"Altaic" people originate in modern-day East China - new groundbreaking study

[Dunai]

This new study published by researchers of the reputable Max Planck Institute seem to make a very solid case from both linguistic, archeological and genetic perspective for the existence of a common Transeurasian (formerly known Altaic) Heimat of both Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japanese languages around the Amur river in modern-day East-China. Personally I am pretty baffled by this reveal, since I already thought there was a scientific consensus that the "Altaic" language family is not a valid theory, but this scientific paper does seem to bring very new and convincing evidence to support this theory.

"Linguistics
We collected a new dataset of 3,193 cognate sets that represent 254 basic vocabulary concepts for 98 Transeurasian languages, including dialects and historical varieties. We applied Bayesian methods to infer a dated phylogeny of the Transeurasian languages (Supplementary Data 24). Our results indicate a time-depth of 9181 bp (5595–12793 95% highest probability density (95% HPD)) for the Proto-Transeurasian root of the family; 6811 bp (4404–10166 95% HPD) for Proto-Altaic, the unity of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages; 4491 bp (2599–6373 95% HPD) for Mongolo-Tungusic; and 5458 bp (3335–8024 95% HPD) for Japano-Koreanic. These dates estimate the time-depth of the initial break-up of a given language family into more than one foundational subgroup.

Archeology
Although Neolithic Northeast Asia was characterized by widespread plant cultivation, cereal farming expanded from several centres of domestication, the most important of which for Transeurasian was the West Liao basin, where cultivation of broomcorn millet started by 9000 bp. Extracting data from the published literature, we scored 172 archaeological features for 255 Neolithic and Bronze Age sites and compiled an inventory of 269 directly carbon-14-dated early crop remains in northern China, the Primorye, Korea and Japan.

The main results of our Bayesian analysis, which clusters the 255 sites according to cultural similarity, are visualized in Fig. 2b. We find a cluster of Neolithic cultures in the West Liao basin, from which two branches associated with millet farming separate: a Korean Chulmun branch and a branch of Neolithic cultures covering the Amur, Primorye and Liaodong. This confirms previous findings about the dispersal of millet agriculture to Korea by 5500 bp and via the Amur to the Primorye by 5000 bp.

Genetics
The PCA shows a general trend for Neolithic individuals from Mongolia to contain high Amur-like ancestry with extensive gene flow from western Eurasia increasing from the Bronze to Middle Ages. Whereas the Turkic-speaking Xiongnu, Old Uyghur and Türk are extremely scattered, the Mongolic-speaking Iron Age Xianbei fall closer to the Amur cluster than the Shiwei, Rouran, Khitan and Middle Mongolian Khanate from Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

As Amur-related ancestry can be traced down to speakers of Japanese and Korean13, it appears to be the original genetic component common to all speakers of Transeurasian languages. By analysing ancient genomes from Korea, we find that Jomon ancestry was present on the Peninsula by 6000 bp."

https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-021-04108-8/MediaObjects/41586_2021_4108_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04108-8

[Dunai]

Hmm, no discussion so far? I thought many people are interested in Central and East Asian peoples origins.

[Dunai]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2bXLkETAM

[zebruh]

Not here. But its not too surprising. But I guess somewhat interesting because people associated the natives with being close to central asians and Siberians not chinese.

What woulf be interesting is to compare the Chinese mtdna haplogroups Siberia aboriginal and central asian Mtdna with Natives.

[reboun]

I guessed that. Central Asian Turkics have more resemblance with East Asians than they have with Siberians. Siberians are more like Native North Americans.

[zebruh]

I guessed that. Central Asian Turkics have more resemblance with East Asians than they have with Siberians. Siberians are more like Native North Americans.The altaic turks are the ones that were most closely related to natives.

In terms of mtdna i know japanese have haplogroup D. And I think C but I don't know about A or B. B is common in polynesia I think. But the sub haplos of where exactly they diverge would be more interesting

[Leto]

The Altaic Gods were fully Mongoloid. The rest are just assimilated fucks :swl

[Hektor12]

Interesting. So are we offsping of Korean-Japanese farmers assimilated by west eurasian nomadic pastoralists?

I will wait for Kaspias comment on this to be honest.

[Dunai]

Double

[Dunai]

Interesting. So are we offsping of Korean-Japanese farmers assimilated by west eurasian nomadic pastoralists?

I will wait for Kaspias comment on this to be honest.

Incorrect. Watch the video at least from 52:40 (the conclusions part) and you will see what a solid case this team of researchers have made about the Urheimat of Transeurasian languages being around the Amur river, starting around 9000 BP. The group have split in separate Altaic and Korean-Japanese branches, so Turkic languages don't originate from Korean-Japanese, but they share a common ancestor rather. Chinese also has no common root with this group of languages, since in originated in the Yellow River area and belongs to Sino-Tibetan group. Geographically they were rather close to one another, but while speakers of Transeurasian languages practiced millet agriculture, the proto-Chinese practiced rice agriculture, a very significant differentiation factor actually.

[Turul Karom]

Interesting. So are we offsping of Korean-Japanese farmers assimilated by west eurasian nomadic pastoralists?

I will wait for Kaspias comment on this to be honest.

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea? The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any other:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/detail-of-a-horseman-from-felt-scythian-wallhanging-from-tomb-five-at-picture-id501578597?s=594x594

Turkic grave I match:

https://i.ibb.co/nRnqfr1/Turkic-graves-1.png (https://ibb.co/DL8Pk4M)

[Hektor12]

Transeurasian languageswhy "Transeurasian" ? Only Turkic languages have expansion in europe out of these languages. Others are just asian.

so Turkic languages don't originate from Korean-Japanese, but they share a common ancestor rather

I understand this, so this basically means some of these farmers went into Korea, Some into Japan and some to west? Ok but do we see this in y-dna haplos?

[Hektor12]

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any otherEven his moustache is same (:
This DA89 Göktürk Kaspias' fav. sample, right?

[ixulescu]

I don't buy it. There are 10,000 year old samples from Central Asia with a 20% Baltic component already iirc. Neolithic Central Asians had stronger contacts with European like populations than East Asian ones.

[Sterling Archer]

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea?
For what it is worth, this new paper is heavily criticized, especially the inclusion of Japonic and Korean.
Apparently, the authors also do a very poor job of reconstructing the languages in order to fit their theory.

On my part, I believe that Turks are the ultimate Eurasian people. Having said that, the language probably did originate somewhere around central Asia to Altai mountain range and might have shared some form of common ancestor with other stated language. Or then again, it might be unrelated, and similarities might be due to the contacts between Turks and their neighbors.



The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.
Yes, indeed it looks like they were mixed Eurasian from the get-go. Maybe similar to Finno-Ugric people.

[Turul Karom]

For what it is worth, this new paper is heavily criticized, especially the inclusion of Japonic and Korean.
Apparently, the authors also do a very poor job of reconstructing the languages in order to fit their theory.

On my part, I believe that Turks are the ultimate Eurasian people. Having said that, the language probably did originate somewhere around central Asia to Altai mountain range and might have shared some form of common ancestor with other stated language. Or then again, it might be unrelated, and similarities might be due to the contacts between Turks and their neighbors.

Yes, indeed it looks like they were mixed Eurasian from the get-go. Maybe similar to Finno-Ugric people.

Hello, interesting takes, and I agree that the inclusion of Japonic and Korean languages here does not make sense because it is not reflected at all in haplogroups.

I don't think we have talked, but it is always good to meet another son of the steppes on TA!


Even his moustache is same (:
This DA89 Göktürk Kaspias' fav. sample, right?

I don't know if it's his favorite sample, but it's one of mine now since I have admixture with it lol.

Yes, this is the first record of the "Hungarian moustache" which the Hungarian moustache club also references as the first evidence of.

[zebruh]

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea? The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any other:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/detail-of-a-horseman-from-felt-scythian-wallhanging-from-tomb-five-at-picture-id501578597?s=594x594

Turkic grave I match:

https://i.ibb.co/nRnqfr1/Turkic-graves-1.png (https://ibb.co/DL8Pk4M)

Most modern Turks arent decended from actual asian original turks. They took they people they conquered more west of them and migrated them over more west from the ones they used in their armies. Otherwise the population was native anatolian for the country of turkey.

[Turul Karom]

Most modern Turks arent decended from actual asian original turks. They took they people they conquered more west of them and migrated them over more west from the ones they used in their armies. Otherwise the population was native anatolian for the country of turkey.

Countless ancestry tests posted here by Anatolian Turks prove this false. They have Eurasian ancestry and specifically, Central Asian ancestry present. I have it, too.

[zebruh]

Countless ancestry tests posted here by Anatolian Turks prove this false. They have Eurasian ancestry and specifically, Central Asian ancestry present. I have it, too.

Is there studies and post examples. Because from my understanding the gokturks were the ruling class and the majority were native anatolians or migrations from western central asia. Not turkic proper by mongols and altai area

[Turul Karom]

Double post, thanks TA!

