Are Kazakhs indeed Turkified Mongols?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

Let's listen to the language of Oroqen ( Evenki) Tugusic language who have the highest concentration of haplo C. It doesn't sound like Mongolian at all. There are elements in Oroqen language which are familiar with Turkic languages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxqYho59K7E&t

---

I do not understand the meaning of your speeches.
Lexically, Turkic languages are closer to Mongolian than Tungus. This is a well-known fact. Are you really Kazakh, or are you a Mongolian person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

I do not understand the meaning of your speeches.
Lexically, Turkic languages are closer to Mongolian than Tungus. This is a well-known fact. Are you really Kazakh, or are you a Mongolian person?

---

Turkic language doesn't sound very close to Mongolian though there are some similarities. It sounds closer to Northern and Eastern Eurasian languages like Ket, Chukchi, Yukaghir and Eskimo Native American languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

Turkic language doesn't sound very close to Mongolian though there are some similarities. It sounds closer to Northern and Eastern Eurasian languages like Ket, Chukchi, Yukaghir and Eskimo Native American languages.

---

Are you Mongolian?

They absolutely are.

Can you speek Kazakh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torba

They absolutely are.

---

He says things are not typical for Kazakhs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

Are you Mongolian?

---

I'm not Mongolian. I base my opinion on analyses of languages, their grammar, their sound, haplogroup distributions.

For example, Kazakh language is specific and distinct because of its harsh guttural K sound. Such sounds is present only in Eastern Eurasian languages which correlate with migration of haplogroup Q ( in Ket, Chukchi, Eskimo languages). Sure its not only this one sound. The general sound of these languages is similar also.

Chukchi language sounds closer to Kazakh than Mongolian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wzDs4S6nPA

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-7Jr2F9QmiA/maxresdefault.jpg

Ket language ( haplogroup Q) also sounds like Kazakh.

Photos of Ket people in this video are misleading because modern Ket people are mixed with Russians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCnWPOHc0YY

I hope you understand that your theory falls under the definition "in my opinion", "it's seems to me" and etc. and has no relation with real scince?
But, as i undestand,you are kazakh, but you cant speek Kazakh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

you're right, R1a is common among kazakhs

---

No, it is not. Less than 10%. It's common in the Kyrgyz, must be the founder effect. Then again, the ancient Kyrgyz were described as white in medieval Chinese sources, I guess that elite was later diluted by Mongoloids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

I hope you understand that your theory falls under the definition "in my opinion", "it's seems to me" and etc. and has no relation with real scince?

---

LOOOOL. It is not even my theory. There is serious Chinese scientific research which places formation of Turks somewhere in Western Mongolia where haplogroups Q and C merged.

DNA results of Kazakhs indicate at mixed origin between Siberian and Manchurian-Mongolian components. These two components merged and proto-Kazakh tribes were formed.

https://i.imgur.com/G1VrmuC.pnghttps://us.v-cdn.net/6024333/uploads...h12vreyprf.pnghttps://i.redd.it/fxct52jh31411.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

No, it is not. Less than 10%. It's common in the Kyrgyz, must be the founder effect. Then again, the ancient Kyrgyz were described as white in medieval Chinese sources, I guess that elite was later diluted by Mongoloids.

---

Ancient Mongoloid Yenisei Kirghiz assimilated Indo-European Tagar culture. The Mongoloids who brought the language to Minusinsk hallow were probably low in numbers, hence dominantly Europoid features in the process of mixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

He says things are not typical for Kazakhs

---

And what other Kazakhs say? That Kazakhs emerged from Scythians, Saka and Massagetae? LOL.

In this case you should listen what nonsense Kyrgyz people spread that all R1a people originated from them Kyrgyz Aryanz. LOOOOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

DNA results of Kazakhs indicate at mixed origin between Siberian and Tungus-Manchurian components. These two components merged and proto-Kazakh tribes were formed.

---

Proto-kazakh==proto-turk?

