at the subclade level to prove the Turkicity of haplogroup N.
But I think you can’t. As I said earlier, Siberia before the Russians is a human desert with a very rare population.
28 thousand of Yakuts in the 17-18 centuries! Imagine how many there were during the times of the Avars. These Avars were a small marginal group from Siberia that almost had no descendants.
If you adhere to the theory of the recent expansion of the Turkic people, you should be orient to Central Asia / Mongolia as the ancestral home of the Turkic people.

Probably a Haplogroup R1a Russian who got cucked by the fact that Russia was founded by Rurik who was N1c, that's why he's so upset.

[Chelubey]

Probably a Haplogroup R1a Russian who got cucked by the fact that Russia was founded by Rurik who was N1c, that's why he's so upset.
No.No. Uralic people are good people. Tatars are partly uralic people.

[Shubotai]

A mongol invasion during the 12th century in northeastern Altai and Baikal area caused some turkic speaking people to migrate northeasternwards. There, apparently they have turkified a number of Siberian people.
Yakuts are turkic speaking and with dominant haplogroup N, no doubt about it. But the real question is whether that language was spoken by them in their previous location or they had been turkified there by an other group.

There are 6 branches of the Turkic language family. Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk, Siberian Turkic, Khalaj, Oghur.
There are 6 haplogroups of importance for the Turkic language family, subclades of large haplogroups which share a distant relationship. Q-M25 among the Oghuz group, R-M73 among the Kipchak-Nogay group of Kipchak, C-M401 among the Kazakh-Kyrgyz group of Kipchak, Q-L330 among the Siberian Turkic group, J-M172 which is quite spread among Oghuz and Karluk groups and N-F2930 in Turkish and Siberian Turks, two of the cornermost groups of the family.

For three of them we can say that they are of different background. R-M73 could be connected with the ancient Tocharian language, Q-L330 is connected with the Ket and therefore the Yeniseian languages and J-M172 has strong ties in the Middle East.

Two of the most important branches however are Chuvash and Khalaj, descended from Oghur and Arghu turkic groups. Even if they are small groups, their haplogroups will be more revealing when they get tested.
You would really expect that a young language family could easily trace its origins, but that's not the case with Turkic because they have done an amazing work in turkifying vast regions. There were more than just one wave in this process.

Dene-Yeniseian is definetely not a valid language family. It was a theory that exploited the substratum of Dene and Yeniseian languages in order to create a linguistic connection between the two continents. Na-Dene speakers have C-P39 in frequency <40% and Kets have Q-L330, a group of Yenisian origin. The other Yeniseian languages down the valley are extinct.

This is very interesting information on N about early period in China. Definitely worth looking at. I am aware that the origin of haplogroup N-M178 lies in Manchuria, from where the spread Uralic towards the west. But if there were Uralic languages spoken in Manchuria in early period, they have been supplanted by Tungusic and Chinese languages.
N1a-M178 is connected with the dispersal of Uralic languages. I would expect these early Avars to be of Uralic origin. N1a2a-M128 is connected with the Botai culture in Kazakhstan. It is not sure what language they spoke.
N1b-F2930 lies well outside the N1a loop and is a haplogroup of importance for this subject. But why couldn't their languge be different?

Of course the same goes for Q-M25. However Q-M25 is not found outside of Turkic speakers but they might as well have underwent a process of turkification. Maybe only some presence in northeast Siberia, which is interesting regardless.

Avaric languages is unclassified. It might be Turkic, but it might not. There were a lot of names and titles similar to Turkic and Mongolian. There is the possibility that it was Tungusic or partly Tungusic. Then, the Avars after their defeat run southwest to coastal Croatia. The island of Hvar today and the opposite coast are full with Q.
Avars ruling elite and subjects were multi-ethnic as well, it was not just Avar. They could be a precursion to the Magyar migration.

Most of the early invasions of Europe from the east include haplogroup Q apparent by its frequency in various places. N and C only appeared only later with the Magyar and Mongol invasions.
The Hun invaders of Europe had haplogroup Q-M25, the subclade Q-L715. Even there, the classification of the Hun language is not certain.