Have a video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUz5P9t2XCk

[Turul Karom]

Is there studies and post examples. Because from my understanding the gokturks were the ruling class and the majority were native anatolians or migrations from western central asia. Not turkic proper by mongols and altai area

You are confusing eras. Oghuz Turks are the ones that started the Ottoman dynasty. The group you are talking about divided into two parts (east and west) and collapsed without conquering the heart of Anatolia or establishing themselves in a meaningful way. Oghuz were a part of them. They conquered the Byzantine Empire. Just like many people in Western Europe are descendants of Charlemagne, the same principal applies: genetics filter downward through a population through the ruling class. Since the Turkic ruling class was prolific, and we are not talking even about a single man, many today posses their genetic markers that set them that are similar to Turkmen today. There are also more Turkic groups in Turkey today than just the Oghuz that also arrived in non-recent times.

As far as examples, just look at any Turkish user's results here. I don't keep them on-hand, and I currently only have studies about Turkic Hungarians.

[Hektor12]

As far as examples, just look at any Turkish user's results here. I don't keep them on-hand, and I currently only have studies about Turkic Hungarians.Currently; to carry genetical material in cargo is prohibited in Turkey, so testing companies like 23andme dont work here. Those tested Turks are mostly diaspora Turks and very limited people who cargo their kit by odd ways. I want to say, i believe current tests of Turks are not enough to be "reliable" for Turkic ancestry of the population. Billions of core Turks (some still maintain Shamanistic rituals) are unaware of genetic testings and academic sampling isnt reliable yet. Of course i dont expect radical difference but in my opinion Pre-Roman "Turkic" ancestry in Turkey is over %50, excluding later immigrants like Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks etc..

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious. This might have been something funded by China, i feel increasing interest in Turks from China recently, could have been caused by Belt-Road.

Anyways i found DA89 % in modern Turkish population

https://turkishdnaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Turkish_Gokturk.jpg

And this is his K12b

https://i.redd.it/pyady35fhyw41.jpg

[Dunai]

Currently; to carry genetical material in cargo is prohibited in Turkey, so testing companies like 23andme dont work here. Those tested Turks are mostly diaspora Turks and very limited people who cargo their kit by odd ways. I want to say, i believe current tests of Turks are not enough to be "reliable" for Turkic ancestry of the population. Billions of core Turks (some still maintain Shamanistic rituals) are unaware of genetic testings and academic sampling isnt reliable yet. Of course i dont expect radical difference but in my opinion Pre-Roman "Turkic" ancestry in Turkey is over %50, excluding later immigrants like Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks etc..

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious. This might have been something funded by China, i feel increasing interest in Turks from China recently, could have been caused by Belt-Road.

Anyways i found DA89 % in modern Turkish population



And this is his K12b



You are displaying deeply conspiratorial allegations towards one of the most respected academic institutes in the world, which had close to 40 Nobel prize winners in its ranks. The only allegiance the researchers of the publication have is for science and where the evidence leads them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Society#Max_Planck_Institutes_and_resea rch_groups

[Zoro]

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious.]

It’s nothing intentional on the authors parts. I looked at the ancient genome coverages they used in one of their supplements. The quality is beyond horrible for over 90% of the genomes. I would have never used those genomes to make inferences but maybe genetic analysis is not their specialty

The othe China paper from this year had good ancient genomes

[Kaspias]

We had better start with the question at what stage of the inheritance should we stop the time and call the ancestor "Proto-Turk"? Bronze Age? Iron Age? Neolithic?

This article is probably the most solid evidence for the Altaic theory(well, not exactly the current version of the theory but at least suggesting the same origin) and actually answered all my questions which I have stored in my mind for years, which were specifically related to the adoption of millet farming and it's contribution to the formation of a Proto-Turkic group. I believe the article has got a certain backbone compared to the Yellow River theory.

However, due to it being rather focused on Korean/Japanese (the migration of millet farmers to the East) it lacks some information that might be added/explained in a clearer way in terms of Turks. Despite the West Liao River coming out as an origin, some of the subbranches had left earlier such as the ones who left for the East, and Turkic follows them(but in the opposite direction.). At that stage article claims that these populations carried Amur River or mixed Amur and Yellow River admixtures, yes, that's a fact. However, the same admixture was already present in the Baikal region during the Neolithic(dates to the formation of Proto-Altaic when referencing the article.) These all should mean that the Altaic language actually could have been spoken in the region Baikal-Altai, rather than the Western Liao region itself.

Here I should also add some of the samples looks not useful due to the low coverage, but I will keep commenting by ignoring it, you may come with your own conclusion based on all.

Amur is actually kinda good proxy, despite Tarim/HG, Sintashta, and Geoksyur pulling Turks to various directions, the East Asian ancestor looks like it has an Amur-like admixture:

https://i.ibb.co/L0SPdcM/Ads-z.png

But when zooming into the Asian cluster, you will note that the same admixture is also present in the region Baikal(samples are from around Irkutsk) and Eastern Mongolia.

https://i.ibb.co/xhJJzpK/Ads-z2.png

So that's what we have now:

https://i.ibb.co/v3G5Dj4/Ads-z3.png

Point 1: The article suggests the Western Liao river(and around, incl. Amur) as a distribution point, however, puts Turks to the Westernmost and suggests a living zone lengths towards Altais, however, it misses the region Baikal whilst the same admixture were present there and I believe not mentioning this option by referencing the Trans-Baikal samples is a huge absence. However, one could still come to the conclusion Altaic speakers lived around Altai, only based on what the article suggests, still.
Point 2: Migration of Turkic N and Q correlates with what the article suggests.
Point 3: Transeurasian speakers were 100% Asian for sure, Proto-Altaic speakers might be full East Asian(Amur-Yellow) or in a variable range from East Asian(Amur-Yellow) to Siberian(Ust_Ida).
Point 4: SHG-Uralic/Steppe/BMAC admixtures were distributed into Altaic/Turkic ethnogenesis after the Neolithic -presumably towards the BA- and before that stage, they were rather Asian-Siberian. Transeurasian or Proto Altaic being 100% Asian or variably Siberian doesn't change the fact that Medieval Turks were descendants of other people, too. The first developments of the Turkic language under the Proto Altaic probably took place when Altaic got into contact with the Steppe and Uralic-like people, presumably in Pazyryk/Tiele. This is how the actual "Turkicness" was born.
Point 5: Turkic ethnogenesis re-shaped during Xiongnu, by combining Mongolic and Turkic tribes into one. Despite the Asian ancestor of Turks probably having a dominant Amur profile, Mongols with fresh Yellow River admixture probably had boosted Asian scores of Turks of the era. The Hun Elite samples come as recent proof, despite it being arguable.
Point 6: The radical decrease of the Asian scores took place during Xiongnu by mixing with the Iranic and Uralic speakers that probably reduced East Asian scores to a range that varies from 30% to 50%.

You know the rest of the story.

The article has got consistency in itself and what it suggests proves what I have been thinking but it would be better if they would mind writing a few pages more to explain what they actually mean instead of bombarding people with supplementary information. Besides, I do not understand why people reacted negatively to this; I mean, Turkic is an Asian language, of course, its earliest ancestor will be Asian. Nevertheless, the Proto-Turkic(not Proto-Altaic or Transeurasian, note it) should have emerged with the Steppe interaction which will explain commons with IE as well as haplogroup R -the presence of R1b is the cleanest proof.-

For some comments,

The article doesn't claim Turkic is closer to the Korean - Japanese compared to the Uralic. The article claims Turkic and Korean have got the same great-great-great-great grandfather. Uralic and Turkic will be closer to each other due to more recent interactions.
We have been using DA89 by accepting it as if it was from Onok Confederation, but it differs from the rest of the Medieval Turkic samples by having like 25% Sogdian-like admixture. Therefore now I'm in favor of not using it and prefer the Kimak sample instead.
Scythians are a completely different story. The Eastern Scythians were Turkic, that's what it seems, the culture one should be focused on should be the Pazyryk rather than Scythian-labelled Turks of non-cultured regions of Siberia.

[Lucas]

Incorrect. Watch the video at least from 52:40 (the conclusions part) and you will see what a solid case this team of researchers have made about the Urheimat of Transeurasian languages being around the Amur river, starting around 9000 BP. The group have split in separate Altaic and Korean-Japanese branches, so Turkic languages don't originate from Korean-Japanese, but they share a common ancestor rather. Chinese also has no common root with this group of languages, since in originated in the Yellow River area and belongs to Sino-Tibetan group. Geographically they were rather close to one another, but while speakers of Transeurasian languages practiced millet agriculture, the proto-Chinese practiced rice agriculture, a very significant differentiation factor actually.

So it means Tungusic hunters and reindeer herders were at the begining millet cultivators too??? I don't buy it.

[Dunai]

So it means Tungusic hunters and reindeer herders were at the begining millet cultivators too???