Kazakh GEDmatch, obviously a lot of Indo-European/Indo-Iranian admixture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

I've posted an Uzbek and an Afghan before. This is another non-European person with a lot of Steppe-related ancestry. He's like 1/3 Scythian

Y-DNA: N1c1
mtDNA: M9a3a

Eurogenes K13 Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Siberian 34.97
2 East_Asian 21.62
3 West_Asian 12.86
4 Baltic 12.16
5 North_Atlantic 8.6
6 South_Asian 4.6
7 Amerindian 2.69
8 West_Med 1.33
9 Northeast_African 0.75
10 East_Med 0.21
11 Oceanian 0.16
12 Red_Sea 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Kazakh 2.75
2 Kirgiz 6.37
3 Hakas 12.94
4 Shors 13.16
5 Altaian 15.34
6 Hazara 16.5
7 Uygur 17.44
8 Uzbeki 17.61
9 Afghan_Turkmen 19.1
10 Mongolian 19.41
11 Aghan_Hazara 20.39
12 Tuvinian 24.69
13 Buryat 28.34
14 Nogay 30.53
15 Ket 33.19
16 Tatar 35.5
17 Mari 35.84
18 Selkup 36.28
19 Afghan_Tadjik 37.38
20 Chuvash 37.47


MDLP K16 Modern Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Siberian 31.22
2 SouthEastAsian 23.42
3 Caucasian 10.95
4 NorthEastEuropean 8.64
5 Indian 7.12
6 Steppe 6.77
7 Neolithic 4.79
8 Amerindian 4.41
9 Arctic 2.03
10 NorthAfrican 0.66

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Kazakh (Tien_Shan) 4.38
2 Kazakh (CentralKazakhstan) 5.18
3 Kyrgyz (Murgab) 6.6
4 Kazakh (Kazakhstan) 6.75
5 Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstan) 7.33
6 Kyrgyz (Alichur) 7.67
7 Karakalpak (Karakalpakstan) 8.24
8 Kyrgyz (Naryn) 8.51
9 Kyrgyz (Tong) 8.83
10 Hakas (Khakassia) 11.01
11 Altaian (Altai) 11.89
12 Uygur (Uzbekistan) 13.09
13 Hazara (Baluchistan) 13.16
14 Uygur (Xinjiang) 13.33
15 Shor (Kemerovo) 14.73
16 Mongolian (Mongolia) 15.36
17 Bashkir (Muradymovo) 16.45
18 Kalmyk (Kalmykia) 16.62
19 Bashkir (Ufa) 17.6
20 Turkmen (Shumanay) 17.66


Dodecad K12b Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 30.37
2 Siberian 25.56
3 North_European 16.34
4 Gedrosia 9.36
5 Caucasus 7.61
6 Atlantic_Med 3.91
7 Southeast_Asian 3.52
8 South_Asian 3.1
9 Southwest_Asian 0.22

1 54.9% Uygur (HGDP) + 45.1% Altai (Rasmussen) @ 6.03
2 67.4% Uygur (HGDP) + 32.6% Tuva (Rasmussen) @ 6.73


HarappaWorld Oracle results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 NE-Asian 28.35
2 Siberian 24.54
3 NE-Euro 15.5
4 Baloch 9.95
5 Caucasian 7.58
6 Beringian 4.55
7 S-Indian 3.48
8 Mediterranean 3.46
9 American 1.39
10 SE-Asian 0.75
11 Papuan 0.33
12 SW-Asian 0.12

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 kazakh (harappa) 5.11
2 kyrgyz (xing) 8.29
3 kyrgyz (hodoglugil) 9.16
4 uyghur (hgdp) 13.32
5 hazara (hgdp) 13.95
6 uzbek (behar) 15.34
7 altaian (rasmussen) 15.99
8 mongolian (rasmussen) 19.48
9 tuvinian (rasmussen) 27.17
10 buryat (xing) 28.66
11 buryat (rasmussen) 30.34
12 oroqen (hgdp) 32.27
13 nogai (yunusbayev) 34.36
14 daur (hgdp) 35.35
15 hezhen (hgdp) 35.85
16 yukaghir (rasmussen) 36.03
17 tajik (yunusbayev) 36.16
18 turkmen (yunusbayev) 36.31
19 nepalese-b (xing) 36.41
20 mongola (hgdp) 36.46

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

And what other Kazakhs say? That Kazakhs emerged from Scythians, Saka and Massagetae? LOL.