Now, Turkic is SOV and agglutinative. It shares a lot of structural similarities with Mongolian and Native American languages and there are common words occasionally. It has definitely been altered by the migration of Siberian C groups and by other peoples who were assimilated.
The Uralic languages are not SOV but they are agglutinative. Like a lot of O languages which are agglutinative but not SOV.

Papuan languages include thousands of languages and it's amazing they even got them recorded. The family of West Papuan languages have haplogroup C, the Trans-New Guinea languages and a big number of unclassifued languages have haplogroup M and S and then a complex network of Andamanese-like languages spread in maritime south-east Asia before the migrations of haplogroups C and K.
The MS belongs to the K haplogroup which was extended in southeast Asia and the Indonesian archipelago and many of these people and languages were supplanted by haplogroup O and their languages.
It would be unlikely for any of New-Guinea language to be similar to a Siberian language.

Now, if I had to take a guess where Turkic originated from I would say Q-M25. N-F2930 would be the second canditate.
It could be the other way around though. Most Q-M25 groups have a variation of the name Oghur. Oghuz, Arghu, Uyghur, Argyn, Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Hungarians, Bulgars etc. I am not sure whether it referred to a tribal system or their original ethnonym.
I suspect that C-M401 has lost its original language, but has played a prominent role thereafter in forming the Kazakh-Kyrgyz branch of Turkic and the western branches of Mongolic languages.

[Harkonnen]

This is very interesting information on N about early period in China. Definitely worth looking at. I am aware that the origin of haplogroup N-M178 lies in Manchuria, from where the spread Uralic towards the west. But if there were Uralic languages spoken in Manchuria in early period, they have been supplanted by Tungusic and Chinese languages.
N1a-M178 is connected with the dispersal of Uralic languages. I would expect these early Avars to be of Uralic origin. N1a2a-M128 is connected with the Botai culture in Kazakhstan. It is not sure what language they spoke.
N1b-F2930 lies well outside the N1a loop and is a haplogroup of importance for this subject. But why couldn't their languge be different?


Before you put origin of Uralic languages in Manchuria, let's remember that Chinese clade of N1c1, N-F2905, has TMRCA of 16 000 years and split from Uralic N1c1, N-L729, 18 000 years ago. As far as I know those early N1c1 cultures in North East China fall under N-F2905. You can't find Chinese N1c1 among Uralics, and you can't find Uralic N1c1 among Chinese. Under this information, it would be quite strange to deduct origin of Uralic languages to those early Chinese cultures mentioned in this thread, especially when not a single linguist has ever done this. https://www.yfull.com/tree/N/


The subclade of N1c1 which was found in Avars is pretty much nonexistant in Uralics, so I very much doubt they were Uralics.

What comes to origin of N-M178 in Manchuria, I would not be so certain about that. I guess its still possibility, but if I would put it in China, I think Northwest China would be more plausible. Personally for a long time I've thought that Central Asia (or maybe Southern Siberia) looks much more plausible, if you've look how the different descendant lineages are spread out, it really is not that China centric. You already mentioned N1a2a-M128 of Botai culture from Kazakstan which today is found only as minor lineage in the Balkans. Also when you take into account that Chinese N1c1 is not ancestral, but rather brother lineage to Siberian and European lineages, I don't see what reason there is to put the origin categorically to Manchuria. The fact that early NO types have been found in Siberia and East Europe also speak little bit for this, though those men lived so long ago, that they don't necessarily have much to do with original dispersals of N-M178.




Papuan languages include thousands of languages and it's amazing they even got them recorded. The family of West Papuan languages have haplogroup C, the Trans-New Guinea languages and a big number of unclassifued languages have haplogroup M and S and then a complex network of Andamanese-like languages spread in maritime south-east Asia before the migrations of haplogroups C and K.
The MS belongs to the K haplogroup which was extended in southeast Asia and the Indonesian archipelago and many of these people and languages were supplanted by haplogroup O and their languages.
It would be unlikely for any of New-Guinea language to be similar to a Siberian language.


