Finally Turkic (and Mongolic) samples from Mongolia

[Chelubey]

What does that mean? The first Turk(ic)s not being Turkic. What would they have been then?

Obviously this phrase of Yaglakar does not make sense. The data are not what Yaglakar wanted. I expect personal hypothesis-discovery of Yaglakar: The first Turkic peoples did not speak Turkic ! Or : Turkic peoples borrowed their language from Sogdians!

[Chelubey]

Well, Indo-Europeans are said to have gone as far east as Krasnoyarsk and Mongolia. Do you think they had little to no impact on the ancient Turkics?

OK.
The theory that Scythians and Sarmatians were Turkic-speaking is not a fiction of Shaman or my fiction. This is a theory from the 19th century. As I understand it, most European scientists, including Russian, adhered to this theory in those days. I can quote Russian scientists.
Are there any facts to support this hypothesis? Yes they are, and even linguistic one.The Armenian author of 5th century refers to documents of another author of the 2nd century where Bulgars were mentioned .Modern scholars consider this link invalid due to the fact that those document (of 2nd century) not survived.
But there is an interesting map of the Roman geographer Ptolemy of the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
On this map at Ukraine territory there is a people called "Hun". Historians believe that these are not real fake Huns because according to archeology at that time Sarmatian tribes lived there.
But the most interesting thing is that Ural River on this map is designated as Daik(os). Turkic name of this river is Jaik(tatar Dzhaik, bashkir iaik).
Dzhaik in Tatar language means spilling, flooding (the river very strongly overflows in spring ).
In Greek language there is no adequate sound corresponding to Turkic affricate "dzh" and Ptolemy called it just Daik(os).
This etymology complies with all formal scientific criterias, since all sound correspondences are explained.
Gerard Clauson rejects this etymology for chronological reasons: in the second century the Sarmatians-Iranians lived in the Urals, not the Huns-Turkic, therefore this name of the river cannot be Turkic.
This viewpoint is mentioned in this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_River

Etymology
The river was called Δάϊκος (Daïkos) by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.Yulian Kulakovsky reads this as Turkic "Jajyk" or "Яик" and on this basis identifies the Huns as Turkic speakers. However, Gerard Clauson disputes that the name could be of Turkic origin as early as the 2nd century, and instead attributes it to Sarmatian origin.The name Яйыҡ (Yayıq) is currently used in the Bashkir language and Жайық (Zhayıq) in Kazakhstan. In later European texts it is sometimes mentioned as Rhymnus fluvius[23] and in the Russian chronicle of 1140 as Yaik.[24] The river was renamed Ural in the Russian language in 1775, by Catherine II of Russia.

[Yaglakar]

What does that mean? The first Turk(ic)s not being Turkic. What would they have been then?

In historical context term Turkic applies to all Turkic groups, term Türk applies to a specific group of Turkic peoples who primarily lived in Altai and Mongolia but based on their legends did not originate in the aforementioned regions. The very ethnonym itself is not Turkic, although sometimes inscribed as Türük which amounts to Turkicization of this ethnonym. This of course does not mean that Orkhon Uighurs or Yenisei Kirghiz weren't Turkicized to a significant extent. As you can see the data yourself Orkhon Uighur r1b lines are European, afanasievo heritage. It only means that Türks were newcomers possibly of non-Turkic origin initially and they brought more j2a to Altai, Mongolia, south Siberia.

[Turul Karom]

Great information!

Great steppe family!

Many backgrounds, one Turan!

[Leto]

In historical context term Turkic applies to all Turkic groups, term Türk applies to a specific group of Turkic peoples who primarily lived in Altai and Mongolia but based on their legends did not originate in the aforementioned regions. The very ethnonym itself is not Turkic, although sometimes inscribed as Türük which amounts to Turkicization of this ethnonym. This of course does not mean that Orkhon Uighurs or Yenisei Kirghiz weren't Turkicized to a significant extent. As you can see the data yourself Orkhon Uighur r1b lines are European, afanasievo heritage. It only means that Türks were newcomers possibly of non-Turkic origin initially and they brought more j2a to Altai, Mongolia, south Siberia.

That's all quite confusing. Where was the proto-Turkic language spoken originally?

[Kmakkmak]

That's all quite confusing. Where was the proto-Turkic language spoken originally?

Altaic language. Mongolic related or Tungusic related proto turkic.

[Kmakkmak]

That's all quite confusing. Where was the proto-Turkic language spoken originally?

All Proto-IE lineages found in Turkic.

[Yaglakar]

That's all quite confusing. Where was the proto-Turkic language spoken originally?

Inner Mongolia (China) - Manchuria region is a very likely candidate with proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic (or rather what would later become proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic) splitting 6000 years ago.

[Leto]

Inner Mongolia (China) - Manchuria region is a very likely candidate with proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic (or rather what would later become proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic) splitting 6000 years ago.

Some Turks on this forum like to downplay the relation of the Turkics to the Mongols.

[Kyp]

Some Turks on this forum like to downplay the relation of the Turkics to the Mongols.

Yes I don't believe in the "mixed" population theory for Proto-Turks tbh.