In this case you should listen what nonsense Kyrgyz people spread that all R1a people originated from them Kyrgyz Ayranz. LOOOOL.

---

The Kyrgyz cubclades of ra1 are identical to the Hunnic paleo R1a subclades from the same region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaglakar

Ancient Mongoloid Yenisei Kirghiz assimilated Indo-European Tagar culture. The Mongoloids who brought the language to Minusinsk hallow were probably low in numbers, hence dominantly Europoid features in the process of mixing.

---

Are the modern Kyrgyz closely related to the Yenisei ones? How much Mongolian blood do they have?

@Mutabor

You have to understand that,to defend the proximity of one language family to another language family, you must look at the structure of the proto language of that language family.
If you compare it to random language, you'il make a mistake.

For example,Sanskrit contains a large amount of retroflex sounds.This feature is shared with Dravidian language family and burusashki.According to your logic,because Sanskrit is similar to Dravidian languages,the PIE must be related to the Dravidian language family.
But it has nothing to do.Retroflex sounds have passed through Sanskrit from native Indian languages and the PIE language neither contains retroflex nor is close to Dravidian languages.

Also, the sound of Siberian languages you share does not resemble any Turkic language.

Quote:

---

. Proto Bulgaro turkic language did not contain laryngeal,uvular or harsh sounds,instead it contains dental, palatal,velar and labial consonants.

there are significant differences between Turkic languages and paleo Siberian languages.

1-)Turkic languages have rich vovels,but there is not much in PS languages.

2-)Turkic languages have not as consonants as PS languages.

3-)while Turkish languages are nominativ languages,PS languages are more ergative.

4-)Turkic languages are agglutinativ,PS languages are polysentetic


Turkic consonants: labial(p,b,m) dental(t,d,s,n,l,r),palatal(č,S,s,ñ,N,R,L),velar(k ,g,q,G)

Turkic vovels:a,aa,e,ee,i,ii,ï,ïï,o,oo,ö,öö,u,uu,ü,üü,é,é é,perhaps ä,ää

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

Proto-kazakh==proto-turk?

---

Haplogroups Q, C and N participated in original formation of proto-Turks. It is difficult to distinguish these three groups since they all three speak languages with similar agglutinative grammatical structure ( including Uralic and many Native American languages). R1a in Altai region was assimilated in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chelubey

The Kyrgyz cubclades of ra1 are identical to the Hunnic paleo R1a subclades from the same region.

---

main Kyrgyz r1a subclade is r-Z2125, pashtuns have a similar subclade but based on markers origins are different and several thousand years apart. Kyrgyz one is apparently Altaian, several Altains share common markers with the Kyrgyz who tested themselves. A branch of Yenisey Kirghiz must have expanded to Altai and northern Kazakhstan (post 850), mixed with Kimek-Qipchaqs, then migrated to what is today Kyrgyzstan with the Mongol conquests. Do we have Hunnic markers? Because talking about haplogroups and subclades is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shubotai

Yes, the majority of them are turkified Mongols. According to the y-dna composition of Kazakhs, they carry the same set of y-dna haplogroups as Mongols (C2b*, C-M86, C-M401, C-M407, D1a etc.). In the image above, in case the names are not understood, they are Mongols, Kyrgyz, Afghan Tajiks/Uzbeks/Turkmens/Hazara/Pashtuns, Pakistani, Iranians and Kazakhs, respectively. The mongolic starcluster is C-M401 (and its father sucblace C-M504) and it is observed that it is present in 13% of Kyrgyz, 4% of Uzbeks, 1.4% of Turkmens, 33.3% of Hazara, 7% of Pakistani men and approximately 15% of Kazakhs.