Hungarians founded a kingdom from the Carpathians until the Adriatic Sea, while just a few hundred years before were living a humble lifestyle in Western Siberia, why are you surprised? Population destinies change all the time. Archeological, genetic and linguistic evidence seem to prove a common origin for all 5 language families, read the paper.

[Lucas]

Hungarians founded a kingdom from the Carpathians until the Adriatic Sea, while just a few hundred years before were living a humble lifestyle in Western Siberia, why are you surprised? Population destinies change all the time. Archeological, genetic and linguistic evidence seem to prove a common origin for all 5 language families, read the paper.

But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite???? I could imagine some isolated small tribe but not whole language family left farming and started to hunt polar foxes and herd reindeers.

[Dunai]

But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite???? I could imagine some isolated small tribe but not whole language family left farming and started to hunt polar foxes and herd reindeers.

Yet the evidence from all 3 fields show that this happened. Are you that surprised that a population would adapt to the possibilities Eastern Siberia provides? Populations both progress and regress, it's very normal.

[Dr_Maul]

Can't comment on linguistics but it would have odd implications on Turkic assimilation if proven, making the vast majority of Medieval and modern Turkics not descended paternally by Proto-Turkics

[Kaspias]

Can't comment on linguistics but it would have odd implications on Turkic assimilation if proven, making the vast majority of Medieval and modern Turkics not descended paternally by Proto-Turkics

Not exactly. The article claims that Transeurasian ancestor was an Asian and Altaic derived from it. But how? In order for a language can develop and shape into another language, it must interact with another or must live isolated for thousands of years. I doubt Turkic was isolated considering they have got a massive living zone for a proto population. Then the explanation is probably the migration of Transeurasian speakers to the region from the South of Altai to the West of Baikal and transforming there by contact with the natives. We can observe the shift from Trans-Baikal to the Baikal N, and Baikal_N comes out as a half-half mix of Amur and Ust Ida. That's probably how Proto Altaic was born.

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

And these are the HGs found in the region during the Neolithic. Blue boxes are R1b, reds are Q, light-blue ones are C, purple ones are N. One can estimate where Turks have lived just by looking at, just reference the N and Q. But the more important thing here is that these R1bs are staying in their roaming zone, around Altais. Moreover, Altai_MLBA(Proto Turkic) samples seem to have a certain amount from this R1b admixture.

https://i.ibb.co/SfmBsRx/Ads-z4.png

The one above is a Neolithic spreading map. Now compare it with the Bronze Age and note the migration of N's. Both red and green weird things are Q, green circles are R1a.

https://i.ibb.co/VtHm5CP/Ads-z5.png

N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.

[zebruh]

Not exactly. The article claims that Transeurasian ancestor was an Asian and Altaic derived from it. But how? In order for a language can develop and shape into another language, it must interact with another or must live isolated for thousands of years. I doubt Turkic was isolated considering they have got a massive living zone for a proto population. Then the explanation is probably the migration of Transeurasian speakers to the region from the South of Altai to the West of Baikal and transforming there by contact with the natives. We can observe the shift from Trans-Baikal to the Baikal N, and Baikal_N comes out as a half-half mix of Amur and Ust Ida. That's probably how Proto Altaic was born.

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

And these are the HGs found in the region during the Neolithic. Blue boxes are R1b, reds are Q, light-blue ones are C, purple ones are N. One can estimate where Turks have lived just by looking at, just reference the N and Q. But the more important thing here is that these R1bs are staying in their roaming zone, around Altais. Moreover, Altai_MLBA(Proto Turkic) samples seem to have a certain amount from this R1b admixture.

https://i.ibb.co/SfmBsRx/Ads-z4.png

The one above is a Neolithic spreading map. Now compare it with the Bronze Age and note the migration of N's. Both red and green weird things are Q, green circles are R1a.

https://i.ibb.co/VtHm5CP/Ads-z5.png

N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.What neolithic R1b samples are those?
Like specific kit names of the R1b ones?

[Hektor12]

You are displaying deeply conspiratorial allegations towards one of the most respected academic institutes in the world, which had close to 40 Nobel prize winners in its ranks.I wanted to approach with suspicion until Kaspias comment, since i dont have enough knowledge my self. As he said study is fair, theres no problem anymore bro.


But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite????At first it was suprising also for me. But thinking deeper, i see possible scenarios.

>>> Farmers moved westwards, to an area which is extremely cold and unsuitable for farming. (Kaspias comments)
>>> Farmers came into contact with proto-Aryan nomadic pastoralists.
>>> How and why eastern language became lingua-franca? Perhaps relations with east was denser than to west and eastern language was more useful?
>>> There more important question, what religion farmers brough into area? Nomads came with shamism which was originated in modern Czechia and we see only this in Turkic people.


N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor.
R1, J, religion and lifestyle from west
Q, N and language from east

Melted around west of Baikal, this is best conclusion now, right?

[Dr_Maul]

N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.

It doesn't make sense for the J to be assimilated Iranics. If anything, the R1 in Medieval Turkics are assimilated Iranics because 1/3 of them are under 30% Mongoloid (some basically 0%) whereas all the J2 samples are 45-75% Asian (except 1 which belongs to an unrelated clade of J2 to the others and is probably Sogdian, TSB001). Not to mention the Turkics J2a belong to clear cut clades and Y Match with Early Xiongnu J2a, whereas some of the R1s are clearly not related (DA126 despite being 45% Mongoloid belongs to Irano-Jewish clade of R1a CTS6). Not to mention the R1b Z2103 are matching with mf Armenians and Iranic iron age IRN_Hajj_Firuz_IA, albeit these samples are all under 20% Mongoloid to begin with. Only R1b M73 makes sense in this situation but I doubt Botai is Proto Turkic because that would make more Mongolians descended from it than any modern Turk population. R1b Ph155 is also a contender for the same reasons but again, extremely rare.

Assuming C/Q/N is proto that would make Proto Turks 100% Mongoloid population which doesn't make sense but I guess its somehow theoretically possible, and these clades are basically 0-10% in a lot of modern Turkics so I doubt.

Btw, the 1 J you are referring to in Altai MLBA is J1-P58, complete outlier when it comes to J in that region (J1a* and J2s)

[Roy]

Yet the evidence from all 3 fields show that this happened. Are you that surprised that a population would adapt to the possibilities Eastern Siberia provides? Populations both progress and regress, it's very normal.

That progress-regress dichotomy in itself though is arguable as there are many advantages of leading a HG lifestyle. Plus, they could have still engaged themselves in trade and obtain farming products.

[Dunai]

That progress-regress dichotomy in itself though is arguable as there are many advantages of leading a HG lifestyle. Plus, they could have still engaged themselves in trade and obtain farming products.

Plus their descendants, the Jurchen and the Manchus managed to conquer China, one of the greatest empires on Earth, for quite a long time, thus they weren't just simple HGs.

[Chelubey]

I see references to Russian Altaists under the article, who believe that they have proved the existence of not only the Altai family, but also the Nostratic one, which is 10-12 thousand years old. In both cases they use the same toolbox. Can anyone disprove this nostratic etymology? (There are hundreds of them). http://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/etymology.cgi?single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpiet&text_number=++1010&root=config&encoding=utf-rus
In fact, it is stupid to look for the ancestral home of the pra-Altaians if the ancestral home of the Proto-Japanese, Proto-Korean, Proto-Tungusic one and so on is not yet known.
This is how Russian Altaists describe the Proto-Altaian economy:

The core of the pra-Altaian economy, apparently, was seasonal grazing (cf. the presence of the term "cattle corral", which is absent in the PIE) - or a developed seasonal hunting with a corral component. There are names for cows, sheep, goats and pigs, but age and sex terminology is common to all livestock species. There is a word for horse and several terms associated with horse riding. The role of agriculture was less significant, although there are a number of names for cultivated cereals. The main tool was probably a kind of hoe (possibly also used for digging up wild root crops, which was later practiced by the Siberian peoples).

[Chelubey]

Can anyone tell when geneticists will finally start checking their findings against historical sources?? This is some kind of historical trolling:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.04.466891v1.full
Finally, we modeled Turkmens as a mixture of Central Asia basal ancestry (represented by Yaghnobis) and East-Asian ancestry (we obtained a negative value for f3(TUR; TJY, DevilsCave_N); f3 = −0.0025, Z =-5.266). qpAdm modelling for Turkmens produces a single nonrejected model (p-value = 0.048007) implying 6% of Golden Horde Asian and 94% of Tajiks
What?Turkmens are Tajiks, turkized during the late Golden Horde (15th century)?:picard2:

[Sterling Archer]

Some interesting criticism of this paper is presented here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458636089590169611.html
Will try to find others that I saw and add here.

