| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 86 Given: 0 |
Well, yes, I had noticed that as well and set it up in similar style. But I know it might be confusing, so I will update accordingly.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 646 Given: 214 |
The author (prominent scholar) runs the best Russian language youtube channel on Turco-Mongol history. You on the other hand constantly post links to "authors" who have not been published anywhere or talk about wild theories ultimately based on 'word play'.Originally Posted by Chelubey
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_o...Kcp6Fuw/videos
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 265 Given: 11 |
Oh come'on. The author is good man, but has often original looks on turkic ethnogensis(I like original viewpoints). But it's just opinion among thousand opinions .
What do you mean? You said:or talk about wild theories ultimately based on 'word play'.
But this is(Yaglakar->Jalair) the viewpoint of "prominent scholar" orientalist Zuev and some other scholars.All of the above is nothing more than wordplay akin to Argyn-Argentina, Mongol-Ming Qol (thousand hands) and many other fake constructs.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E...B9%D1%8B%D1%80
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97...B2%D0%B8%D1%87
Sometimes i joked with 'word play'.
No . I usually referred to real scholars or sound my own opinion.You on the other hand constantly post links to "authors" who have not been published anywhere
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 86 Given: 0 |
The Xianbei could be the linguistic ancestors of the Mongols.
MongolicLanguagesGraph.jpg
From the research The Y-chromosome haplogroup C3*-F3918, likely attributed to the Mongol Empire, can be traced to a 2500-year-old nomadic group:
Donghu -> Xianbei -> Shiwei -> Mongols
Jinggouzi 12/12 C-F3918 Donghu (1600-300 BCE)
Chenwugou 2/8 C-F3918 Xianbei (300 BCE - 500 CE )
Gangga 9/11 C-F3918 Shiwei (500-1200 CE)
1200+ CE - Mongols
C-F3918 is also the main haplogroup in the Manchu-speaking Xibe minority of the Xinjiang-Uyghur autonomous region of northwest China. But they also carry C-M48 which is more frequent in Manchu.
C-F3918
->C-F1756 Northeast Asia
->C-P39 North America
The Khitan language is still being deciphered, while the Tuoba language, the Tuyuhun language, the Rouran language could also be potentially related to the Mongolic languages and they could all have come after the Xianbei divided.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 8 Given: 4 |
According to Yunusbayev, genetic evidence points to an origin in the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity.
Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen, Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. According to Robbeets, proto-Turkic descends from the hypothetical proto-Transeurasian community. This Transeurasian community, is associated with the Houwa and with the Hongshan culture in the Liao river basin. With the onset of desertification in Inner Mongolia in 2200 BCE, people from the western part of the Hongshan culture moved west, adapting to anomadic pastoralist lifestyle in the eastern Eurasian steppes. Proto-Turkic may be identified with the millet cultivating Xinglongwa culture (兴隆洼文化).
Nelson et al. 2020 presented a study with additional evidence for ancestral “Transeurasian” origin for the Turkic peoples and language in Northeast China (Inner Mongolia and Manchuria), which was published in the Cambridge University. Their findings provide support for a population dispersal during the neolithic from the Liao river valley. They link proto-Turkic and the proto-Turkic people to the Hongshan culture in about 3000BC.
12 Y-DNA samples obtained from remains of the Hongshan-Xiaoheyan culture (红山小河沿文化) at the Halahaigou Archaeological Site (哈拉海沟遗址) in Inner Mongolia. Most of the Y-DNA samples obtained from the Xinglongwa-Hongshan continuum and Xinjiang/East Turkestan's Tianshan Beilu Archaeological Site (天山北麓遗址) have all turned out to be Haplogroup N. The westward migration of Haplogroup N peoples and the Turkic language could therefore also be linked to the spread of millet cultivation according to this research study: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/6/5/1024/3052682
All N-Hg-s identified in the Avars and Conquerors of Europe belonged to N1a1a-M178. We have tested 7 subclades of M178; N1a1a2-B187, N1a1a1a2-B211, N1a1a1a1a3-B197, N1a1a1a1a4-M2118, N1a1a1a1a1a-VL29, N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936 and the N1a1a1a1a2a1c1-L1034 subbranch of Z1936. The European subclades VL29 and Z1936 could be excluded in most cases, while the rest of the suclades are prevalent in Siberia from where this Hg dispersed in a counter-clockwise migratory route to Europe. Avar sample MM/58, did not go into any of the tested M178 subclades, while only N1a1a2 could be excluded for the KB/300 Avar khagan due to low coverage. All the 5 other Avar samples belonged to N1a1a1a1a3-B197, which is most prevalent in Chukchi, Buryats, Eskimos, Koryaks and appears among Tuvans and Mongols with lower frequency. By contrast two Conquerors belonged to N1a1a1a1a4-M2118, the Y lineage of nearly all Yakut males, being also frequent in Evenks, Evens and occurring with lower frequency among Khantys, Mansis and Kazakhs.