Well technically O also belongs to mega-haplogroup K

https://i.ibb.co/3BfBvhH/LMAO.jpg (https://ibb.co/HnNnCgQ)

[Shubotai]

Yes, N, Q and R also. But basal K* was in southeast Asia before these subclades had coalesced. They coalesced in the west from basal K2a and K2b and then took over their ancestral haplogroups, that's what I mean.

[SG_Jun]

A mongol invasion during the 12th century in northeastern Altai and Baikal area caused some turkic speaking people to migrate northeasternwards. There, apparently they have turkified a number of Siberian people.
Yakuts are turkic speaking and with dominant haplogroup N, no doubt about it. But the real question is whether that language was spoken by them in their previous location or they had been turkified there by an other group.

There are 6 branches of the Turkic language family. Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk, Siberian Turkic, Khalaj, Oghur.
There are 6 haplogroups of importance for the Turkic language family, subclades of large haplogroups which share a distant relationship. Q-M25 among the Oghuz group, R-M73 among the Kipchak-Nogay group of Kipchak, C-M401 among the Kazakh-Kyrgyz group of Kipchak, Q-L330 among the Siberian Turkic group, J-M172 which is quite spread among Oghuz and Karluk groups and N-F2930 in Turkish and Siberian Turks, two of the cornermost groups of the family.

For three of them we can say that they are of different background. R-M73 could be connected with the ancient Tocharian language, Q-L330 is connected with the Ket and therefore the Yeniseian languages and J-M172 has strong ties in the Middle East.

Two of the most important branches however are Chuvash and Khalaj, descended from Oghur and Arghu turkic groups. Even if they are small groups, their haplogroups will be more revealing when they get tested.
You would really expect that a young language family could easily trace its origins, but that's not the case with Turkic because they have done an amazing work in turkifying vast regions. There were more than just one wave in this process.

Dene-Yeniseian is definetely not a valid language family. It was a theory that exploited the substratum of Dene and Yeniseian languages in order to create a linguistic connection between the two continents. Na-Dene speakers have C-P39 in frequency <40% and Kets have Q-L330, a group of Yenisian origin. The other Yeniseian languages down the valley are extinct.

This is very interesting information on N about early period in China. Definitely worth looking at. I am aware that the origin of haplogroup N-M178 lies in Manchuria, from where the spread Uralic towards the west. But if there were Uralic languages spoken in Manchuria in early period, they have been supplanted by Tungusic and Chinese languages.
N1a-M178 is connected with the dispersal of Uralic languages. I would expect these early Avars to be of Uralic origin. N1a2a-M128 is connected with the Botai culture in Kazakhstan. It is not sure what language they spoke.
N1b-F2930 lies well outside the N1a loop and is a haplogroup of importance for this subject. But why couldn't their languge be different?

Of course the same goes for Q-M25. However Q-M25 is not found outside of Turkic speakers but they might as well have underwent a process of turkification. Maybe only some presence in northeast Siberia, which is interesting regardless.

Avaric languages is unclassified. It might be Turkic, but it might not. There were a lot of names and titles similar to Turkic and Mongolian. There is the possibility that it was Tungusic or partly Tungusic. Then, the Avars after their defeat run southwest to coastal Croatia. The island of Hvar today and the opposite coast are full with Q.
Avars ruling elite and subjects were multi-ethnic as well, it was not just Avar. They could be a precursion to the Magyar migration.

Most of the early invasions of Europe from the east include haplogroup Q apparent by its frequency in various places. N and C only appeared only later with the Magyar and Mongol invasions.
The Hun invaders of Europe had haplogroup Q-M25, the subclade Q-L715. Even there, the classification of the Hun language is not certain.

Now, Turkic is SOV and agglutinative. It shares a lot of structural similarities with Mongolian and Native American languages and there are common words occasionally. It has definitely been altered by the migration of Siberian C groups and by other peoples who were assimilated.
The Uralic languages are not SOV but they are agglutinative. Like a lot of O languages which are agglutinative but not SOV.

