Basal R and Q are too old to be directly associated with any linguistic group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
Printable View
Basal R and Q are too old to be directly associated with any linguistic group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
Well, the Turkic peoples have subclades of Hg R from the Yamnaya, Srubnaya, Andronovo and Afanasyevo cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illyrius
It is unlikely that they were all proto-Turkic/para-Turkic, but Srubnaya or Andronovo culture could be proto-Turkic.
Sir this is one of the most helpful and meaningful comments ever posted on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford
Wait but isn't the pazyryk culture considered proto Turkic? I mean the word pazyryk it'se it's pretty Turkic sounding to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Chelubey
so what if they are old. you can associate haplogroups with linguistic groups and ethnicities / races for sure. the only reason you say that because you are it seems a serb maybe with haplogroup R who dont want haplogroup R to be associated with turks and mongols haha. relax. dont feel ashamed. your paternal ancestors were original asiatics from siberia and mongolia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford
What leads you to believe thismQuote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
For you to believe this nonsense crap is to deny your very own existence of your people.
Why do y'all got this huge Haplogroup R fetish.
Why are so many of you Haplogroup R wannabes. I bet you dream every night of being a Haplogroup R bearer
You're sick and show no respect for your ancestors and their respective Haplogroups. Haplogroup C, N, O, Q
Why are they so easily forgotten and cast into the darkness.
Like I said. You dream every day of Haplogroup R being mongoloid because you are so freaking jealous of it.
Learn to love yourself and your backgrounds more.
It's just a freaking Haplogroup dude for fucks sake.
You must be trolling. R and Q are older than IE and Turkic peoples by several thousand years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
First I would like to say I don't have any axes to grind against either Turkics or Iranics since I have ancestry from both just like modern Turks or Azeri so I'll tell it as the evidence supports.
Once upon a time and for a long time Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians and their R1a dominated Central Asia and the Eurasian steppe. So basically 3000 year old Andronovo and their 2500 year old Scythian and Sarmatian relatives and their R1a were Indo-Iranian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture Fortunately Iranic languages are quite different from Turkic languages so it's easy to see that Scythians spoke Iranic language.
Also not all East Eurasian admixture in Central or West Asia came from Turkics. For example the East Eurasian admixture in 2500 year old Scythians predated the arrival of Turkics in Central Asia. There are still peoples in Central Asia that didn't adopt Turkic languages. For example in Tajikistan (Tajiks).
So the R1a in Kirgiz is an Indo-Iranian founder effect that survived their Turkification.
The majority of ancestry in West Asian groups such as Azeris and Turks is NOT from Turkics because the original Turkics from Mongolia area were mostly East Eurasian when they moved west from the Altai. In fact , Mongolians and Turks share a proto Mongolic/Turkic language.
The first Turkic Khagnate didn't show up in Central Asia until about 1500 years ago (Gokturks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
Quote:
Turkic tribes such as the Khazars and Pechenegs probably lived as nomads for many years before establishing the First Turkic Khaganate, or Göktürk Empire, in the 6th century. These were herdsmen and nobles who were searching for new pastures and wealth. The first mention of Turks was in a Chinese text that mentioned trade between Turk tribes and the Sogdians along the Silk Road.[117] The first recorded use of "Turk" as a political name appears as a 6th-century reference to the word pronounced in Modern Chinese as Tujue. The Ashina clan migrated from Li-jien (modern Zhelai Zhai) to the Juan Juan seeking inclusion in their confederacy and protection from the prevalent dynasty. The tribe were famed metalsmiths and were granted land near a mountain quarry which looked like a helmet,
from which they were said to have gotten their name 突厥 (tūjué). A century later their power had increased such that they conquered the Juan Juan and established the Turkic Khaganate.
You’re saying retarded shit in every thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
Haplogroup R is from Eastern Hunter Gatherers and in Europe Villabruna Cro-Mag was found to carry r1b 14,000 years ago he was found in Trento, Italy.
