"Altaic" people originate in modern-day East China - new groundbreaking study

[Chelubey]

Man, this is literally my point. You have pointed out R1a Z2124 as if it is some specific branch, but it is really not that different from just saying "R1a Z93" or just R1a at this point

Iranian subclades are also far from Turkic, there is also a time distance of about 4000 years.
And you said that the Turkic subclades are not related to each other.
In fact, we do not yet know whether the Pazyryk subclades are ancestral for all Turkic subclades. This is still "one of the subclades" of R1a Z2124.
Kaspias showed that many subclades of different haplogroups of the Pazyryk Turks are present among various Turkic peoples. But many Turkic peoples were in contact with each other until the late Middle Ages and even later. Kaspias convincingly proved that the Pazyryk people are Turkic people (anthropologists have previously deduced the anthropological type of the Altai Turks from the Pazyryk people).

But Z2124 is just typical Andronovo-Sintashta (proto Aryan but more specifically proto iranic probably).

I think pre-proto-turkic people.
Previously, the Pazyryk people were also called Iranians, but the scientists were wrong .

[Dr_Maul]

You miss a point, R1 being the founder of Turkicness doesn't change the fact that the percentage of R1 is boosted during Xiongnu and afterward due to assimilation of Iranics; so not all R1's present in Medieval belonged to the founder crew. However, the presence of R1 during the Bronze Age Altai(and a very wide around) remains as a fact, and autosomal DNA and the continuity between the samples of Altai MLBA, Pazyryk(both Southwest and Northeast), Chandman, and Sagly suggest that Baikal N-like admixture were melted in the same pot as these R1b's at the first stage, then literally surrounded by the R1a invasion which made R1a probably the most prominent Turkic HG for that time of period. Besides, the Turkic ethnogenesis literally re-shaped after Xiongnu. The Asian scores of Turks(except for Oghurs, perhaps) were like 60-80% during and later radically(~50%) decreased due to the mixing with Western subjects of the confederation which are Uralic and Iranic speakers. Going with this, Eastern Eurasian scores in terms of autosomal DNA may not mean anything while debating Proto Turkicness. I feel a need to sum my thoughts up here so as not to confuse; Transeurasian was a full Asian, Altaic was like 80-85% Asian and the rest are ANE, Proto Turkic was like 40-50% Asian, Xiongnu Turkic was like 60-80% Asian, Early Medieval Turkic was like 30-50% Asian and the late Medieval led some groups to decrease and some others such as Kazakh and Kirgiz to increase due to Mongol invasion.

I agree but some parts aren't adding up I think.. So your theory is
40-50 Asian 40-50 Steppe and trace amount BMAC (Eastern Scythian profile) = proto Turkic, correct?
haplos reflecting that, mostly Z93 (steppe) and Q (local Siberian) maybe 5% of BMAC clades

And then what exactly is occurring during Xiongnu? I assume you are basing 60-80 on those MNG Early Xiongnu, correct?
They are about 70-80 Siberian and then the rest either Steppe or mixed with BMAC.
Haplos almost the same as before however we have no R1a, just Q, and now we have J2a and R1bPh155(technically this is BMAC haplogroup according to existing samples)
This = Early Turkics?

[Dr_Maul]

Iranian subclades are also far from Turkic, there is also a time distance of about 4000 years.
And you said that the Turkic subclades are not related to each other.
In fact, we do not yet know whether the Pazyryk subclades are ancestral for all Turkic subclades. This is still "one of the subclades" of R1a Z2124.
Kaspias showed that many subclades of different haplogroups of the Pazyryk Turks are present among various Turkic peoples. But many Turkic peoples were in contact with each other until the late Middle Ages and even later. Kaspias convincingly proved that the Pazyryk people are Turkic people (anthropologists have previously deduced the anthropological type of the Altai Turks from the Pazyryk people).

yes they are generally far. But my point was that the medieval Turkics samples belonged to those clades, at least some of them.