Papuan languages include thousands of languages and it's amazing they even got them recorded. The family of West Papuan languages have haplogroup C, the Trans-New Guinea languages and a big number of unclassifued languages have haplogroup M and S and then a complex network of Andamanese-like languages spread in maritime south-east Asia before the migrations of haplogroups C and K.
The MS belongs to the K haplogroup which was extended in southeast Asia and the Indonesian archipelago and many of these people and languages were supplanted by haplogroup O and their languages.
It would be unlikely for any of New-Guinea language to be similar to a Siberian language.

Now, if I had to take a guess where Turkic originated from I would say Q-M25. N-F2930 would be the second canditate.
It could be the other way around though. Most Q-M25 groups have a variation of the name Oghur. Oghuz, Arghu, Uyghur, Argyn, Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Hungarians, Bulgars etc. I am not sure whether it referred to a tribal system or their original ethnonym.
I suspect that C-M401 has lost its original language, but has played a prominent role thereafter in forming the Kazakh-Kyrgyz branch of Turkic and the western branches of Mongolic languages.

What you said is indeed true, the Turkic people have been very successful at Turkifying large groups of people to the extent where it is not easy to tell any more. But the distribution of haplogroups is not as clear cut as you mentioned. Q is really only found in Turkmen at moderately high frequency and amongst other Turkic peoples at low frequency (really, there are non-Turkic people in both northern China and Europe with Q as well). Furthermore even the Tibeto-Burman Akha tribe in Southwestern China have higher frequency of Q than the Turkmen). Not all Oghuz Turks have high frequency of Q like you mentioned (the Anatolian Turks certainly don't).

Amongst Siberian Turkic people they have a lot higher N than Q, so I would still associate Siberian Turkic people as a whole as being more related to N than Q.

https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/tuvinian-y-chromosome.jpg

While the Huns were indeed Q and R, they were largely replaced by N by the early Avar period. The Avars were not Q, they were N (including the Avar khagan himself). The invasion of Q into Europe as you mentioned was probably brought on by the Huns, not the Avars.

As for the Oghur branch, here is the Y-DNA of Chuvash people:

https://haplogruplar.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/cuvas-y-dna-haplogrup-dagilimi.jpg

Other than that, regarding N-M128, I generally agree more with Harkonnen. N-F2905 aka N-F2930 split from Uralic N1c a very long time ago, and the Avars couldn't have been Uralic because their subclades of N as I quoted earlier belonged to that of the Yakuts and Buryats, not the Uralic peoples.

N-M178 on the other hand is largely centered around Kazakhstan.

Interestingly, I realised that most N groups also have a somewhat related ethnonym. The Sakha and Khakass which might be related to the Saka (given that samples of N were found alongside R in the Pazyryk Culture)

[mutabor]

My personal reconstruction of proto-Turkic language based on comparison of ancient DNA and pronunciation of surrounding languages.

Ket and Selkup languages ( haplogroup Q) sound Turkic like. Selkup in turn sounds like Yukaghir ( Chukotka) and Inuit of Canada retains continuity.

Selkup language has very weak elements of frontal vowels ---> in Inuit language frontal vowels are absent. In Turkic languages frontal vowels Ä, Ö and Ü are strongly expressed. These frontal vowels are called Umlaut vowels in Germanic languages. People of R1b haplogroup settled in southern Siberia in Afanasievo period ( 3000 BC). They intermixed with haplogroup Q in Okunevo period ( 2000 BC).

I would pick Norwegian language for reference of how R1b speakers talked ( approximately). R1b people strengthened frontal vowels ä, ö, and ü in proto-Turkic languages.


https://youtu.be/CCqtbte5s8E


https://youtu.be/VmI6v4W0Gak

People of mixed Q/R1b substrate were partially assimilated and partially pushed to the East during R1a haplogrup expansion ( Andronovo culture). Those Q/R1b who were pushed to the East and who retained their language continued to evolve in Tuva, Central/Western Mongolia. Altai and lower Yenisey were conquered by R1a speakers.