[Chelubey]

It doesn't make sense for the J to be assimilated Iranics. If anything, the R1 in Medieval Turkics are assimilated Iranics because 1/3 of them are under 30% Mongoloid (some basically 0%) whereas all the J2 samples are 45-75% Asian (except 1 which belongs to an unrelated clade of J2 to the others and is probably Sogdian, TSB001). Not to mention the Turkics J2a belong to clear cut clades and Y Match with Early Xiongnu J2a, whereas some of the R1s are clearly not related (DA126 despite being 45% Mongoloid belongs to Irano-Jewish clade of R1a CTS6). Not to mention the R1b Z2103 are matching with mf Armenians and Iranic iron age IRN_Hajj_Firuz_IA, albeit these samples are all under 20% Mongoloid to begin with. Only R1b M73 makes sense in this situation but I doubt Botai is Proto Turkic because that would make more Mongolians descended from it than any modern Turk population. R1b Ph155 is also a contender for the same reasons but again, extremely rare.

Assuming C/Q/N is proto that would make Proto Turks 100% Mongoloid population which doesn't make sense but I guess its somehow theoretically possible, and these clades are basically 0-10% in a lot of modern Turkics so I doubt.

Btw, the 1 J you are referring to in Altai MLBA is J1-P58, complete outlier when it comes to J in that region (J1a* and J2s)
In fact, we are very close to a situation where we can test the hypothesis of the East Asian origin of the Turks.
The only archaeological culture in Asia that can claim to be proto-Turkic is the culture of Slab graves: mongoloid, nomadic in the Iron Age. The right time,place,race, economy and partly genes.
She is genetically related to both the Mongols and the Turks.
But it cannot be both Turkic and Mongolian (proto-Turkic-Mongolian) at the same time, even according to the Altai hypothesis (it is anachronical). The culture of Slab graves is either the proto-Turks or the proto-Mongols (one of two).
The haplogroup Q talk in favor of the Turkic version. Autosomes talk in favor of the Mongolian version. The Huns had 0-30% of the ancestry of Slab graves, while the Mongols have 50-60% of the ancestry associated with this culture. If the Culture of Slab Graves turns out to be Mongol in the end, then for the Proto-Turks there will be no suitable archaeological culture in Asia in Iron Age.

[Leto]

So the proto-Turkics basically moved westwards from the Far East to the Altai mountains and Northern Mongolia and then mixed with Indo-Europeans from Western Eurasia? Otherwise I don't know how to explain the hapa-like Göktürks from 500 AD.

[Hektor12]

So the proto-Turkics basically moved westwards from the Far East to the Altai mountains and Northern Mongolia and then mixed with Indo-Europeans from Western Eurasia? Otherwise I don't know how to explain the hapa-like Göktürks from 500 AD.

Going by Kaspias comment, not "proto-Turkics" but part of founding people and roots of the language. There are things definitely coming from Indo-Europeans which are R1, J2 HGs and nomadic pastoralism.

[Dr_Maul]

In fact, we are very close to a situation where we can test the hypothesis of the East Asian origin of the Turks.
The only archaeological culture in Asia that can claim to be proto-Turkic is the culture of Slab graves: mongoloid, nomadic in the Iron Age. The right time,place,race, economy and partly genes.
She is genetically related to both the Mongols and the Turks.
But it cannot be both Turkic and Mongolian (proto-Turkic-Mongolian) at the same time, even according to the Altai hypothesis (it is anachronical). The culture of Slab graves is either the proto-Turks or the proto-Mongols (one of two).
The haplogroup Q talk in favor of the Turkic version. Autosomes talk in favor of the Mongolian version. The Huns had 0-30% of the ancestry of Slab graves, while the Mongols have 50-60% of the ancestry associated with this culture. If the Culture of Slab Graves turns out to be Mongol in the end, then for the Proto-Turks there will be no suitable archaeological culture in Asia in Iron Age.

Slab Grave doesn't make sense because it would mean nearly 0% continuity. Partial discontinuity is obviously expected of a group as widespread as Turkics, but in the case of Slab grave it would mean something like 90% which is absolutely impossible given the existing archaeology I would say. You mean to tell that Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Tatars (minus Slavo-Mongolic), Salar (minus Han), etc are all 90% assimilated? That only Turkmens and Qangly Tribe Kazakhs + a handful of random Altaian/Siberian Turks are descendants of the first speakers at any relevant percentages. It doesn't really fit. You know what actually is ironic though: that the Slab grave maternal haplogroups, mainly D, C, F and G form the majority (when combined) in basically all Turkic groups, and in Medieval Turkic samples as well. Don't tell me this is what you are going by? even if Asena was a she-wolf...

[Roy]

Plus their descendants, the Jurchen and the Manchus managed to conquer China, one of the greatest empires on Earth, for quite a long time, thus they weren't just simple HGs.

I remember watching a documentary on them, and they were not just some 'primitive barbarians' or whatever. Apparently one of these actually quite populous ethnicities which eviscerated got completely cleansed by the Chinese in the middle ages. They left some interesting architecture around Gobi desert that has only recently been redescivored.

[Chelubey]

Slab Grave doesn't make sense because it would mean nearly 0% continuity. Partial discontinuity is obviously expected of a group as widespread as Turkics, but in the case of Slab grave it would mean something like 90% which is absolutely impossible given the existing archaeology I would say. You mean to tell that Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Tatars (minus Slavo-Mongolic), Salar (minus Han), etc are all 90% assimilated? That only Turkmens and Qangly Tribe Kazakhs + a handful of random Altaian/Siberian Turks are descendants of the first speakers at any relevant percentages. It doesn't really fit. You know what actually is ironic though: that the Slab grave maternal haplogroups, mainly D, C, F and G form the majority (when combined) in basically all Turkic groups, and in Medieval Turkic samples as well. Don't tell me this is what you are going by? even if Asena was a she-wolf...
I do not understand you. I repeat - time, place, race, economy and you added MTDNA: The culture of Slab graves is ideal for the Proto-Turkic culture according to the East Eurasian hypothesis. All other complete East Asians at this time in this region are mostly hunter-gatherers, fishermen, or rice growers.
Are you confused by a big genetic drive? But other variants offer an even more extreme genetic drift ,including variants with haplogroup N and C (the subclades of the majority of Turkic carriers of haplogroup C are very close to Mongolian / Tungusic one - distance 1-3 thousand years.The East Uralic influence on the Turkic languages of Siberia is so strong that we can talk about East Uralic substratum. Some of the Sibirian Turkic people do not even belong to the South Siberian race, but to the Uralic race.).

[Dr_Maul]

I do not understand you. I repeat - time, place, race, economy and you added MTDNA: The culture of Slab graves is ideal for the Proto-Turkic culture according to the East Eurasian hypothesis. All other complete East Asians at this time in this region are mostly hunter-gatherers, fishermen, or rice growers.
Are you confused by a big genetic drive? But other variants offer an even more extreme genetic drift ,including variants with haplogroup N and C (the subclades of the majority of Turkic carriers of haplogroup C are very close to Mongolian / Tungusic one - distance 1-3 thousand years.The East Uralic influence on the Turkic languages of Siberia is so strong that we can talk about East Uralic substratum. Some of the Sibirian Turkic people do not even belong to the South Siberian race, but to the Uralic race.).

Only Turkics who have C belong to genuine Mongol tribes for the most part, so no surprises there
But you again missed my point, that the Slab grave only fits GENETICALLY (you say it fits in lifestyle etc.. but thats only assuming that proto Turks were asians) via MTDNA.. which doesn't mean much. How can you say that the majority of Turks are not descended from Proto Turks? And by majority I mean 90%...

[Chelubey]

Only Turkics who have C belong to genuine Mongol tribes for the most part, so no surprises there
But you again missed my point, that the Slab grave only fits GENETICALLY (you say it fits in lifestyle etc.. but thats only assuming that proto Turks were asians) via MTDNA.. which doesn't mean much. How can you say that the majority of Turks are not descended from Proto Turks? And by majority I mean 90%...
I do not support this gitpothesis. I believe that the Turkic people are R1a - it frees from the need to adhere to the hypothesis of matrilineality in the spread of the Turkic language.
But according to other hypotheses, the Siberian semi-Mongoloid Scythians are Iranians. And the Turkic people were complete Mongoloids in the Scythian time and lived in the region of Mongolia. Therefore, the hypothesis of Proto-Turkic Slab Grave is the only thing that supporters of the East Eurasian origin of the Turkic people can offer. It's time to test this hypothesis.

[Dr_Maul]

I do not support this gitpothesis. I believe that the Turkic people are R1a - it frees from the need to adhere to the hypothesis of matrilineality in the spread of the Turkic language.
But according to other hypotheses, the Siberian semi-Mongoloid Scythians are Iranians. And the Turkic people were complete Mongoloids in the Scythian time and lived in the region of Mongolia. Therefore, the hypothesis of Proto-Turkic Slab Grave is the only thing that supporters of the East Eurasian origin of the Turkic people can offer. It's time to test this hypothesis.

Well both of these have their own problems so I don't think either makes sense
I obviously don't believe in Asian origin for the reasons I have said in past few messages.
Scytho-Siberians to Turks (with Hun as mediator, although I am not sure if it is needed or not) is already genetic reality, both by Humans genetics and also Horse genetics. But of course the problem here is from Iranic as you mentioned before, with both Scythians having Iranic language records (Saka language from Xinjiang, modern Alanics, etc...) as well as generally R1a Z93 being Indo-Iranian shared with Indians and from that time period (1800 - 1300 bc according to recent studies) which is the issue.
Now taking both of these into consideration we come into the issue that it would imply that Turks are East Iranics, which doesn't make sense in any way. So the only logical solution is that one East Scythian cultures is Proto Turks (there were non Iranic scythians depending on region), mainly one I would assume related to Xiongnus. They probably had R1a Z93, Q1a, and J2a primarily - possibly even N-TAT. So far the only Scytho Siberians who have a relevant amount of J2a (which is the same clade as later Turkics) are current Tian Shan Sakas.. Are they proto Turks? well, who knows really but whoever they were, they were probably close to them or in that region (Southern Altai I guess). Of course more is to be discovered in the future

[Chelubey]

Well both of these have their own problems so I don't think either makes sense
I obviously don't believe in Asian origin for the reasons I have said in past few messages.
Scytho-Siberians to Turks (with Hun as mediator, although I am not sure if it is needed or not) is already genetic reality, both by Humans genetics and also Horse genetics. But of course the problem here is from Iranic as you mentioned before, with both Scythians having Iranic language records (Saka language from Xinjiang, modern Alanics, etc...) as well as generally R1a Z93 being Indo-Iranian shared with Indians and from that time period (1800 - 1300 bc according to recent studies) which is the issue.
Now taking both of these into consideration we come into the issue that it would imply that Turks are East Iranics, which doesn't make sense in any way. So the only logical solution is that one East Scythian cultures is Proto Turks (there were non Iranic scythians depending on region), mainly one I would assume related to Xiongnus. They probably had R1a Z93, Q1a, and J2a primarily - possibly even N-TAT. So far the only Scytho Siberians who have a relevant amount of J2a (which is the same clade as later Turkics) are current Tian Shan Sakas.. Are they proto Turks? well, who knows really but whoever they were, they were probably close to them or in that region (Southern Altai I guess). Of course more is to be discovered in the future
The term Eastern Iranians does not quite fit here.
Balkarian subclades of z-93 was found on the Volga already at the beginning of our era. They may have either never been to Mongolia, or left Mongolia before the Huns. The distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Balkar ones is 4000+ years, the same distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Kirghiz / Siberian ones. Hardly all of these subclades can be called "Eastern Iranian", even if they were IE.
I try to say that there is no evidence that all the Turkic subclades of z93 are from one small place in Mongolia or Siberia.

[Dr_Maul]

The term Eastern Iranians does not quite fit here.
Balkarian subclades of z-93 was found on the Volga already at the beginning of our era. They may have either never been to Mongolia, or left Mongolia before the Huns. The distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Balkar ones is 4000+ years, the same distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Kirghiz / Siberian ones. Hardly all of these subclades can be called "Eastern Iranian", even if they were IE.
I try to say that there is no evidence that all the Turkic subclades of z93 are from one small place in Mongolia or Siberia.

But which clades are you talking about specifically? As I said before most of the Turkic sample R1a belong to unrelated branches, unlike Q or J2a.

[Chelubey]

But which clades are you talking about specifically? As I said before most of the Turkic sample R1a belong to unrelated branches, unlike Q or J2a. Why "unrelated"? Do you want to say that each ethnic group must constantly go through a bottleneck and have a common ancestor who lived no more than 500-600 years ago?

[Dr_Maul]

Why "unrelated"? Do you want to say that each ethnic group must constantly go through a bottleneck and have a common ancestor who lived no more than 500-600 years ago?

No, not that much. But some clades are less complicated than you might think. Its foolish to think that simply being Z93 can mean anything, considering it is a haplogroup which is widespread and has been in certain areas for thousands of years. And indeed, some of the Medieval Turkic clades of z93 are anything but, well, Turkic really. And their Iron / bronze age clade-cousins reflect that, as well as the modern distribution

[Chelubey]

No, not that much. But some clades are less complicated than you might think. Its foolish to think that simply being Z93 can mean anything, considering it is a haplogroup which is widespread and has been in certain areas for thousands of years. And indeed, some of the Medieval Turkic clades of z93 are anything but, well, Turkic really. And their Iron / bronze age clade-cousins reflect that, as well as the modern distribution

Proofs?

[Chelubey]

I just haven't followed genetics for a long time and I don't know the modern nomenclature of subclades, but why are you confused by the "big" distance between the Turkic subclades? Does'nt it bother you that R1b and R1a diverged more than 20,000 years ago?

[Dr_Maul]

Proofs?

Well, thats why I am asking what clades you mean in the first place.. but sure I will go ahead. How about DA89, which is R1a-Y40. He matches with Western Scythians and Ancient India. Lets take a look at his Y Tree. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y40*/
Surely you won't claim this lineage is among your "Volga Z93's", I assume. How about DA126, which is R1a-CTS6, Irano-Jewish. So I ask again, which specific clades are you referring to.

[Leto]

Are you guys now debating whether R1a-Z93 is Indo-European or not? Weren't the Andronovo folks living around the Altai mts in 1500 BC? Yes, we all know they were. To me it's pretty obvious that those early IEs got "Mongoloidized" with time. So basically those lineages have not left Southwestern Siberia since then because modern Altaians are still heavily R1a.

[Chelubey]

You can see the main lines of the Balkars, Bashkirs and Kirgizes, but I don't remember the exact subclades. I'm talking about major lines, not exotic Arabic or Hebrew or minor lines such as typical indo-iranian subclades among Uyghurs.

Well, thats why I am asking what clades you mean in the first place.. but sure I will go ahead. How about DA89, which is R1a-Y40. He matches with Western Scythians and Ancient India. Lets take a look at his Y Tree. https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y40*/
Surely you won't claim this lineage is among your "Volga Z93's", I assume. How about DA126, which is R1a-CTS6, Irano-Jewish. So I ask again, which specific clades are you referring to.
I dont understand you. You're talking about Scythians,who amigrated to India or you mean Indians who emigrated to Scythia or you mean that subclade exists only among Scythians and Indians? So what?

[Dr_Maul]

You can see the main lines of the Balkars, Bashkirs and Kirgizes, but I don't remember the exact subclades. I'm talking about major lines, not exotic Arabic or Hebrew or minor lines such as typical indo-iranian subclades among Uyghurs.

I dont understand you. You're talking about Scythians,who amigrated to India or you mean Indians who emigrated to Scythia or you mean that subclade exists only among Scythians and Indians? So what?

No, I mean that the specific y DNA is found in those 2 ancient samples. My point is that nowadays subclade is in fact important, because "R1a Z93" means nothing, really. No difference between that and simply saying "R1a" making Europeans and Indians the same people or related like that. Thats why I want to know the specific subclade of those samples which you think might be original Volga Z93's or whatever it was exactly

[Zoro]

Turkic vs Iranic is more of a linguistic than genetic thing. There’s no pure Turkic or Iranic in Central and West Asia. People who speak Turkic languages whether Turkmen, Turks, or Uzbeks also have Iranic ancestry and visa versa people who speak Iranic languages such as Tajiks, Persians, Kurds and Pashtuns also have Turkic ancestry. There’s no way to stay pure Iranic or Turkic over thousands of years of mixing in a mixing bowl such as Central and West Asia.

Certain haplogroups maybe more prevalent among Iranics vs Turkics because of founder effects and such. For ex R1 Z93 predominant among Iranics or my haplo Q-M25 among Turkics, but Turkics also have R1a Z93 and conversly Iranics such as Afghans, Persians and Kurds can have Q-M25. Haplogroups shouldn’t be mixed with autosomal DNA

[Chelubey]

No, I mean that the specific y DNA is found in those 2 ancient samples. My point is that nowadays subclade is in fact important, because "R1a Z93" means nothing, really. No difference between that and simply saying "R1a" making Europeans and Indians the same people or related like that. Thats why I want to know the specific subclade of those samples which you think might be original Volga Z93's or whatever it was exactly
I know it. There was thread about ancient Dna . There was the subclades of the Volga Scythians which was very close to the Balkarian one and perhaps they are ancestral to them. I cannot find this thread.

[luc2112]

Altaics are mongolian with light features no protruding apples with approximately 20% of ANE R-R1(?),is a small genetic group. Were the first to immigrate to the americas (in Brazil they are known as amazon amerindians):

https://i.postimg.cc/BvGn3G44/Untitled-1.jpg

Are obviously modern race:

https://guilhermederrico.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/kuikuros-1.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/7722/16950599610_46eec2ed8e_n.jpg

https://uploads.metropoles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/14115746/tain%C3%A14.jpg

Another group that immigrated to America is C3 Haplogroup Mongolian/australoid.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-rPdTWpJFNU/hqdefault.jpg

Mongolians N2/N3 Haplogroup, only in part of north america (north of US and Canada, have more slanted eyes)

Altaics they are of short stature and the largest genetic group is in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines) mixed with other groups in the region. Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are from other Mongolian genetic groups

[Kaspias]

I'm barely having some time to log in to TA lately, sorry if I miss your comments.