Has nothing to do with Turkics or Mongoloids outside of much later subclades being assimilated by these people. Just like Jews are 40 percent R1b, but they are Turkic too I guess.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, Syntashta also sounds Turkic and means a "gravestone". Turkic place names extend from Ukraine to Siberia. Part of the Turkic people has Pazyryk genetics, no doubt, but just the part .Quote:
Originally Posted by Illyrius
Actually sintashta sounds very Indian to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelubey
Yeah I agree about that part, there's many Turkic toponyms in the eastern world.
But so are Slavic names in my country but no one's Slavic here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
First Turkics where probably between 20-50% east eurasian, Turks and Azerbaijanis are between 5-20% east eurasian. Probably they were something like Uzbekhs/Turkmens/Nogays/Hazara just more North european shifted. Dont spread nonsense about other people, first deal with your own...
It just occurred to me that Ashina sounds similar to pashto Ospina which is iron and in kurdish it’s Asin. Also proto-turkic Ana - grandmom is same in pashto . So it looks like some iranics borrowed turkic words and probably visa versa whereas some iranics totally language shifted to turkicQuote:
The Ashina clan migrated from Li-jien (modern Zhelai Zhai) to the Juan Juan seeking inclusion in their confederacy and protection from the prevalent dynasty. The tribe were famed metalsmiths and were granted land near a mountain quarry which looked like a helmet,
Turkics and Iranics have a deep relationship and history with each other but you are just posting nonsense...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
Sanskrit is Indo-Aryan language so it’s connected to Indo-European languages. Yamna is name of river in India JamnaQuote:
Originally Posted by Illyrius
?? Can you point out specifically what part of my post is nonsense:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender1999
1- Iron is ospina in pashto and asin in kurdish
2- ana is grandmom in pashto and turkic
3- turkic loanwords in iranic and visa versa
If you can’t tell me then your post is nonsense
If
You imply connections which don’t exist. So generally many of your postings are really political influenced, as you a kurd i can understand why you like to deny and underestimate turkics and their history, culture etc. Yes turks and other turkics have iranic influence, but your hints regarding turks like ashina as term is of iranic origin(and i admit there are theories about that) but to connect this word with pashto(and then with kurdish, btw i don’t understand why kurds like to be associated with them, they are related to other iranics the same way)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
Actually i was suggesting the opposite that pashto ospina and kurdish asin may have come from turkic Ashina. It’s only a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender1999
Actually I don’t underestimate Turkics. Didn’t i write I don’t have any axes to grind against either turkic or iranic since I clearly have ancestry from both. My y-dna is probably turkic as well as some or most of my EE/Siberian and yes i also know about seljuks and ottoman
Let's clarify something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
Even the Turkic subclades R1a(we do not touch subclades R1b) are very far from the Indo-Iranian subclades (including the Kyrgyz subclades). The common ancestor of the Turkic and Indo-Iranian branches lived about 5000 years ago. If the Kyrgyz subclades were Turkicized 1,500 years ago during the First Turkic Kaganate, they would be very close to the Tajik and Pashtun subclades, but they are very far. The founder's effect, as far as I remember, among the Pashtun z2124 is even greater than among the Kyrgyz : the age of the Kyrgyz branch z2125 is 2100 years , the age of the Pashtun branch z2124 is 1500-1800 years.
Now about Iranian language.
We have one Greek witness of the 3rd century BC, who says that from Persia to Sogd people speak dialects having minimal differences. There is evidence of the 2nd century BC from Chinese source who said that from Persia to Sogd people speak the same language. That is, in the 3rd century BC between the East Iranian and West Iranian languages there were almost no differences. Sogdian is considered a dialect of the Scythian language. However, ancient witnesses restrict the areal of spreading of Iranian languages by Sogd in the north.
Alas, the very early date of divergence of Iranian languages is not confirmed by written sources, and Sogd is the northernmost region of the spreading of Iranian languages in the 3rd century BC according to ancient sources.