Even if other y-dna C had a different history at their beginning, like Oirat C-m86, forest Mongolic/Buryat C-m407, when they moved into Kazakhstan they were obviously already mongolic-speaking by then. Although the y-dna composition seems to be a conglomeration of different haplogroups, it is often clear-cut when we dive into specific Kazakh tribes. Therefore, Argyns are mainly y-dna G1 (G-L1323), Naimans are mainly y-dna O2, Qongirat are C-M407, Kipchaks are R-M73/Q-M25 (still hasn't been resolved which of the two), Shanyshkyly are C-F4002 (subclade of M401), Uysyns are also C-F4002, Tore are C-F1756, Alimuly are C-F992. Alshyn are C-M48 and so on. You can read more here in this Kazakhstani research by Sabitov and Jabagin. The turkic element comes from Kipchaks and some other tribes in Northeastern Kazakhstan who are y-dna Q. The mongolic element is more prevalent in the south and west of the country, where we find the Senior zhuz and the Junior Zhuz and tribes like Jalair and Uysyns with mongolic origin. Orta zhuz (Middle Zhuz) are mostly the earlier inhabitans of Kazakhstan (e.g. Argyns) or later allies of the Mongols (Naimans, Kipchaks).

Regarding C-M407, it is a subclade of C-CTS2657, which is prevalent in Koreans. Mongolic tribes which have a high frequency of C-M407 (Qongirat, Buryat) usually have ethnonyms which are reminiscent of old Korean ones like Qoguryeo, Buyeo. So the coalescence of C-M407 must have happened at a very early stage inside a mongolic speaking environment. These tribes are also characteristic of being semi-farming and semi-nomadic, unlike full scale nomadic mongolic tribes. C-M86, a subclade of C-M48, is higher among Oirats in western Mongolia, Oirat-origin tribes in Kazakhstan and Kalmyks (30%, with only 10% C-M401), who are Oirat-speaking.

An anecdote about this, regarding the Dzhunghar genocide, is that Mongols are angry against Manchu for that decision against an ally nation. But it is now known that the ruling class of Manchu, Aisin Gioro, is y-dna C-M401, coming from the Daur (descendants of para-mongolic Khitan people, also high in C-M401) and Dzhunghars (essentially Oirats) in western Mongolia/Xinjiang Uyghur are C-M86, the main Manchu y-dna haplogroup (taking into account the tungusic origins of Manchu). So it is maybe Mongols that should apologize to Manchu for that genocide.

Finally, an excerpt from wikipedia states that:
According to a large-scale Kazakhstani study published in 2017, Kazakh males belong to Y-DNA haplogroups C2-M217 (658/1294 = 50.85%, including 322/1294 = 24.88% C-M401, 225/1294 = 17.39% C-M86, 80/1294 = 6.18% C-M407, and 31/1294 = 2.40% C-M217(xM401, M48, M407)), R-M207 (157/1294 = 12.13%, including 78/1294 = 6.03% R1a-M198, 41/1294 = 3.17% R1b-M478, 21/1294 = 1.62% R1b-M269, 13/1294 = 1.00% R2-M124 (predicted), and 4/1294 = 0.31% R-M207(xM198, M478, M269, M124)), O-M175 (140/1294 = 10.82%, including 122/1294 = 9.43% O-M134, 9/1294 = 0.70% O-M122(xM134), and 9/1294 = 0.70% O-M175(xM122)), J-M304 (106/1294 = 8.19%, including 53/1294 = 4.10% J2a-M410 (predicted), 50/1294 = 3.86% J1-M267 (predicted), and 3/1294 = 0.23% J-M304(xJ1, J2a)), N-M231 (69/1294 = 5.33%, including 49/1294 = 3.79% N-M46, 16/1294 = 1.24% N-P43, and 4/1294 = 0.31% N-M231(xP43, M46)), G-M201 (64/1294 = 4.95%, including 44/1294 = 3.40% G1-M285, 18/1294 = 1.39% G2-P287, and 2/1294 = 0.15% G-M201(xM285, P287)), Q-M242 (41/1294 = 3.17%), E-M35 (23/1294 = 1.78%), I-M170 (20/1294 = 1.55%, including 11/1294 = 0.85% I2a-L460 (predicted), 5/1294 = 0.39% I1-M253 (predicted), and 4/1294 = 0.31% I2b-L415 (predicted)), D-M174 (6/1294 = 0.46%), L-M20 (4/1294 = 0.31% (predicted)), H (3/1294 = 0.23% (predicted)), T (2/1294 = 0.15% (predicted)), and K* (1/1294 = 0.08%).[54] However, the distribution was inhomogeneous for some Y-DNA haplogroups: Q-M242 was found predominantly among members of the Qangly tribe (27/40 = 67.50%), C-M407 was found predominantly among members of the Qongyrat tribe (64/95 = 67.37%), O-M134 was found predominantly among members of the Naiman tribe (102/155 = 65.81%), N-M46 was found predominantly among members of the Syrgeli tribe (21/32 = 65.63%), J1-M267 (predicted) was found predominantly among members of the Ysty tribe (36/57 = 63.16%), G1-M285 was found predominantly among members of the Argyn tribe (26/50 = 52.00%), R1b-M478 was found predominantly among members of the Qypshaq tribe (12/29 = 41.38%), and R1a-M198 was found with notable frequency among members of the Suan (13/41 = 31.71%) and Oshaqty (8/29 = 27.59%) tribes and among members of the Qoja caste of Islamic scholars and gentlemen (6/30 = 20.00%), although C-M401 was more common than R1a-M198 among members of the Suan and Oshaqty tribes (25/41 = 60.98% and 11/29 = 37.93%, respectively). Because of this lack of homogeneity among Kazakhs in regard to Y-chromosome DNA, the real percentage of present-day Kazakhs who belong to each Y-DNA haplogroup may differ from the percentages found in this study depending on the proportion of each tribe in the total population of Kazakhs.