What neolithic R1b samples are those?
Like specific kit names of the R1b ones?

Altai_LN:Bol11 -> R1b-P297 -> Bol'shemysskaya -> from Hollard, 2014.
Botai_EN:Bot14 -> R1b-Y13202 -> Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic -> from JeongPNAS, 2018.

The rest are Afanesievo culture from NarasimhanPattersonScience, 2019. Clades are under R-M12149, R-L23, R-BY159318.



I wanted to approach with suspicion until Kaspias comment, since i dont have enough knowledge my self. As he said study is fair, theres no problem anymore bro.

At first it was suprising also for me. But thinking deeper, i see possible scenarios.

>>> Farmers moved westwards, to an area which is extremely cold and unsuitable for farming. (Kaspias comments)
>>> Farmers came into contact with proto-Aryan nomadic pastoralists.
>>> How and why eastern language became lingua-franca? Perhaps relations with east was denser than to west and eastern language was more useful?
>>> There more important question, what religion farmers brough into area? Nomads came with shamism which was originated in modern Czechia and we see only this in Turkic people.


R1, J, religion and lifestyle from west
Q, N and language from east

Melted around west of Baikal, this is best conclusion now, right?

I honestly do not know about religion, do Tungus people had got Shamans? Shamanism is actually common Paganism, can co-appear in both West and East simultaneously, not necessarily should have been carried from the West. Besides, Q-L54 was present in today's Western Russia during the Neolithic, it might be carried there from the East as well so not enough clues here as far as I see. Lifestyle is also debatable, IE people were using Western(CA) horses whilst Turks used Mongolian horses until the medieval. Considering they have migrated to the place which are far away from their home, why would they leave their horses behind? I'm not sure though, just speculating.





It doesn't make sense for the J to be assimilated Iranics. If anything, the R1 in Medieval Turkics are assimilated Iranics because 1/3 of them are under 30% Mongoloid (some basically 0%) whereas all the J2 samples are 45-75% Asian (except 1 which belongs to an unrelated clade of J2 to the others and is probably Sogdian, TSB001). Not to mention the Turkics J2a belong to clear cut clades and Y Match with Early Xiongnu J2a, whereas some of the R1s are clearly not related (DA126 despite being 45% Mongoloid belongs to Irano-Jewish clade of R1a CTS6). Not to mention the R1b Z2103 are matching with mf Armenians and Iranic iron age IRN_Hajj_Firuz_IA, albeit these samples are all under 20% Mongoloid to begin with. Only R1b M73 makes sense in this situation but I doubt Botai is Proto Turkic because that would make more Mongolians descended from it than any modern Turk population. R1b Ph155 is also a contender for the same reasons but again, extremely rare.

Assuming C/Q/N is proto that would make Proto Turks 100% Mongoloid population which doesn't make sense but I guess its somehow theoretically possible, and these clades are basically 0-10% in a lot of modern Turkics so I doubt.

Btw, the 1 J you are referring to in Altai MLBA is J1-P58, complete outlier when it comes to J in that region (J1a* and J2s)

You miss a point, R1 being the founder of Turkicness doesn't change the fact that the percentage of R1 is boosted during Xiongnu and afterward due to assimilation of Iranics; so not all R1's present in Medieval belonged to the founder crew. However, the presence of R1 during the Bronze Age Altai(and a very wide around) remains as a fact, and autosomal DNA and the continuity between the samples of Altai MLBA, Pazyryk(both Southwest and Northeast), Chandman, and Sagly suggest that Baikal N-like admixture were melted in the same pot as these R1b's at the first stage, then literally surrounded by the R1a invasion which made R1a probably the most prominent Turkic HG for that time of period. Besides, the Turkic ethnogenesis literally re-shaped after Xiongnu. The Asian scores of Turks(except for Oghurs, perhaps) were like 60-80% during and later radically(~50%) decreased due to the mixing with Western subjects of the confederation which are Uralic and Iranic speakers. Going with this, Eastern Eurasian scores in terms of autosomal DNA may not mean anything while debating Proto Turkicness. I feel a need to sum my thoughts up here so as not to confuse; Transeurasian was a full Asian, Altaic was like 80-85% Asian and the rest are ANE, Proto Turkic was like 40-50% Asian, Xiongnu Turkic was like 60-80% Asian, Early Medieval Turkic was like 30-50% Asian and the late Medieval led some groups to decrease and some others such as Kazakh and Kirgiz to increase due to Mongol invasion.

In addition, the presence of R1b clades in Western regions such as Armenia or let's say France doesn't mean anything at all. Afanasievo probably has got common root as Yamnaya which has a Western Eurasian origin for sure, some of the clades went to the West whilst only a branch of it was migrated to the East that created a distant-relatedness, however having no contact in a period of 2000-3000 ybp.

J also might be included in these "founder crew" but their number must be very limited compared to the rest, solely because autosomal DNA of BA samples suggest around 10% BMAC input while models like 40% Western Eurasian and 50% Baikal. However, some clades, show a continuity in the Turkic gene pool being inherited by almost 4000 years. A final note here is it is hard to compare the situation with R1a because its clades were present in the West and the East simultaneously due to spreading from a common origin but to the different routes. That's why, if an R1a is present in Altai during MLBA and Arabia or Ukraine, it doesn't mean they have migrated to the West from the East or vice-versa but more like a spread from a common point. That's why it is not really possible to detect which clades of R1a are inherited through Proto Turkic ancestor or which ones are inherited during the assimilation period in Xiongnu and Medieval. This separation is rather more clear in J2, due to the clades that are specific to deep Central Asia remaining rather isolated. But this doesn't change the conclusion that the percentage of founder J must be lower compared to the R1.


In fact, we are very close to a situation where we can test the hypothesis of the East Asian origin of the Turks.
The only archaeological culture in Asia that can claim to be proto-Turkic is the culture of Slab graves: mongoloid, nomadic in the Iron Age. The right time,place,race, economy and partly genes.
She is genetically related to both the Mongols and the Turks.
But it cannot be both Turkic and Mongolian (proto-Turkic-Mongolian) at the same time, even according to the Altai hypothesis (it is anachronical). The culture of Slab graves is either the proto-Turks or the proto-Mongols (one of two).
The haplogroup Q talk in favor of the Turkic version. Autosomes talk in favor of the Mongolian version. The Huns had 0-30% of the ancestry of Slab graves, while the Mongols have 50-60% of the ancestry associated with this culture. If the Culture of Slab Graves turns out to be Mongol in the end, then for the Proto-Turks there will be no suitable archaeological culture in Asia in Iron Age.

Slab-Grave is not Turkic almost for sure, Turkic is their Western neighbors who are Chandman, Sagly, Pazyryk. Another article investigating Slab-Grave culture was pointing out that they have got a more "Southeastern" Asian origin compared to the cultures that lie in their West. When you look at it from that perspective actually both the current and the previous article claims the same thing. Mongols expanded later and acquired more Yellow River admixture; Turks left earlier and mongrelized their Asian admixture with Siberians that ended up with Baikal N.


So the proto-Turkics basically moved westwards from the Far East to the Altai mountains and Northern Mongolia and then mixed with Indo-Europeans from Western Eurasia? Otherwise I don't know how to explain the hapa-like Göktürks from 500 AD.

Western Liao(rather Amur, for Turks) -> Baikal-Altai(mixing with Ust Ida-like admixture) -> Pazyryk culture(Southern parts of Altai, mixing with Western Eurasian Steppe) -> Then again the R1a invasion during/just before Xiongnu which led radical decrease in the East Asian scores.

[Chelubey]

Slab-Grave is not Turkic almost for sure, Turkic is their Western neighbors who are Chandman, Sagly, Pazyryk. Another article investigating Slab-Grave culture was pointing out that they have got a more "Southeastern" Asian origin compared to the cultures that lie in their West. When you look at it from that perspective actually both the current and the previous article claims the same thing. Mongols expanded later and acquired more Yellow River admixture; Turks left earlier and mongrelized their Asian admixture with Siberians that ended up with Baikal N.
Possibly Uyuk and Pazyryk were Turkic, but your scenario looks complicated and difficult to prove to me. Can we talk about classical expansion of these cultures to the west? For me it looks like this: the descendants of the Pazyryk Turkic people continue to be in the same place since the Iron Age and are the ancestors of the Altai Turks, Kirghiz and part of the Kazakhs.

[Pater Patota]

Nice thread.

[Kaspias]

Possibly Uyuk and Pazyryk were Turkic, but your scenario looks complicated and difficult to prove to me. Can we talk about classical expansion of these cultures to the west? For me it looks like this: the descendants of the Pazyryk Turkic people continue to be in the same place since the Iron Age and are the ancestors of the Altai Turks, Kirghiz and part of the Kazakhs.