All of this evidence suggests that Haplogroup N was likely found at very high frequency amongst the historic and prehistoric predecessors of the Turkic speaking peoples. Haplogroup Q is found at highest frequency today amongst the Yeniseian people and Native Americans, both of whom interestingly speak languages belonging to the same language family (Dene-Yeniseian) and they are also culturally linked, hence it is unlikely that the Proto-Turkic people were Haplogroup Q but rather the Haplogroup Q present in Turkic speaking people is due to admixture.
It is also believed that the Yeniseian people were active over a much larger area compared to today, even as far south as Northern China. The Yeniseian Kets tribe is seen as a possible candidate to the Jie (羯; Middle Chinese: *ket) tribe in ancient China, who were said to have been largely massacred by General Ran Min (冉闵).
Mongols on the other hand are mainly Haplogroup C2 which is present mainly amongst the Qongyrat tribe of the Kazakhs. It's important to note that Kazakhs are a very diverse people made up of many different tribes for example the Qongyrat which are predominantly C2 and Naiman which are predominantly O2.
Haplogroup N can be found at 90-95% frequency amongst the Yakuts (Sakha) today who are the purebred descendants of the Kurykan Tiele (also known in ancient records as the Dingling 丁零, Gaoche 高车; Tiele 铁勒 is derived from "Tereg" which means wheel) tribe of the Xiongnu in South Siberia who migrated north from Lake Baikal along the Lena River to modern day Yakutia / Sakha Republic. It can also be found at varying frequencies amongst most Turkic speaking people like the Shors and Syrgeli Kazakhs at 65%, Khakass, Dolgans, Buryats (Mongolised Turkic people) and Tuvans at 40-60%, Chuvash, Volga and Siberian Tatars at 30%, Northern Altaians at 20%.
On the other hand, the ancient Ashina (阿史那) clan, Wusun (乌孙), Yenisei Qirghiz (鬲昆) are ancient Iranian peoples who carry Haplogroup R1a, these have mixed with Turkic people on the steppes including modern day Altaians. The only reason why Altaians and Kyrgyz look "East Asian" while having R1a is because your Y-DNA Haplogroup does not fully determine your phenotype and appearance, you have to take into account mtDNA and autosomal DNA (in the case of the Kyrgyz and Altaians they probably do have Mongol admixture in terms of autosomal DNA due to close proximity) as well. The Ashina, Wusun and Yenisei Qirghiz are recorded in historical texts to have red/blonde hair and blue/green eyes and to have differed greatly in physiognomy from the Dingling/Gaoche/Tiele Turkic tribes.
Of course, the Turkic people (Haplogroup N) have long mixed with the Indo-European steppe peoples (Haplogroup R1a), Yeniseian peoples (Haplogroup Q) and also other Mongolic / Tungusic peoples (Haplogroup C2). Hence many ethnicities in the region of Central Asia are usually a mix of all 4 haplogroups today. Therefore the Turkic identity is more of a cultural and linguistic one that has expanded far beyond its original borders in the Mongolia-Manchuria-Siberia region, and most of the intermixing took place a very long time ago (almost since the very beginning, hence the Xiongnu is believed to be a confederacy made up of different steppe peoples, not a homogenous entity).
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,249 Given: 524 |
I was reading up on my haplogroup Q-M25. It shows high frequency in Turkmen. Q-M25 has not been detected in pre-Columbian populations in the Americas.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M25
Q-M25 has been detected in the Northeast of East Asia, in South Asia, and across Central Asia.[5][6][7] Though present at low frequencies, it may be one of the more widely distributed branches of Q-M242 in Asia.
