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

[Turul Karom]

Is there studies and post examples. Because from my understanding the gokturks were the ruling class and the majority were native anatolians or migrations from western central asia. Not turkic proper by mongols and altai area

You are confusing eras. Oghuz Turks are the ones that started the Ottoman dynasty. The group you are talking about divided into two parts (east and west) and collapsed without conquering the heart of Anatolia or establishing themselves in a meaningful way. Oghuz were a part of them. They conquered the Byzantine Empire. Just like many people in Western Europe are descendants of Charlemagne, the same principal applies: genetics filter downward through a population through the ruling class. Since the Turkic ruling class was prolific, and we are not talking even about a single man, many today posses their genetic markers that set them that are similar to Turkmen today. There are also more Turkic groups in Turkey today than just the Oghuz that also arrived in non-recent times.

As far as examples, just look at any Turkish user's results here. I don't keep them on-hand, and I currently only have studies about Turkic Hungarians.

[Hektor12]

As far as examples, just look at any Turkish user's results here. I don't keep them on-hand, and I currently only have studies about Turkic Hungarians.

Currently; to carry genetical material in cargo is prohibited in Turkey, so testing companies like 23andme dont work here. Those tested Turks are mostly diaspora Turks and very limited people who cargo their kit by odd ways. I want to say, i believe current tests of Turks are not enough to be "reliable" for Turkic ancestry of the population. Billions of core Turks (some still maintain Shamanistic rituals) are unaware of genetic testings and academic sampling isnt reliable yet. Of course i dont expect radical difference but in my opinion Pre-Roman "Turkic" ancestry in Turkey is over %50, excluding later immigrants like Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks etc..

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious. This might have been something funded by China, i feel increasing interest in Turks from China recently, could have been caused by Belt-Road.

Anyways i found DA89 % in modern Turkish population



And this is his K12b

[Dunai]

Currently; to carry genetical material in cargo is prohibited in Turkey, so testing companies like 23andme dont work here. Those tested Turks are mostly diaspora Turks and very limited people who cargo their kit by odd ways. I want to say, i believe current tests of Turks are not enough to be "reliable" for Turkic ancestry of the population. Billions of core Turks (some still maintain Shamanistic rituals) are unaware of genetic testings and academic sampling isnt reliable yet. Of course i dont expect radical difference but in my opinion Pre-Roman "Turkic" ancestry in Turkey is over %50, excluding later immigrants like Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks etc..

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious. This might have been something funded by China, i feel increasing interest in Turks from China recently, could have been caused by Belt-Road.

Anyways i found DA89 % in modern Turkish population



And this is his K12b

You are displaying deeply conspiratorial allegations towards one of the most respected academic institutes in the world, which had close to 40 Nobel prize winners in its ranks. The only allegiance the researchers of the publication have is for science and where the evidence leads them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Pl...esearch_groups

[Zoro]

For this study, i would say it looks suspicious. If a study finds Turkic language closer to Japanese and Korean than Uralic languages, i find it suspicious.]

It’s nothing intentional on the authors parts. I looked at the ancient genome coverages they used in one of their supplements. The quality is beyond horrible for over 90% of the genomes. I would have never used those genomes to make inferences but maybe genetic analysis is not their specialty

The othe China paper from this year had good ancient genomes

[Kaspias]

We had better start with the question at what stage of the inheritance should we stop the time and call the ancestor "Proto-Turk"? Bronze Age? Iron Age? Neolithic?

This article is probably the most solid evidence for the Altaic theory(well, not exactly the current version of the theory but at least suggesting the same origin) and actually answered all my questions which I have stored in my mind for years, which were specifically related to the adoption of millet farming and it's contribution to the formation of a Proto-Turkic group. I believe the article has got a certain backbone compared to the Yellow River theory.

However, due to it being rather focused on Korean/Japanese (the migration of millet farmers to the East) it lacks some information that might be added/explained in a clearer way in terms of Turks. Despite the West Liao River coming out as an origin, some of the subbranches had left earlier such as the ones who left for the East, and Turkic follows them(but in the opposite direction.). At that stage article claims that these populations carried Amur River or mixed Amur and Yellow River admixtures, yes, that's a fact. However, the same admixture was already present in the Baikal region during the Neolithic(dates to the formation of Proto-Altaic when referencing the article.) These all should mean that the Altaic language actually could have been spoken in the region Baikal-Altai, rather than the Western Liao region itself.

Here I should also add some of the samples looks not useful due to the low coverage, but I will keep commenting by ignoring it, you may come with your own conclusion based on all.

Amur is actually kinda good proxy, despite Tarim/HG, Sintashta, and Geoksyur pulling Turks to various directions, the East Asian ancestor looks like it has an Amur-like admixture:



But when zooming into the Asian cluster, you will note that the same admixture is also present in the region Baikal(samples are from around Irkutsk) and Eastern Mongolia.



So that's what we have now:



Point 1: The article suggests the Western Liao river(and around, incl. Amur) as a distribution point, however, puts Turks to the Westernmost and suggests a living zone lengths towards Altais, however, it misses the region Baikal whilst the same admixture were present there and I believe not mentioning this option by referencing the Trans-Baikal samples is a huge absence. However, one could still come to the conclusion Altaic speakers lived around Altai, only based on what the article suggests, still.
Point 2: Migration of Turkic N and Q correlates with what the article suggests.
Point 3: Transeurasian speakers were 100% Asian for sure, Proto-Altaic speakers might be full East Asian(Amur-Yellow) or in a variable range from East Asian(Amur-Yellow) to Siberian(Ust_Ida).
Point 4: SHG-Uralic/Steppe/BMAC admixtures were distributed into Altaic/Turkic ethnogenesis after the Neolithic -presumably towards the BA- and before that stage, they were rather Asian-Siberian. Transeurasian or Proto Altaic being 100% Asian or variably Siberian doesn't change the fact that Medieval Turks were descendants of other people, too. The first developments of the Turkic language under the Proto Altaic probably took place when Altaic got into contact with the Steppe and Uralic-like people, presumably in Pazyryk/Tiele. This is how the actual "Turkicness" was born.
Point 5: Turkic ethnogenesis re-shaped during Xiongnu, by combining Mongolic and Turkic tribes into one. Despite the Asian ancestor of Turks probably having a dominant Amur profile, Mongols with fresh Yellow River admixture probably had boosted Asian scores of Turks of the era. The Hun Elite samples come as recent proof, despite it being arguable.
Point 6: The radical decrease of the Asian scores took place during Xiongnu by mixing with the Iranic and Uralic speakers that probably reduced East Asian scores to a range that varies from 30% to 50%.

You know the rest of the story.

The article has got consistency in itself and what it suggests proves what I have been thinking but it would be better if they would mind writing a few pages more to explain what they actually mean instead of bombarding people with supplementary information. Besides, I do not understand why people reacted negatively to this; I mean, Turkic is an Asian language, of course, its earliest ancestor will be Asian. Nevertheless, the Proto-Turkic(not Proto-Altaic or Transeurasian, note it) should have emerged with the Steppe interaction which will explain commons with IE as well as haplogroup R -the presence of R1b is the cleanest proof.-

For some comments,

The article doesn't claim Turkic is closer to the Korean - Japanese compared to the Uralic. The article claims Turkic and Korean have got the same great-great-great-great grandfather. Uralic and Turkic will be closer to each other due to more recent interactions.
We have been using DA89 by accepting it as if it was from Onok Confederation, but it differs from the rest of the Medieval Turkic samples by having like 25% Sogdian-like admixture. Therefore now I'm in favor of not using it and prefer the Kimak sample instead.
Scythians are a completely different story. The Eastern Scythians were Turkic, that's what it seems, the culture one should be focused on should be the Pazyryk rather than Scythian-labelled Turks of non-cultured regions of Siberia.

[Lucas]

Incorrect. Watch the video at least from 52:40 (the conclusions part) and you will see what a solid case this team of researchers have made about the Urheimat of Transeurasian languages being around the Amur river, starting around 9000 BP. The group have split in separate Altaic and Korean-Japanese branches, so Turkic languages don't originate from Korean-Japanese, but they share a common ancestor rather. Chinese also has no common root with this group of languages, since in originated in the Yellow River area and belongs to Sino-Tibetan group. Geographically they were rather close to one another, but while speakers of Transeurasian languages practiced millet agriculture, the proto-Chinese practiced rice agriculture, a very significant differentiation factor actually.

So it means Tungusic hunters and reindeer herders were at the begining millet cultivators too??? I don't buy it.

[Dunai]

So it means Tungusic hunters and reindeer herders were at the begining millet cultivators too???

Hungarians founded a kingdom from the Carpathians until the Adriatic Sea, while just a few hundred years before were living a humble lifestyle in Western Siberia, why are you surprised? Population destinies change all the time. Archeological, genetic and linguistic evidence seem to prove a common origin for all 5 language families, read the paper.

[Lucas]

Hungarians founded a kingdom from the Carpathians until the Adriatic Sea, while just a few hundred years before were living a humble lifestyle in Western Siberia, why are you surprised? Population destinies change all the time. Archeological, genetic and linguistic evidence seem to prove a common origin for all 5 language families, read the paper.

But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite???? I could imagine some isolated small tribe but not whole language family left farming and started to hunt polar foxes and herd reindeers.

[Dunai]

But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite???? I could imagine some isolated small tribe but not whole language family left farming and started to hunt polar foxes and herd reindeers.

Yet the evidence from all 3 fields show that this happened. Are you that surprised that a population would adapt to the possibilities Eastern Siberia provides? Populations both progress and regress, it's very normal.

[Dr_Maul]

Can't comment on linguistics but it would have odd implications on Turkic assimilation if proven, making the vast majority of Medieval and modern Turkics not descended paternally by Proto-Turkics