The linguistic turkification might have happened in one of the following three ways:
1. The region of Kazakhstan had already been turkified by previous turkic-speaking ruling dynasties, like the Gokturk khaganate, so Mongols had to learn turkic to communicate with their subjects.
2. The linguistic conversion happened in a military environment, before the onset of the expedition, voluntarily, or under a Kipchak leadership. It has to be taken into account that vast areas in Central Asia carry mongolic-specific (either Tungusic, or Korean etc.) haplogroups, so it is unlikely they would independently involve into turkic-speaking simultaenously after their seperation.
3. According to a theory that suggests that Kazakhstan was turkified by a later wave from Kipchaks from Kyrgyzstan who are high in C-F1756, a haplogroup which has a slightly different history from C-M504.

---

Very interesting, thank you !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryuk

@Mutabor

You have to understand that,to defend the proximity of one language family to another language family, you must look at the structure of the proto language of that language family.

For example,Sanskrit contains a large amount of retroflex sounds.This feature is shared with Dravidian language family and burusashki.According to your logic,because Sanskrit is similar to Dravidian languages,the PIE must be related to the Dravidian language family.
But it has nothing to do.Retroflex sounds have passed through Sanskrit from native Indian languages and the PIE language neither contains retroflex nor is close to Dravidian languages.

---

But Dravidian populations participated in formation of Sanskrit language even though it was originally from different peoples. Hence original sound shifted towards sound of assimilated language. A lot of languages are hybrids. Uzbek is a mixture of Turkic and Persian hence sound shift towards Persian pronunciation.

Turkic language was created by different tribes who merged together. Judging from DNA analysis and sound of surrounding peoples proto-Turkic was formed by merging of Siberian and Manchurian-Mongolian components. Siberian component is influenced by ANE populations including linguistic influence.

I'm not saying that proto-Turkic = paleo-Siberian. I say that I hear influences from paleo-Siberian languages. Grammar could be of Tungusic origin but sound shift could be attributed to paleo-Siberian tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Are the modern Kyrgyz closely related to the Yenisei ones? How much Mongolian blood do they have?

---

Well at least they carried the ethnonym to what is today Kyrgyzstan. The rest is unclear, the migrations patterns i mean due to absence of documented sources. But how much they are related is debatable. Their language is classified as Qipchaq, but they have certain Altaian features, remnants if you will. I am not a fan of Turkic language classifications anyway, they are too forced by linguists. Traditional economy of Yenisey Kirghiz is also different from Kyrgyz, or rather their immediate nomadic ancestors. Yenisey Kirghiz possessed a mixed economy - agro-pastoral. Minusinsk is not your traditional steppe zone if you know what i mean, perhaps this is one of the primary reason for limited Mongolid proto-Turkic penetration and more Europoid features.