You have some useful points which I don’t disagree with. The rest I need to think aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Chelubey
Good post. This time I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
You don't have to think about it. It's nonsense. It doesn't matter who reported what when the Sogdians left their own texts. The language is quite distinct from West Iranian languages, and branches would not be able to diverge significantly within such a small time scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
the name ashina is sogdian for blue, which symbolizes east, it has no relation to that word. sogdian was one of the official languages of kökturks. still doesn't mean that ruling tribe was of "iranic" origin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
LOL xD 'ana' is an infantile word, similiar to 'nanny' in english. that's some really tryhard etymology right there.Quote:
Also proto-turkic Ana - grandmom is same in pashto .
I know better than anyone they’re quite diverged since i can speak both Pashto and Kurdish but i also know both languages have picked up things from their neighboring languages over the past 1000 years. But yeah based on what I can see it appears like a 3000 year divergenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Yaglakar
Also Pashto has Indo-Aryan Layer also. I see quite a few Sanskrit related words in Pashto that I don’t see in other Iranian languages. Those Sanskrit words may be Avastan
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklifal
Well shin is both Kurdish and pashto for blue but I thought Ashina was turkic
Ana in pashto is unlike what kurds or persians call grandma that’s why I thought they borrowed it from turkic
While you're trying to tell something, you have enormous mistakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
1-R1a was also present in very early turks, along with r1b, j2 etc. So, when r1a itself was one of the founders of turks, you can't "turkify" it anymore. Moreso; claiming the turkification is something like getting mongolised is equal to claiming that human has only one parent.
2-Most of early turks were caucasoid male-mongoloid female couples and their descendants. This also clearly shows that movement was not always towards west and early turks were a confederation of steppe aryans and local mongoloids, a joint culture.
This is a Greek witness:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Here is a Russian link to his words and to mention of chinese sources. As I remember, the Chinese traveler who spoke about identity of Persian and Sogdian languages in 2th century BC had visited these regions.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ev...anskih-yazykah
These formal arguments (several evidences of contemporaries) cannot be rejected on the basis of subjective feelings (“They could not disperse so quickly - I do not believe it”). Science knows examples of fast evolution of languages. This is, for example, Old English.
Again with this "aryan male fucking mongol woman" bullshit fantasy. Those samples you're talking about have equal amounts of mongoloid and cockasoid mtDNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by eatensemn
Not really. Go and check every research. All they have found is mostly a caucasoid male lying besides a mongoloid female (and a horse). Of course there are some mongoloid males with caucasoid females and other boring same type couples. But your "y-dna micronationalism" is just a joke and has no chance to change the history.Quote:
Originally Posted by aklifal
That is another point: if someone claims early iranians/IE had a lot of east eurasian, than you can read galore if postings like those samples are just outliners or rare, now its normal? Sycthia were a big steppe empire, never thought about other ethnicities inside this( no i dont mean turkics but their ancestors or other steppe people. But regarding Tadjiks: The republic, Usbekistan and just some Afghanistan Tadjiks score between 15-<25% east eurasian because they are heavily intermixed with their local turkic neighbors especially Usbeks. From Buchara to Dushanbe, this area is mixed with both people, there are uzbeks with low east eurasian and tadjiks with high east eurasian admix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoro
R1a-z93 is a steppe haplogroup, turkics and iranics have it. Why we are discussing about the origins of scythians or turkics? Scythians were iranic, at least their upper class, turkics are turkics.
Nope. Out of all samples gathered from the steppe coridor, none had a dominant mtDNA line. It's mixed as it goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by eatensemn
http://open-genomes.org/analysis/Eur..._Gedmatch.html
Not to mention even westernmost scythians were morphologically mongoloids and had a significant mongoloid input in their aDNA. So your theory about handsome aryan men falls here. They were never cockasoids in first place. :laugh:
I'm the one who tries to change history :lol:? You're literally trying to whitewash turks here lmao.Quote:
Originally Posted by eatensemn
"..and other boring same type couples" what kind of sick fetish is this xD
Turks, or proto-turks horribly predate white concepts. And i strongly believe that important amount of mongoloid in early turks comes from actual mongolians, turks lived side by side with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by aklifal
Now thats wrong. I also think early turkics werent more than 50% east eurasian, except some cases, but they were at least 20-30% mongoloid. Even Xiognu were between 30-70%, they definitely played an important role of the ethnogenesis of early turkics.Quote:
Originally Posted by eatensemn
double