This is not the scenario that I myself created in my mind but this is the most updated scenario accepted in the literature. Slab Grave extended to the West towards the IA and followed with further Mongol expansion during Xianbei. When Slab Grave appeared in Eastern Mongolia Turks were settled in the Central parts, however, were having totally different HGs due to the region being already melted with Western Eurasians. In addition, the Asian ancestor of Turks were already had a different ethnogenesis(recall that Proto-Mongolic speakers were mongrelized with Yellow River while Proto-Altaic with Ust-Ida-like admixture, two groups have no overlap at all until the IA)

Visualization:



Slab grave is not a counterpart of Baikal samples, however, these two are picked for comparison because Turks left earlier and Mongols towards IA. Both groups represent the stages when the Transeurasian speaker left the region.

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


These are HGs found in Slab Grave culture:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-M120/
https://www.yfull.com/arch-7.08/tree/Q-Y515/ (the usual link is broken)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y1150/

Show a Chinese-Mongolian characteristic.

And these are the ones found in Sagly Uyuk, Chandman, Pazyryk: (80% of the samples are under Q-L54/L330 and R-Z2124/Z2125)

https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L330/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F1699/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-M25/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y3037/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/

All have at least one Turkic clade.

Besides, all descendants of Pazyryk culture cannot be only the Altai Turks, Khakassians, etc. Pazyryk was literally a spawning point due to the combining with newly comer Western Eurasians. The region worked in a mechanism in a way steadily sending migration waves to the West for centuries as well as being primary manpower of the Xiongnu later. Accordingly, all Turks should have originated from the region despite the ones who were migrated to the West later mixed with other populations. Moreover, Mongols literally raped those Turks still staying around Altais who already had been greatly reduced in terms of population, and this development caused to have a continuity between East of Kazakhstan and West of Mongolia which was not present before.

[Hektor12]

IE people were using Western(CA) horses whilst Turks used Mongolian horses until the medieval. Considering they have migrated to the place which are far away from their home, why would they leave their horses behind? I'm not sure though, just speculating.

Theres an easy answer for this= Mongolian horses are smaller than western horses, they eat less, drink less and work more. In the place which have limited resources, mongolian horses outclass any western horse. (Still today)

Dont forget main power of Turkic armies was high mobility, due to use of this horses instead of western horses.

[Chelubey]

And these are the ones found in Sagly Uyuk, Chandman, Pazyryk: (80% of the samples are under Q-L54/L330 and R-Z2124/Z2125)

https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L330/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F1699/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2124/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-M25/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-Y3037/
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-TAT/

Good samples.
To Dr_Maul
You can see that the various Turkic subclades of R1a are located compactly and, according to Kaspias, come from the same source.

[Chelubey]

R-Z2124 - Z2121/S3410 * Z2124 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp

[Dr_Maul]

Good samples.
To Dr_Maul
You can see that the various Turkic subclades of R1a are located compactly and, according to Kaspias, come from the same source.

Man, this is literally my point. You have pointed out R1a Z2124 as if it is some specific branch, but it is really not that different from just saying "R1a Z93" or just R1a at this point. Z2124 is one of 3 principle branches of Z94, the first being an uncommon R-Y40 (rare but both South Asian and Iranic) the second being R-Y3 (the most standard Indo-Aryan lineage and 95% in south asia). R1a Z2124 is the principle branch in Iranians and other Iranic (afghan kurd etc..) of course that is not counting specific branches. But Z2124 is just typical Andronovo-Sintashta (proto Aryan but more specifically proto iranic probably).

[Leto]

Western Liao(rather Amur, for Turks) -> Baikal-Altai(mixing with Ust Ida-like admixture) -> Pazyryk culture(Southern parts of Altai, mixing with Western Eurasian Steppe) -> Then again the R1a invasion during/just before Xiongnu which led radical decrease in the East Asian scores.
The Tasmola culture of Central Kazakhstan is significantly older than Xiongnu but some of the samples are ca. 50% EE. I wonder if they still spoke an Iranic language.

[Chelubey]

Man, this is literally my point. You have pointed out R1a Z2124 as if it is some specific branch, but it is really not that different from just saying "R1a Z93" or just R1a at this point
Iranian subclades are also far from Turkic, there is also a time distance of about 4000 years.
And you said that the Turkic subclades are not related to each other.
In fact, we do not yet know whether the Pazyryk subclades are ancestral for all Turkic subclades. This is still "one of the subclades" of R1a Z2124.
Kaspias showed that many subclades of different haplogroups of the Pazyryk Turks are present among various Turkic peoples. But many Turkic peoples were in contact with each other until the late Middle Ages and even later. Kaspias convincingly proved that the Pazyryk people are Turkic people (anthropologists have previously deduced the anthropological type of the Altai Turks from the Pazyryk people).



But Z2124 is just typical Andronovo-Sintashta (proto Aryan but more specifically proto iranic probably).

I think pre-proto-turkic people.
Previously, the Pazyryk people were also called Iranians, but the scientists were wrong .

[Dr_Maul]

You miss a point, R1 being the founder of Turkicness doesn't change the fact that the percentage of R1 is boosted during Xiongnu and afterward due to assimilation of Iranics; so not all R1's present in Medieval belonged to the founder crew. However, the presence of R1 during the Bronze Age Altai(and a very wide around) remains as a fact, and autosomal DNA and the continuity between the samples of Altai MLBA, Pazyryk(both Southwest and Northeast), Chandman, and Sagly suggest that Baikal N-like admixture were melted in the same pot as these R1b's at the first stage, then literally surrounded by the R1a invasion which made R1a probably the most prominent Turkic HG for that time of period. Besides, the Turkic ethnogenesis literally re-shaped after Xiongnu. The Asian scores of Turks(except for Oghurs, perhaps) were like 60-80% during and later radically(~50%) decreased due to the mixing with Western subjects of the confederation which are Uralic and Iranic speakers. Going with this, Eastern Eurasian scores in terms of autosomal DNA may not mean anything while debating Proto Turkicness. I feel a need to sum my thoughts up here so as not to confuse; Transeurasian was a full Asian, Altaic was like 80-85% Asian and the rest are ANE, Proto Turkic was like 40-50% Asian, Xiongnu Turkic was like 60-80% Asian, Early Medieval Turkic was like 30-50% Asian and the late Medieval led some groups to decrease and some others such as Kazakh and Kirgiz to increase due to Mongol invasion.



I agree but some parts aren't adding up I think.. So your theory is
40-50 Asian 40-50 Steppe and trace amount BMAC (Eastern Scythian profile) = proto Turkic, correct?
haplos reflecting that, mostly Z93 (steppe) and Q (local Siberian) maybe 5% of BMAC clades

And then what exactly is occurring during Xiongnu? I assume you are basing 60-80 on those MNG Early Xiongnu, correct?
They are about 70-80 Siberian and then the rest either Steppe or mixed with BMAC.
Haplos almost the same as before however we have no R1a, just Q, and now we have J2a and R1bPh155(technically this is BMAC haplogroup according to existing samples)
This = Early Turkics?

[Dr_Maul]

Iranian subclades are also far from Turkic, there is also a time distance of about 4000 years.
And you said that the Turkic subclades are not related to each other.
In fact, we do not yet know whether the Pazyryk subclades are ancestral for all Turkic subclades. This is still "one of the subclades" of R1a Z2124.
Kaspias showed that many subclades of different haplogroups of the Pazyryk Turks are present among various Turkic peoples. But many Turkic peoples were in contact with each other until the late Middle Ages and even later. Kaspias convincingly proved that the Pazyryk people are Turkic people (anthropologists have previously deduced the anthropological type of the Altai Turks from the Pazyryk people).

yes they are generally far. But my point was that the medieval Turkics samples belonged to those clades, at least some of them.



I think pre-proto-turkic people.
Previously, the Pazyryk people were also called Iranians, but the scientists were wrong .

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.

[Leto]

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.
I guess they just mixed with Asians whose language persisted for some reason while the IE one disappeared.

[Dr_Maul]

I guess they just mixed with Asians whose language persisted for some reason while the IE one disappeared.

Yes, languages can be fluid, especially in the bronze or iron age and in the steppe as well. Even in the modern day, many Tajiks are just persianize Uzbeks/Turks of some kind and ofc Mongolic Kazakhs are considered Kipchak. For whatever reason Eastern Scythians, either as a whole or one of their groups/tribes, either was Turkic from the start or became Turkic at some point

[Chelubey]

yes they are generally far. But my point was that the medieval Turkics samples belonged to those clades, at least some of them.