But ethnonyms and forms of self-identification including tribal designations seem to have changed easily throughout history of the eastern steppe. There were the Türks a separate people, but then for some reason by 10th century all Turkics began to identify as Türks with little or no connection to the actual clan or people. The migration patterns of Oghuz are also unclear and how they appeared in Aral-Caspian zone and why they identified themselves as such when the majority of Oghuz/Toquz Oghuz remained in Mongolia struggling with the Türks.

Tungusic, Mongolic peoples and Turkic Kazakhs are haplogroup C. Altaic linguistic family.

Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are R1a. Slavic linguistic family.

If Kazakhs are turkified Mongols, then thinking in the same manner Russians are russified Poles or Ukrainians. Ukrainians are polified Russians etc. LOOOOOL.

Since haplogroup C was expanding from Tungusic populations Mongols are mongolified Tungusic people.

Mongols themselves are not a pure reference population but a mix of Siberian and Tungus-Mongolian peoples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJYyNhQ0yMI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Not really. They are only about 60% Mongoloid and have a lot of Scythian/Aryan admixture. Mongolians are 80-90% Mongoloid.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...iww/edit#gid=0

---

The only people who have pred. Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

Tungusic, Mongolic peoples and Turkic Kazakhs are haplogroup C. Altaic linguistic family.

Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are R1a. Slavic linguistic family.

If Kazakhs are turkified Mongols, then thinking in the same manner Russians are russified Poles or Ukrainians. Ukrainians are polified Russians etc. LOOOOOL.

Since haplogroup C was expanding from Tungusic populations Mongols are mongolified Tungusic people.

Mongols themselves are not a pure reference population but a mix of Siberian and Tungus-Mongolian peoples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJYyNhQ0yMI

---

But Ukrainians (and Belorussians) are of Russian origin though. If they weren't conquered by the PLC, then they'd be calling themselves Russians today. They're only not considered Russia cause of historical circumstances. Calling Ukrainians "Polonized Russians" is more true than false.

This doesn't mean that Kazakhs are Mongols though. They may just share a common ancient origin. There's a decent argument presented by a Mongol user earlier in this thread that you should rebuke. I personally don't have any opinion on the subject yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freeroostah

The only people who have Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

---

Them looking Asian is irrelevant. They score a very significant amount of West Eurasian on all calculators. Much of that may be Scythian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freeroostah

The only people who have pred. Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

---

Yes in phenotypes, but genetically they arent pure mongoloids

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Them looking Asian is irrelevant. They score a very significant amount of West Eurasian on all calculators. Much of that may be Scythian.

---

If a West Eurasian component influenced a proto-Turkic language it has to be R1b ( but not R1a) because the only component which is missing in East Eurasian languages is Umlaut vowel system ( present in Germanic and French languages) which is very important in Turkic language.

Which again returns us to Q haplogroup influence because Q and R1b are related. Maybe Bashkirs with their high R1b % are a link to that influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

But Ukrainians (and Belorussians) are of Russian origin though. If they weren't conquered by the PLC, then they'd be calling themselves Russians today. They're only not considered Russia cause of historical circumstances. Calling Ukrainians "Polonized Russians" is more true than false.

This doesn't mean that Kazakhs are Mongols though. They may just share a common ancient origin. There's a decent argument presented by a Mongol user earlier in this thread that you should rebuke. I personally don't have any opinion on the subject yet.

---

Great answer, spot on :thumb001:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Them looking Asian is irrelevant. They score a very significant amount of West Eurasian on all calculators. Much of that may be Scythian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nato

Yes in phenotypes, but genetically they arent pure mongoloids

---

This. African Americans don't look European either but they do have British ancestry unlike Polish and Italian Americans. I think Russians have little to no direct Scythian ancestry. Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine were practically depopulated after the Mongol invasion and was repopulated only after 1600 or so.

