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

[Leto]

So the proto-Turkics basically moved westwards from the Far East to the Altai mountains and Northern Mongolia and then mixed with Indo-Europeans from Western Eurasia? Otherwise I don't know how to explain the hapa-like Göktürks from 500 AD.

[Hektor12]

So the proto-Turkics basically moved westwards from the Far East to the Altai mountains and Northern Mongolia and then mixed with Indo-Europeans from Western Eurasia? Otherwise I don't know how to explain the hapa-like Göktürks from 500 AD.

Going by Kaspias comment, not "proto-Turkics" but part of founding people and roots of the language. There are things definitely coming from Indo-Europeans which are R1, J2 HGs and nomadic pastoralism.

[Dr_Maul]

In fact, we are very close to a situation where we can test the hypothesis of the East Asian origin of the Turks.
The only archaeological culture in Asia that can claim to be proto-Turkic is the culture of Slab graves: mongoloid, nomadic in the Iron Age. The right time,place,race, economy and partly genes.
She is genetically related to both the Mongols and the Turks.
But it cannot be both Turkic and Mongolian (proto-Turkic-Mongolian) at the same time, even according to the Altai hypothesis (it is anachronical). The culture of Slab graves is either the proto-Turks or the proto-Mongols (one of two).
The haplogroup Q talk in favor of the Turkic version. Autosomes talk in favor of the Mongolian version. The Huns had 0-30% of the ancestry of Slab graves, while the Mongols have 50-60% of the ancestry associated with this culture. If the Culture of Slab Graves turns out to be Mongol in the end, then for the Proto-Turks there will be no suitable archaeological culture in Asia in Iron Age.

Slab Grave doesn't make sense because it would mean nearly 0% continuity. Partial discontinuity is obviously expected of a group as widespread as Turkics, but in the case of Slab grave it would mean something like 90% which is absolutely impossible given the existing archaeology I would say. You mean to tell that Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Tatars (minus Slavo-Mongolic), Salar (minus Han), etc are all 90% assimilated? That only Turkmens and Qangly Tribe Kazakhs + a handful of random Altaian/Siberian Turks are descendants of the first speakers at any relevant percentages. It doesn't really fit. You know what actually is ironic though: that the Slab grave maternal haplogroups, mainly D, C, F and G form the majority (when combined) in basically all Turkic groups, and in Medieval Turkic samples as well. Don't tell me this is what you are going by? even if Asena was a she-wolf...

[Roy]

Plus their descendants, the Jurchen and the Manchus managed to conquer China, one of the greatest empires on Earth, for quite a long time, thus they weren't just simple HGs.

I remember watching a documentary on them, and they were not just some 'primitive barbarians' or whatever. Apparently one of these actually quite populous ethnicities which eviscerated got completely cleansed by the Chinese in the middle ages. They left some interesting architecture around Gobi desert that has only recently been redescivored.

[Chelubey]

Slab Grave doesn't make sense because it would mean nearly 0% continuity. Partial discontinuity is obviously expected of a group as widespread as Turkics, but in the case of Slab grave it would mean something like 90% which is absolutely impossible given the existing archaeology I would say. You mean to tell that Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Nogais, Tatars (minus Slavo-Mongolic), Salar (minus Han), etc are all 90% assimilated? That only Turkmens and Qangly Tribe Kazakhs + a handful of random Altaian/Siberian Turks are descendants of the first speakers at any relevant percentages. It doesn't really fit. You know what actually is ironic though: that the Slab grave maternal haplogroups, mainly D, C, F and G form the majority (when combined) in basically all Turkic groups, and in Medieval Turkic samples as well. Don't tell me this is what you are going by? even if Asena was a she-wolf...

I do not understand you. I repeat - time, place, race, economy and you added MTDNA: The culture of Slab graves is ideal for the Proto-Turkic culture according to the East Eurasian hypothesis. All other complete East Asians at this time in this region are mostly hunter-gatherers, fishermen, or rice growers.
Are you confused by a big genetic drive? But other variants offer an even more extreme genetic drift ,including variants with haplogroup N and C (the subclades of the majority of Turkic carriers of haplogroup C are very close to Mongolian / Tungusic one - distance 1-3 thousand years.The East Uralic influence on the Turkic languages of Siberia is so strong that we can talk about East Uralic substratum. Some of the Sibirian Turkic people do not even belong to the South Siberian race, but to the Uralic race.).

[Dr_Maul]

I do not understand you. I repeat - time, place, race, economy and you added MTDNA: The culture of Slab graves is ideal for the Proto-Turkic culture according to the East Eurasian hypothesis. All other complete East Asians at this time in this region are mostly hunter-gatherers, fishermen, or rice growers.
Are you confused by a big genetic drive? But other variants offer an even more extreme genetic drift ,including variants with haplogroup N and C (the subclades of the majority of Turkic carriers of haplogroup C are very close to Mongolian / Tungusic one - distance 1-3 thousand years.The East Uralic influence on the Turkic languages of Siberia is so strong that we can talk about East Uralic substratum. Some of the Sibirian Turkic people do not even belong to the South Siberian race, but to the Uralic race.).