Around late Hunnu period and early Turkic period people of haplogroup C started to migrate into Mongolia and mix with Q/R1b speakers which resulted in mass migrations into Central Asia.

For reference I would pick Buryat language.


https://youtu.be/xMkxkIcxc24

[mutabor]

Western Mongolic Kalmyk language

If you change Mongolian-Kalmyk sound H into guttural sound K, Kalmyk will sound like a branch of Turkic language.


https://youtu.be/9_xrL6ckd7I

[mutabor]

The problems with Ket language

Carriers of these language are few and even those who can speak it are not native speakers ( it is their second language rather than first).

For example this woman speaks it as if it is a foreign language and she has difficulty to connect words properly. All samples of Ket language which I have met have this problem.

Second problem. Because Ket people live in proximity to Turkic speakers it is possible that Ket language was influenced by Turkic and not vice versa.


https://youtu.be/lUdZVayHpuA

[Yaglakar]

Oh come'on. The author is good man, but has often original looks on turkic ethnogensis(I like original viewpoints). But it's just opinion among thousand opinions .



What do you mean? You said:

But this is(Yaglakar->Jalair) the viewpoint of "prominent scholar" orientalist Zuev and some other scholars.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D 0%B8%D0%B5%3A%D0%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%8B% D1%80

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9 _%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2% D0%B8%D1%87

Sometimes i joked with 'word play'.


No . I usually referred to real scholars or sound my own opinion.

Descendants of Yaghlaqar royal family ended up in Gansu, Ediz royal house ended up in Qocho. This is common knowledge backed by documents. Everything else is 'фольк хистори'.

[Yaglakar]

‘堅昆部落非狼種, 其先所生之窟在曲漫山北。自謂上代有神與牸牛交於此窟. 其人髮黃, 目綠, 赤髭髯"

This may imply that the Qirghiz were originally a non-Turkic people who became Turkicized during the Kök Türk period at least partly through inter-tribal marriages.


Earliest recorded Turkic word 'ay' moon is of Yenisei Kirghiz origin. If they were Turkified, the process took place long before the Türks entered the stage. In fact Türks are latecomers, all the major groups were around before the Türks started gaining prominence.

[Visitor_22]

Actually C2 F1756 is more common among Hazaras (specifically jaghouri tribe) and Turkic people of Central Asian than among Mongols (Khalkha, Oirat, Buryat etc.)

Also C2 M401 is more commong among Hazaras (33%) and Kazakhs (20-25% overall... above 50% in southern kazakhs) than in Mongols (Khalkha - 17%, Oirats - 1-2%, Buryats 1-2%)

While C2 M407 and M48 are more common among Mongols (M48: Khalkha - 27%, Oirats - 70%, Buryats - 10%. M407: Khalkha - 15%, Oirats - 15-20%, Buryats - 60%).

C2 M407 is also haplogroup of Dayan Khanids - descendents of 16'th century Chingisid, who was direct descendent of Genghis Khan. Found mostly in modern day Buryats.

[Shubotai]

Kazakh is an ethnic identity formed during and after the middle ages. Before that, there were Turkic and Mongolic ancestors and as autosomal and y-dna revealed Tungusic and Siberian ancestors as well. Dzungars can not be the descendants of Mongols, it is clear by now that they had Tungusic ancestors. Also, Khitans are not of Xianbei origin, but their descendants are the Daur. A lot of mongolic tribes came from the Khamag Mongol confederation. It would be good idea to use orange color "ulbar" as common mongolic, of the eternal fire "munkh-gal".

C-M401 is the C* star cluster and this doesn't change and it should always have the central place.
As for its linguistic origins:

C-M401

F12308 Mongolic (Mongols, Hazara, Kazakhs, Mughals, Golden Horde)
F10283 Para-Mongolic (Khitans, Aisin Gioro)