We wuz hunz n shiet :rotfl:

Guys plus more info:

1. Haplogroup N is 100% uralic, not mongol not turkic only uralic. Of course you can find it in East Asia too, because this marker originated from there. Ancestors of haplogroup N population were east asians just like mongols, turks, koreans, japs etc. Later this population migrated to Europe and they were mixed with mesolithic cromagnoid europeans, it was a birth moment of proto-uralic population 10000 years ago in North East Europe.

2. Haplogroup C is mongol! :)

"Although Haplogroup C-M130 attains its highest frequencies among the indigenous populations of Kazakhstan, Mongolia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M130
Khazaks have significant mongolian ancestry, because of mongol invasion. Haplogroup C is not native in Central Asia but result of mongol conquerors. The biggest concentrations of haplogrop C is in Inner Mongolia, East Mongolia.

3. The haplogroup Q is proto-altaic. Common among turks, mongols, huns, american indians (who are altaic by genetically).

Q1a is mongol, american indian, east siberian
Q1b is turkic

"Many of clades of haplogroup Q1a are believed to have been brought by the Huns, the Mongols and the Turks, who all originated in the Altai region and around modern Mongolia. Haplogroup Q has been identified in Iron Age remains from Hunnic sites in Mongolia by Petkovski et al. (2006) and in Xinjiang by Kang et al. (2013). "
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

We wuz hunz n shiet :rotfl:

Guys plus more info:

1. Haplogroup N is 100% uralic, not mongol not turkic only uralic. Of course you can find it in East Asia too, because this marker originated from there. Ancestors of haplogroup N population were east asians just like mongols, turks, koreans, japs etc. Later this population migrated to Europe and they were mixed with mesolithic cromagnoid europeans, it was a birth moment of proto-uralic population 10000 years ago in North East Europe.

---

10,000 years ago in NE Europe? Not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Khazaks have significant mongolian ancestry, because of mongol invasion. Haplogroup C is not native in Central Asia but result of mongol conquerors. The biggest concentrations of haplogrop C is in Inner Mongolia, East Mongolia.
Q1b is turkic

---

I'm disappointed in Mongols. In Kazakhs haplogroup C is 50-60%. Which means that bigger number of powerful conquerors Mongols were Turkified by smaller number of conquered Turks living in Central Asia.

Kypchak Turk Q1b people pride!

Not only that. Conquered Kypchaks made Mongols to completely displace Persian language from Central Asia which was lingua franca in Uzbekistan with Turkic language. Very smart plan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

LOOOOL. It is not even my theory. There is serious Chinese scientific research which places formation of Turks somewhere in Western Mongolia where haplogroups Q and C merged.

---

I doubt that the Chinese scientists, after listening records of voices of Chuchkcha and Kets, made their conclusions based on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

10,000 years ago in NE Europe? Not sure.

---

I'm sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutabor

In Kazakhs haplogroup C is 50-60%.

---

Nope, only 36%:

https://haplogruplar.files.wordpress...p-dagilimi.jpg

East mongolia, Inner Mongolia has 70-90% haplogroup C:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._East_Asia.png

1/3 of kazakh population is descedants of mongols :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

Nope, only 36%:

https://haplogruplar.files.wordpress...p-dagilimi.jpg

East mongolia, Inner Mongolia has 70-90% haplogroup C:

1/3 of kazakh population is descedants of mongols :)

---

Kazakhs are only 2% Turk ( Q1)? God bless such a strong bad ass group. 2% Q1 Turkified the majority of Kazakhs.

But I'm still disappointed in Mongols because being a big number they didn't manage to Mongolify even a small part of big semi-empty Kazakhstan territory. Very poor results!

Aryanz R1a and R1b: "We love Turkic language. We will help to Turkify Mongol invaders."
J and G Caucasus master races: "Allahu Akbar! Bros lets together Turkify Mongol invaders!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kis_Kócos

I'm sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunda_culture

---

Hm. So you believe the proto-Uralic originated somewhere in Estonia? I thought the proto-FU originated somewhere in Udmurtia and Perm Krai (the Kama river).