Only Turkics who have C belong to genuine Mongol tribes for the most part, so no surprises there
But you again missed my point, that the Slab grave only fits GENETICALLY (you say it fits in lifestyle etc.. but thats only assuming that proto Turks were asians) via MTDNA.. which doesn't mean much. How can you say that the majority of Turks are not descended from Proto Turks? And by majority I mean 90%...

[Chelubey]

Only Turkics who have C belong to genuine Mongol tribes for the most part, so no surprises there
But you again missed my point, that the Slab grave only fits GENETICALLY (you say it fits in lifestyle etc.. but thats only assuming that proto Turks were asians) via MTDNA.. which doesn't mean much. How can you say that the majority of Turks are not descended from Proto Turks? And by majority I mean 90%...

I do not support this gitpothesis. I believe that the Turkic people are R1a - it frees from the need to adhere to the hypothesis of matrilineality in the spread of the Turkic language.
But according to other hypotheses, the Siberian semi-Mongoloid Scythians are Iranians. And the Turkic people were complete Mongoloids in the Scythian time and lived in the region of Mongolia. Therefore, the hypothesis of Proto-Turkic Slab Grave is the only thing that supporters of the East Eurasian origin of the Turkic people can offer. It's time to test this hypothesis.

[Dr_Maul]

I do not support this gitpothesis. I believe that the Turkic people are R1a - it frees from the need to adhere to the hypothesis of matrilineality in the spread of the Turkic language.
But according to other hypotheses, the Siberian semi-Mongoloid Scythians are Iranians. And the Turkic people were complete Mongoloids in the Scythian time and lived in the region of Mongolia. Therefore, the hypothesis of Proto-Turkic Slab Grave is the only thing that supporters of the East Eurasian origin of the Turkic people can offer. It's time to test this hypothesis.

Well both of these have their own problems so I don't think either makes sense
I obviously don't believe in Asian origin for the reasons I have said in past few messages.
Scytho-Siberians to Turks (with Hun as mediator, although I am not sure if it is needed or not) is already genetic reality, both by Humans genetics and also Horse genetics. But of course the problem here is from Iranic as you mentioned before, with both Scythians having Iranic language records (Saka language from Xinjiang, modern Alanics, etc...) as well as generally R1a Z93 being Indo-Iranian shared with Indians and from that time period (1800 - 1300 bc according to recent studies) which is the issue.
Now taking both of these into consideration we come into the issue that it would imply that Turks are East Iranics, which doesn't make sense in any way. So the only logical solution is that one East Scythian cultures is Proto Turks (there were non Iranic scythians depending on region), mainly one I would assume related to Xiongnus. They probably had R1a Z93, Q1a, and J2a primarily - possibly even N-TAT. So far the only Scytho Siberians who have a relevant amount of J2a (which is the same clade as later Turkics) are current Tian Shan Sakas.. Are they proto Turks? well, who knows really but whoever they were, they were probably close to them or in that region (Southern Altai I guess). Of course more is to be discovered in the future

[Chelubey]

Well both of these have their own problems so I don't think either makes sense
I obviously don't believe in Asian origin for the reasons I have said in past few messages.
Scytho-Siberians to Turks (with Hun as mediator, although I am not sure if it is needed or not) is already genetic reality, both by Humans genetics and also Horse genetics. But of course the problem here is from Iranic as you mentioned before, with both Scythians having Iranic language records (Saka language from Xinjiang, modern Alanics, etc...) as well as generally R1a Z93 being Indo-Iranian shared with Indians and from that time period (1800 - 1300 bc according to recent studies) which is the issue.
Now taking both of these into consideration we come into the issue that it would imply that Turks are East Iranics, which doesn't make sense in any way. So the only logical solution is that one East Scythian cultures is Proto Turks (there were non Iranic scythians depending on region), mainly one I would assume related to Xiongnus. They probably had R1a Z93, Q1a, and J2a primarily - possibly even N-TAT. So far the only Scytho Siberians who have a relevant amount of J2a (which is the same clade as later Turkics) are current Tian Shan Sakas.. Are they proto Turks? well, who knows really but whoever they were, they were probably close to them or in that region (Southern Altai I guess). Of course more is to be discovered in the future

The term Eastern Iranians does not quite fit here.
Balkarian subclades of z-93 was found on the Volga already at the beginning of our era. They may have either never been to Mongolia, or left Mongolia before the Huns. The distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Balkar ones is 4000+ years, the same distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Kirghiz / Siberian ones. Hardly all of these subclades can be called "Eastern Iranian", even if they were IE.
I try to say that there is no evidence that all the Turkic subclades of z93 are from one small place in Mongolia or Siberia.

[Dr_Maul]

The term Eastern Iranians does not quite fit here.
Balkarian subclades of z-93 was found on the Volga already at the beginning of our era. They may have either never been to Mongolia, or left Mongolia before the Huns. The distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Balkar ones is 4000+ years, the same distance between the Bashkir subclades and the Kirghiz / Siberian ones. Hardly all of these subclades can be called "Eastern Iranian", even if they were IE.
I try to say that there is no evidence that all the Turkic subclades of z93 are from one small place in Mongolia or Siberia.

But which clades are you talking about specifically? As I said before most of the Turkic sample R1a belong to unrelated branches, unlike Q or J2a.