I think pre-proto-turkic people.
Previously, the Pazyryk people were also called Iranians, but the scientists were wrong .

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.

[Leto]

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.

I guess they just mixed with Asians whose language persisted for some reason while the IE one disappeared.

[Dr_Maul]

I guess they just mixed with Asians whose language persisted for some reason while the IE one disappeared.

Yes, languages can be fluid, especially in the bronze or iron age and in the steppe as well. Even in the modern day, many Tajiks are just persianize Uzbeks/Turks of some kind and ofc Mongolic Kazakhs are considered Kipchak. For whatever reason Eastern Scythians, either as a whole or one of their groups/tribes, either was Turkic from the start or became Turkic at some point

[Chelubey]

yes they are generally far. But my point was that the medieval Turkics samples belonged to those clades, at least some of them.

Well obviously Andronovo-Sintashta wouldn't be Proto Turkic itself, yes. The evidence of it being IE pretty much astronomical at this point, but the question is how did some of its descendants become Turks. As for Pazyryk, we don't know. Their genetics is similar to Altaics, yes, because they are half asians. The Iranic theory is mostly based off of the few existing Scythians language and lineage (Andronovo). But it is unknown for the most part.

Here is the linguistic evidence of the presence of the Turkic poeple in western Kazakhstan in the 2th century AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
The river was called Δάϊκος (Daïkos) by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.[19][20] Yulian Kulakovsky reads this as Turkic "Jajyk" or "Яик" and on this basis identifies the Huns as Turkic speakers.[21] 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.[22] 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.
The name of this river has a clear Turkic etymology.
This relation is denied not for linguistic reasons, but for chronological reasons (There could not have been Turkic poeple at that time!).

[Dr_Maul]

Here is the linguistic evidence of the presence of the Turkic poeple in western Kazakhstan in the 2th century BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_(river)
The river was called Δάϊκος (Daïkos) by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.[19][20] Yulian Kulakovsky reads this as Turkic "Jajyk" or "Яик" and on this basis identifies the Huns as Turkic speakers.[21] 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.[22] 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.
The name of this river has a clear Turkic etymology.
This relation is denied not for linguistic reasons, but for chronological reasons (There could not have been Turkic poeple at that time!).

It is for linguistic, 1 Turkic etymology (probably Proto Turkic or as it says non-Turkic) is nothing compared to entire dictionaries of Scythian derived/related languages aka Saka, Parthian, Alanic, etc..

[Leto]

Yes, languages can be fluid, especially in the bronze or iron age and in the steppe as well. Even in the modern day, many Tajiks are just persianize Uzbeks/Turks of some kind and ofc Mongolic Kazakhs are considered Kipchak. For whatever reason Eastern Scythians, either as a whole or one of their groups/tribes, either was Turkic from the start or became Turkic at some point

Well, Turkic peoples have proved to be mobile and persistent, very successful at assimilation. Now we have Turkey, Azerbaijan, the Caucasus Turkics on the one end of the spectrum and the Yakuts, the Tuvans and the Altaians on the other.

[Chelubey]

It is for linguistic, 1 Turkic etymology (probably Proto Turkic or as it says non-Turkic) is nothing compared to entire dictionaries of Scythian derived/related languages aka Saka, Parthian, Alanic, etc..

I have not seen data on the language of the Sakas. And this is not the only proof. But you cannot apply majority rule here (this is absurd). And there are no ancient Iranian hydronyms in Kazakhstan.

[Dr_Maul]

I have not seen data on the language of the Sakas. And this is not the only proof. But you cannot apply majority rule here (this is absurd). And there are no ancient Iranian hydronyms in Kazakhstan.

I have no idea about any ethnonyms in Kazakhstan, but you can read whatever sources they have brought forth here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_language
Majority rule here is mostly just based off of the supposed "unity" of scythians, which is mostly just based on a lack of textual evidence as well as similarity in steppe culture (also IE Haplogroups) but it cannot be certain until any future evidence is brought forth