Y-DNA chart of 91 Turks (NEW)

**Hudayar** · 04-20-2018, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Leto

As if the present ones were purely Turkic...

I don't think there's such thing as Turkic haplogroup. Because we don't know what Ancient Turkics were like. Also even Turkics who live next to each other in Central Asia are wildly different from each other haplogroup wise. By Ancient Turkics i mean the Turkics before Xiognus. Some Historians say Turkics come from Siberia and migrated from there to Mongolia where they adopted nomadic lifestyle. Ancient Turkic dna is a mystery.

**Leto** · 04-20-2018, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Hudayar

I don't think there's such thing as Turkic haplogroup. Because we don't know what Ancient Turkics were like. Also even Turkics who live next to each other in Central Asia are wildly different from each other haplogroup wise. By Ancient Turkics i mean the Turkics before Xiognus. Some Historians say Turkics come from Siberia and migrated from there to Mongolia where they adopted nomadic lifestyle. Ancient Turkic dna is a mystery.

I think it's clear they looked pretty much like Altai or Tuvan people. And their initial haplogroups must have been Asian.

**Hudayar** · 04-20-2018, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Leto

I think it's clear they looked pretty much like Altai or Tuvan people. And their initial haplogroups must have been Asian.

I think majority of them had N and Q and other haplogroups originated in Siberia. But that's just what I think.

**Yaglakar** · 04-21-2018, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Leto

No C at all? That's the most common haplogroup in the very Turkic country of Kazakhstan.

What is interesting is that Turkish language is morphologically, structurally and vocabulary wise closer to Türk runic inscriptions in Mongolia than Kazakh. The so called Oğuz and so called Qarluq languages are descendants of Türk Khaganates represented by populations which are less Mongoloid. Nobody has definite answers to what happened to Türks and why they disappeared as a people. In fact ethnonyms such as Oğuz and Kirghiz predate Türks. And we should also not confuse old Uighurs with modern Uyghurs, Oğuz of Mongolia/adjacent lands with the modern Oğuz denomination, Yenisei Kirghiz with modern Kyrgyz. Here is my take on things: Some Tiele/Gaoche (people of high carts) move to the west and become Oğur Turks (Huns, Bulgars, and possibly Avars). The ones that are left become Oğuz Turks in Mongolia. Türks are either of Oğuz origin (as prominent Russian turkologist Bartold claimed) or closely related (recorded in Türk inscriptions). Oğuz definitely outnumbered Türks and the main corpus of forces in Turkic Khaganates were Oğuz. Later before the establishment of Uighur Khaganate, a branch of Oğuz broke off from the main group in Mongolia and eventually became Turkmens, Azerbaijanis and Anatolian Turks.

Originally Posted by Leto

I think it's clear they looked pretty much like Altai or Tuvan people. And their initial haplogroups must have been Asian.

Not necessarily, these peoples are heavily mongolized culturally and have been under Mongol dominance for along period of time since 13th century onwards. Mongolic languages are represented both in Altai and Tuva even today.

Originally Posted by Hudayar

By Ancient Turkics i mean the Turkics before Xiognus. Some Historians say Turkics come from Siberia and migrated from there to Mongolia where they adopted nomadic lifestyle. Ancient Turkic dna is a mystery.

Even before Xiongnu, proto-Turkic speaking peoples occupied vast areas of North-East Asia. This is supported linguistically, numerous Chinese vocabulary in proto-Turkic, loanwords in proto-Samoyedic (branch of Uralic) from proto-Turkic, and proto-Siberian (like modern Ket) loanwords from proto-Turkic. These exchanges and borrowings couldn't have occurred instantaneously at the time of Xiongnu. Siberian origin is a popular myth, one has to include areas like Mongolia, north-east Kazakhstan, inner Mongolia, Dzungaria and vast swathes of southern Siberia.