West Asia[edit]
Population Sampling Location Paper N Percentage SNP Tested Turkmen Golestan, Iran Grugni 2012[4] 29/68 ~42.6% M25 & M143 Turkmen Jawzjan, Afghanistan Di Cristofaro 2013[3] 23/74 ~31.1% M25 & M346/ (cf)Q1a3(currently Q1a2)=2/74 (Q total=33.8%) Mixed Central Asia & Siberia Underhill 2000[6] 6/184 ~3.26% M25 & M143 Kalmyk Malyarchuk 2011[5] 1/60 ~1.70% M25 Han Shanxi Zhong 2010[7] 1/56 ~1.79% M25 Uyghur Xinjiang Zhong 2010[7] 1/71 ~1.41% M25 Uyghur Xinjiang Zhong 2010[7] 1/50 ~2.00% M25 Uzbek Jawzjan, Afghanistan Di Cristofaro 2013[3] 1/94 ~1.06% M25 Mongol Mongolia Di Cristofaro 2013[3] 1/160 ~0.63% M25
The frequency of Q-M25 varies greatly across West Asia. An extreme peak is seen in the Turkmen of Golestan.[4] Across the whole of Iran it varies from over 9 percent of the population in the north to only 2 to 3 percent of the population in the south.[8] The frequency of Q-M25 drops to only about 1 percent of the population of Lebanon's Muslims, and it is absent from the non-Muslim population there.[9] However, its presence in the Marsh Arabs(related to Sumer) of Iraq hints that Q-M25's West Asian history extends beyond a single localized recent founder.[10]
Population Sampling Location Paper N Percentage SNP Tested Marsh Arabs Al-Zahery 2011[10] 1/143 ~0.70% M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=2.1% Iraqis Al-Zahery 2011[10] 0/154 ~0.00% M25/ (cf)Q1b-M378=1.9% Iranians Iran (North) Regueiro 2006[8] 3/33 ~9.09% M25 Iranians Mazandaran Di Cristofaro 2013[3] 1/13 ~7.69% M25 Iranians Iran (South) Regueiro 2006[8] 3/117 ~2.56% M25 Iranians Esfahan Di Cristofaro 2013[3] 1/42 ~2.38% M25 Azeris Iran (Azeri) Grugni 2012[4] 1/63 ~1.60% M25 Turkmens Golestan Grugni 2012[4] 29/68 ~42.6% M25 Lebanese (Non-Muslim) Lebanon Zalloua 2008[9] 0/482 ~0.00% M25 Lebanese (Muslim) Lebanon Zalloua 2008[9] 4/432 ~0.93% M25
Muzh ba staso la tyaro tsakha ra wubaasu
[IMG][/IMG]
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 8 Given: 4 |
Haplogroup Q does indeed have a very interesting distribution. I'm aware of the moderately high frequency of Haplogroup Q amongst the Turkmens but in my opinion it is unlikely that Haplogroup Q was indeed the haplogroup associated with Proto-Turkic because the evidence doesn't seem to stack up. Yakuts (Sakha) are one of the earliest branches to have split from the rest of the Turkic ethnolinguistic family and they have gone to live in relative isolation of NE Siberia, therefore they are often considered one of the most ancient Turkic tribes, speaking one of the most archaic form of the Turkic language (AFAIK Sakha/Yakut language is the only Turkic language that Turkish people find barely intelligible with Turkish). The fact that there are Yakuts who are Turkic speaking with such uniformity in having Y-DNA Haplogroup N and on the other hand also the Yeniseians who are not Turkic speaking with such uniformity in having Y-DNA Haplogroup Q suggests that Haplogroup Q couldn't have been associated with Proto-Turkic peoples.
Haplogroup Q1a1-M120 has also been found at high frequency amongst some of the ancient Chinese remains, most notably belonging to that of the Peng aristocracy during the Western Zhou Dynasty. However today Haplogroup Q is only found at very low frequency amongst Chinese people.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 265 Given: 11 |
It seems to me that SG_Jun does not take into account the Samoyed admixture among the Siberian-Turkic peoples and take it for the ancient Turkic component .
About Sayan Samoyeds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1...0%B5_%D1%81%D0 % B0% D0% BC% D0% BE% D0% B4% D0% B8% D0% B9% D1% 86% D1% 8B
80 % of information of Sg is incorrect.Sayan Samoyeds is collective name of several Samoyed peoples and nationalities living (or living) mainly in taiga on the northern slopes of the Sayan Highlands.Sayan Samoyeds spoke the dialects of the Kamasin and Mator languages.Some of the Koibals, according to some observations, spoke a dialect of the Kamasin language, but were subsequently assimilated by the Khakasses. The Soyots who underwent Mongolization switched to the Buryat language. Sayan Samoeds were assimilated mainly by the Khakasses, partly by the Tuvans and Western Buryats, and at the end of the 20th century by the Russians.
-Yakuts are not pure descendants of the Kyrukans, who, in turn, before migration, taking into account genetic and linguistic data, were possibly already a mixture of Turkic, Mongol and Samoedic tribes(Wikipedia : According to archaeological and ethnographic data, Yakuts were formed as a result of the absorption by the southern Turkic-speaking immigrants of local tribes of the middle reaches of the Lena) .On the network you can find a lot of information about the complex ethnogenesis of Yakuts.
- Yunusbaev interpratation of genetic data is not corellated with documented historic data wich is priority
- According to Chineese sources, Yenisei Kyrgyz's language is mutually understood with Uyghur, not Iranian one.
- The vast majority of Mongolian and Turkic subclades of hg N are within the pool of variations of the Uralic subclades (Including Yakut subclades). There are Turkic subclades that are closer to the some Uralic subclades than other Uralic subclades.
- Buryats is mongolized turkic people????.
- and many other bla-bla-bla
What is the point of creating hypotheses based on incorrect data, and which can be refuted by modern data, fifty years old data, and even thousand years old data?
Last edited by Chelubey; 05-01-2020 at 04:06 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 367 Given: 11 |
I listened to Inuit language from Canada and found that it has related sound structure to Turkic. It is especially evident in guttural K sound which is very characteristic to Turkic languages.
@Shubotai Which country are you from?
Last edited by mutabor; 05-01-2020 at 03:50 PM.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 367 Given: 11 |
Interestingly Selkup language doesn't sound like Nenets but resembles Turkic, Ket and Yukaghir languages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks