Which Turkic ethnicity is genetically closest to Proto Turks?

[Nykyus]

Look, the Bashkirs have the mythology of the Persians. Translated via Google translit from Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аждаха...#1080;я):

Azhdaha (Bashkir Azhdaһa) is a character of Bashkir mythology, an evil demon in the form of a monstrous snake.

Description
In most cases, it is depicted as a multi-headed gigantic serpent with a fire-breathing mouth. In folk tales, there can be 3-, 5-, 7-, 9- and 12-chapters.

According to the Bashkirs, an ordinary snake, which has lived to a hundred years old, turns into azhdaha. Having lived up to 500-1000 years, she turns into the demon Juha.

Azhdaha can also act as a beautiful woman. For example, in the Bashkir legends, the azhdaha girl marries the khan, who later exposed her.

Inhabits rivers, lakes, swamps, sometimes in a well. People are obliged to sacrifice a girl to him so that he would allow the use of water from the source.

The size of the azhdakh can be judged by the fairy tale "The Red Pillow", in which the daughter of the king of snakes and her two friends hide the seven-headed azhdahu in the bushes, although there are ideas that it is several "dozen fathoms long"

[Mejgusu]

@Nykus, don’t spam here, its actually nice discussion although there are tons of other threads with the same topic.

[Kaspias]

Lately I have been inclined to think that the Huns were not Turks. The Turks did not deform their skulls. The skulls were deformed by the Sarmatians, I consider the Huns to be a Sarmatian-Ugric mix. Relatives of the Huns were the ancestors of the Hungarians, the Mongoloids.

Well, Xiongnu was a confederation first and foremost. What is clear that Mongols spread West with Xianbei and a good chunk of Mongolia was Turkic homeland at that time. It is widely spoken the elite was a Yeniseian speaker from the Southern branch and that claim lies on the Haplogroups found among the Xiongnu elite. Now evaluate what we have: Yeniseians absorbed into Turks, but when? If they were indeed elite in Xiongnu, then it should mean Turks gradually dominated the confederation and created the Turkic self-identification, while doing that, they absorbed also other subjects of confederation who are Iranic and Ugric speakers and caused a drift in their own DNA. If Turks were in power, this still gives them a chance to enlarge their ethnic expansion. But if Mongols were in power, how all the nation ended up being Turk after the dissolution? Simultaneously, how the Western Huns who claimed(actually proved by recent articles) to be connected with Xiongnu shows Turkic philology in the elite, but not Mongol? This might be explained with two options:

1- Yeniseian elite, and the Yeniseian population already assimilated into Turks until the Western Huns.
2- Elite was already Turkic.

Medieval Turks are 30-50% mongoloid but to be honest, in terms of logic the very first person to speak the Turkic language was most likely fully mongoloid

Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

[Altaylı]

Look, the Bashkirs have the mythology of the Persians. Translated via Google translit from Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Аждаха...#1080;я):

Azhdaha (Bashkir Azhdaһa) is a character of Bashkir mythology, an evil demon in the form of a monstrous snake.

Description
In most cases, it is depicted as a multi-headed gigantic serpent with a fire-breathing mouth. In folk tales, there can be 3-, 5-, 7-, 9- and 12-chapters.

According to the Bashkirs, an ordinary snake, which has lived to a hundred years old, turns into azhdaha. Having lived up to 500-1000 years, she turns into the demon Juha.

Azhdaha can also act as a beautiful woman. For example, in the Bashkir legends, the azhdaha girl marries the khan, who later exposed her.

Inhabits rivers, lakes, swamps, sometimes in a well. People are obliged to sacrifice a girl to him so that he would allow the use of water from the source.

The size of the azhdakh can be judged by the fairy tale "The Red Pillow", in which the daughter of the king of snakes and her two friends hide the seven-headed azhdahu in the bushes, although there are ideas that it is several "dozen fathoms long"

[Nykyus]

Historical science considers Bashkir to be a people who arrived from Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Autonomy Karakalpakstan) in the 9th century together with the Pechenegs. Before resettlement, they had the state of Kangyui. They arrived and drove out the Hungarians.

But exactly the same myth exists among the Yakuts (Sakha), who broke away from the rest of the Turks very early. This myth was recorded by the German traveler Lindenau in the early 18th century.

[Dr_Maul]

Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

I mean, it would make more sense for Afanasievo_2 to be Turkic rather than 1. To be honest I doubt original Turkic speakers were fully steppe but speaking an NE Asiatic language like that

[Nykyus]

Well, Xiongnu was a confederation first and foremost. What is clear that Mongols spread West with Xianbei and a good chunk of Mongolia was Turkic homeland at that time. It is widely spoken the elite was a Yeniseian speaker from the Southern branch and that claim lies on the Haplogroups found among the Xiongnu elite. Now evaluate what we have: Yeniseians absorbed into Turks, but when? If they were indeed elite in Xiongnu, then it should mean Turks gradually dominated the confederation and created the Turkic self-identification, while doing that, they absorbed also other subjects of confederation who are Iranic and Ugric speakers and caused a drift in their own DNA. If Turks were in power, this still gives them a chance to enlarge their ethnic expansion. But if Mongols were in power, how all the nation ended up being Turk after the dissolution? Simultaneously, how the Western Huns who claimed(actually proved by recent articles) to be connected with Xiongnu shows Turkic philology in the elite, but not Mongol? This might be explained with two options:

1- Yeniseian elite, and the Yeniseian population already assimilated into Turks until the Western Huns.
2- Elite was already Turkic.




Then we have to come with one answer, how Mongolian and Turkic separated from each other? Why not Tuvan(who is closest to the Asian part of Proto-Turkic) is not mutually intelligible with other Turkic languages, while their neighbor Altaians are? I'm pointing out that the differentiation of Turkic is in the same parallel with the migration routes, and mixing frequencies. This should give some insight into how Proto-Turkic formed and left the mainstream Altaic. Simultaneously, the mobilization in the Mongol Empire should be investigated to understand how Mongolian evolved.

Medieval Turkic changed from 10% to 80%, some regions were obvious victims of Mongol Invasion and some are overmixed with foreigns. The actual East Eurasian score that came out after the "first mixing" in BA, seemed to be 40-50%. If linguists can come with a point that proves Afanasievo_2 spoke Turkic before melted in the same pot with Afanasievo_1, then the amount of East Eurasian can go up to 90%. But now, it just doesn't sound realistic to me.

At the time of the Xiongnu, the population of the Yenisei Kyrgyz was already mestizo. But still the majority of Europeans who did tattoos on the body. During the time of the Turkic khaganates, there lived a Chinese nobleman Li Lin, whose descendants became Mongoloids. Soviet scientists unearthed his palace.

[Nykyus]

I was wrong. According to Russian Wikipediahttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ли_Лин...#1085;ь), Li Ling lived before the creation of the Khaganates. During the Xiongnu.

[Nykyus]

Europeans who lived on the lands of the Kyrgyz Khaganate left masks on the deceased, where European features are traced. First there was the Tagar culture, then the Tashtyk culture (corresponding to the time of the Xiongnu). There are many of these masks

[Nykyus]

Europeans who lived on the lands of the Kyrgyz Khaganate left masks on the deceased, where European features are traced. First there was the Tagar culture, then the Tashtyk culture (corresponding to the time of the Xiongnu). There are many of these masks