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.
Here is the linguistic evidence of the presence of the Turkic poeple in western Kazakhstan in the 2th century AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
The river was called Δάϊκος (Daïkos) by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.[19][20] Yulian Kulakovsky reads this as Turkic "Jajyk" or "Яик" and on this basis identifies the Huns as Turkic speakers.[21] However, Gerard Clauson disputes that the name could be of Turkic origin as early as the 2nd century, and instead attributes it to Sarmatian origin.[22] The name Яйыҡ (Yayıq) is currently used in the Bashkir language and Жайық (Zhayıq) in Kazakhstan. In later European texts it is sometimes mentioned as Rhymnus fluvius[23] and in the Russian chronicle of 1140 as Yaik.[24] The river was renamed Ural in the Russian language in 1775, by Catherine II of Russia.
The name of this river has a clear Turkic etymology.
This relation is denied not for linguistic reasons, but for chronological reasons (There could not have been Turkic poeple at that time!).

[Dr_Maul]

Here is the linguistic evidence of the presence of the Turkic poeple in western Kazakhstan in the 2th century BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
The river was called Δάϊκος (Daïkos) by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.[19][20] Yulian Kulakovsky reads this as Turkic "Jajyk" or "Яик" and on this basis identifies the Huns as Turkic speakers.[21] However, Gerard Clauson disputes that the name could be of Turkic origin as early as the 2nd century, and instead attributes it to Sarmatian origin.[22] The name Яйыҡ (Yayıq) is currently used in the Bashkir language and Жайық (Zhayıq) in Kazakhstan. In later European texts it is sometimes mentioned as Rhymnus fluvius[23] and in the Russian chronicle of 1140 as Yaik.[24] The river was renamed Ural in the Russian language in 1775, by Catherine II of Russia.
The name of this river has a clear Turkic etymology.
This relation is denied not for linguistic reasons, but for chronological reasons (There could not have been Turkic poeple at that time!).

It is for linguistic, 1 Turkic etymology (probably Proto Turkic or as it says non-Turkic) is nothing compared to entire dictionaries of Scythian derived/related languages aka Saka, Parthian, Alanic, etc..

[Leto]

Yes, languages can be fluid, especially in the bronze or iron age and in the steppe as well. Even in the modern day, many Tajiks are just persianize Uzbeks/Turks of some kind and ofc Mongolic Kazakhs are considered Kipchak. For whatever reason Eastern Scythians, either as a whole or one of their groups/tribes, either was Turkic from the start or became Turkic at some point
Well, Turkic peoples have proved to be mobile and persistent, very successful at assimilation. Now we have Turkey, Azerbaijan, the Caucasus Turkics on the one end of the spectrum and the Yakuts, the Tuvans and the Altaians on the other.

[Chelubey]

It is for linguistic, 1 Turkic etymology (probably Proto Turkic or as it says non-Turkic) is nothing compared to entire dictionaries of Scythian derived/related languages aka Saka, Parthian, Alanic, etc..
I have not seen data on the language of the Sakas. And this is not the only proof. But you cannot apply majority rule here (this is absurd). And there are no ancient Iranian hydronyms in Kazakhstan.

[Dr_Maul]

I have not seen data on the language of the Sakas. And this is not the only proof. But you cannot apply majority rule here (this is absurd). And there are no ancient Iranian hydronyms in Kazakhstan.

I have no idea about any ethnonyms in Kazakhstan, but you can read whatever sources they have brought forth here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_language
Majority rule here is mostly just based off of the supposed "unity" of scythians, which is mostly just based on a lack of textual evidence as well as similarity in steppe culture (also IE Haplogroups) but it cannot be certain until any future evidence is brought forth

[Chelubey]

I have no idea about any ethnonyms in Kazakhstan
Because iranian hydronyms are absent there. Very strange?

Majority rule here is mostly just based
If 60% of Kazakhstan's hydronyms were Iranian and 40% Turkic - would it mean that there were no Turkic people in Kazakhstan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_language
I do not know why the Khotanese Iranian language is called Saka. The residents of Khotan called themselves "Khotanese", and called their language "Khotanese" - this is reflected in their writings. There are no Sakas in their writings. The Indian Saka probably spoke the language of the local people : one of the Indo-Aryan dialects.

[Dr_Maul]

If 60% of Kazakhstan's hydronyms were Iranian and 40% Turkic - would it mean that there were no Turkic people in Kazakhstan?


No but currently when it comes to these groups there is 30% Iranian and 70% unknown for the most part, or at most 5% non-Iranian others... that is why it is academic consensus. And I am not here to debate Sakas just giving an example

[Dr_Maul]

If 60% of Kazakhstan's hydronyms were Iranian and 40% Turkic - would it mean that there were no Turkic people in Kazakhstan?


No but currently when it comes to these groups there is 30% Iranian and 70% unknown for the most part, or at most 5% non-Iranian others... that is why it is academic consensus. And I am not here to debate Sakas just giving an example

[Deniz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5cMdZVuhqY
Chelubey What do you think about Klyesov s thoughts about Yamnaya?Can you explain it what is he saying?And Do you accept the other things?Especially last 3 4 minutes.

[Chelubey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5cMdZVuhqY
Chelubey What do you think about Klyesov s thoughts about Yamnaya?Can you explain it what is he saying?And Do you accept the other things?Especially last 3 4 minutes.
He says that R1b were not IE. I would not take his theories seriously. He is a good specialist, but a biased interpreter.

[Deniz]

He says that R1b were not IE. I would not take his theories seriously. He is a good specialist, but a biased interpreter.

Yeah ı m thinking same with you but he says yamna type r1b and their people never went to Europe he is right but his language theories a little bit extreme for now.What do you think their criticism about the Iranic theories?

[Chelubey]

Yeah ı m thinking same with you but he says yamna type r1b and their people never went to Europe he is right but his language theories a little bit extreme for now.What do you think their criticism about the Iranic theories?
He does not criticize the Iranian theory, but admits that some of the Scythians probably spoke Turkic language according to the subclades.

[Sterling Archer]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/some-observations-on-the-transeurasian-language-family-from-the-perspective-of-the-farminglanguage-dispersal-hypothesis/405D347E47968D92696904CA62168A15
Some observations on the transeurasian language family, from the perspective of the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis:

Korea:

Jangsuk Kim and Jinho Park (Reference Kim and d Park2020) raise the question of whether Transeurasian languages initially spread into the Korean Peninsula with the millet-cultivating Chulmun Neolithic culture around 3500 BC, or with the rice-cultivating Mumun late Neolithic and Bronze Age culture about 1500 BC. Martine Robbeets (Reference Robbeets, Robbeets and Savelyev2017) has favoured a Chulmun genesis of Proto-Japano-Koreanic, with an arrival of the ancestral language in Korea c. 3500 BC, followed by a separation between the Koreanic and Japanic subgroups at about 2000 BC (as shown in Robbeets & Bouckaert, Reference Robbeets and Bouckaert2018: fig. 8). However, Kim and Park favour a much younger, Mumun, arrival of Japano-Koreanic languages because of the strong and sharp appearance of the Mumun culture, with rice, in the Korean archaeological record.

Turkic:

The later section in this article deals with Turkic expansion during the first millennium BC from a possible forest/steppe boundary homeland in eastern Mongolia. The Proto-Turkic vocabulary had terms for both domesticated crops (broomcorn millet, wheat and barley) and animals (horse, cattle and sheep). One might wonder why this section on Turkic is included in an article that is otherwise mostly about the Palaeolithic, but the reason seems to be that Proto-Turkic is claimed to have had connections with the northern Eurasian forests, like the Japanese Upper Palaeolithic. Clearly, it had an agricultural and pastoralist basis that renders it as a potential example of the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. As such, it demonstrates that the hypothesis need not always relate to the very first farmers to inhabit any particular geographical situation – food producing populations can migrate at any time if they have a growing population and little opposition.

Tungusic:

Two articles cover questions of Tungusic origins and ancestral genetics. Chuan-chao Wang and Martine Robbeets (Reference Wang and Robbeets2020) discuss the homeland of Proto-Tungusic, placing it in the Lake Khanka region of the lower Amur Valley in the Russian Far East. They regard the break-up of Proto-Tungusic as an Iron Age phenomenon, dating between 600 BC and AD 700, and associated with millet farming. The biological population itself, however, appears already to have been in the Amur region for at least 8,000 years, and this is established from ancient DNA analysis in an adjacent paper by Yinqiu Cui and many collaborators (Cui et al., Reference Cui, Zhang, Ma, Fan, Ning, Zhang and Robbeets2020). They use ancient DNA from a Neolithic site in Heilongjiang to suggest that the Amur people of the Zaisanovska archaeological culture around Lake Khanka (southern Primorye) were ancestral to modern Tungusic speakers, and that millet farming spread into Primorye from Hongshan cultural sources (3500–3000 BCE) in the West Liao Valley.

Japan:

This archaeology section in this article reinforces the widespread view that Jomon people were mainly hunter–gatherers who practised minor cultivation until rice and millets were introduced from the Mumun culture in Korea at about 900 BC. This introduction of agriculture commenced the Yayoi culture of Japanese late prehistory, and was also the putative context for the introduction of the ancestral Japonic language(s) into Japan, from Korea. The arrival of the Yayoi into Jomon Japan was thus a specific case of farming/language dispersal.

[Roy]

So they were not from Altai, such a shame.