Which Turkic ethnicity is genetically closest to Proto Turks?

[Kaspias]

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

Yeah. I'm just defending the idea that 2 was speaking a Proto-Asian language whose Mongol, Turkic are descendants of. And the revolution that led the Turkic language's itself to be emerge was the mixing with 1. And while doing that I'm referencing the interchangeability of Turkic languages. In this sense, the first Turkic speakers are the children of 1 and 2.

If we accept those children as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is 40-50% and Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs are the closest proxies. If we accept the Proto-NE Asian father as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is around 90% and the closest proxy is Tuvans. Finally, stating the fact that the Turkic language is like 7000-8000 years old just doesn't make sense to me when considering what we know, and I'm suggesting it emerged in BA. Therefore, I'm accepting 40-50% as the base amount. My assumptions can change in the future if it is discovered that Turkic was spoken before Afanasievo.

At the time of the Xiongnu, the population of the Yenisei Kyrgyz was already mestizo.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, too.

[Nykyus]

The Kyrgyz were not exactly nomads. They were sedentary and semi-sedentary. Therefore, they put up an army of 100 thousand soldiers. Their language was already different from Uyghur and our language (Kurykan tribe), which was part of the Uyghur Confederation. In 840, there was a crisis in the Uyghur Khaganate, which waged war against Tibet, the Karluks and the rebellious Kyrgyz. Taking advantage of this, the Kyrgyz revolted, massacred the majority of the population of the Confederation, and staged a genocide. Many went to Xinjiang. Our ancestors lived near Lake Baikal. Since then, Mongolia has become Mongolian, and the Mongolian element has been added. The first time was during the fall of the Xiongnu and the westward advance of the Xianbi, a people from Manchuria who wore braids.

[Nykyus]

Chinese sources indicate the ancestral home of Mongol, these are lands near the Amur River. While the Uighur Kaganate was alive, the Mongols did not dare to settle in the steppes of present-day Mongolia, they were vassals of the Turks. The ancestors of the Mongols were called Tatars.

[Chelubey]

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

We need more medieval turkic samples outside Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Medieval samples from Central Asia are already too multicomponent (and even include a Han component).

[Nykyus]

Chinese nationalists therefore consider Xinjiang not the land of the Uyghurs. Because Uyghur refugees emerged from the lands of Mongolia in the 840s and 860s.

The reality seems even more complicated. Because those modern Uyghurs are not exactly those ancient Uyghurs, they all died, except for a small number of yellow Uyghurs. Modern Uyghurs are members of the Confederation of Uighurs, who were called Toguzghuz (Nine Tribes).

[Leto]

The founders of the modern Kyrgyz were some kind of Aryanic (50-60% R1a).

[Chelubey]

Volga Tatars do have a shit ton of Finno-Ugric blood, even Slavic, I suppose. A lot of captives from Russia were brought there, some of them must have been Islamicized. Later on, in the Russian Empire a number of Chuvash, Mari and Mordovians who didn't want to be baptized would have ironically been absorbed by Tatars.

Yes. Tatars may possibly have a total Uralic component of 35% (derived from Chuvashes and Bashkirs, among others). But this does not mean that they are the farthest from the proto-Turkic people. Other Turkic groups may have much more admixture. Some Siberian Turkic people (such as Khakass) may have even more Uralic component (Samoyeds + Ugric) than Tatars.

[Dr_Maul]

Yeah. I'm just defending the idea that 2 was speaking a Proto-Asian language whose Mongol, Turkic are descendants of. And the revolution that led the Turkic language's itself to be emerge was the mixing with 1. And while doing that I'm referencing the interchangeability of Turkic languages. In this sense, the first Turkic speakers are the children of 1 and 2.

If we accept those children as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is 40-50% and Siberian Tatars, Bashkirs are the closest proxies. If we accept the Proto-NE Asian father as Proto-Turks, then the Eastern Eurasian amount is around 90% and the closest proxy is Tuvans. Finally, stating the fact that the Turkic language is like 7000-8000 years old just doesn't make sense to me when considering what we know, and I'm suggesting it emerged in BA. Therefore, I'm accepting 40-50% as the base amount. My assumptions can change in the future if it is discovered that Turkic was spoken before Afanasievo.

Then I would probably say the first linguistic Turk speakers were fully Mong but the first "'real"" Turks as we know them in general would be half and half. I think a similarity can be found within Iranic speakers as the original Iranic speakers were more or less fully Yamnaya/Steppe but "Aryans" would be after a generation of mixes with BMAC/Oxus

[Leto]

Yes. Tatars may possibly have a total Uralic component of 35% (derived from Chuvashes and Bashkirs, among others). But this does not mean that they are the farthest from the pro-Turkic. Other Turkic groups may have much more impurities. Some Siberian Turkic people (such as Khakass) may have even more Uralic component (Samoyeds + Ugric) than Tatars.

The word you were looking for is "admixture", not "impurities"

[Chelubey]

Afanasiyevo.

Volga Tatars are mostly Uralic.

This is too bold a statement. Can you prove it?