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

[Turul Karom]

Interesting. So are we offsping of Korean-Japanese farmers assimilated by west eurasian nomadic pastoralists?

I will wait for Kaspias comment on this to be honest.

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea? The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any other:



Turkic grave I match:

[Hektor12]

Transeurasian languages

why "Transeurasian" ? Only Turkic languages have expansion in europe out of these languages. Others are just asian.

so Turkic languages don't originate from Korean-Japanese, but they share a common ancestor rather

I understand this, so this basically means some of these farmers went into Korea, Some into Japan and some to west? Ok but do we see this in y-dna haplos?

[Hektor12]

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any other

Even his moustache is same (:
This DA89 Göktürk Kaspias' fav. sample, right?

[ixulescu]

I don't buy it. There are 10,000 year old samples from Central Asia with a 20% Baltic component already iirc. Neolithic Central Asians had stronger contacts with European like populations than East Asian ones.

[Sterling Archer]

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea?

For what it is worth, this new paper is heavily criticized, especially the inclusion of Japonic and Korean.
Apparently, the authors also do a very poor job of reconstructing the languages in order to fit their theory.

On my part, I believe that Turks are the ultimate Eurasian people. Having said that, the language probably did originate somewhere around central Asia to Altai mountain range and might have shared some form of common ancestor with other stated language. Or then again, it might be unrelated, and similarities might be due to the contacts between Turks and their neighbors.

The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.

Yes, indeed it looks like they were mixed Eurasian from the get-go. Maybe similar to Finno-Ugric people.

[Turul Karom]

For what it is worth, this new paper is heavily criticized, especially the inclusion of Japonic and Korean.
Apparently, the authors also do a very poor job of reconstructing the languages in order to fit their theory.

On my part, I believe that Turks are the ultimate Eurasian people. Having said that, the language probably did originate somewhere around central Asia to Altai mountain range and might have shared some form of common ancestor with other stated language. Or then again, it might be unrelated, and similarities might be due to the contacts between Turks and their neighbors.

Yes, indeed it looks like they were mixed Eurasian from the get-go. Maybe similar to Finno-Ugric people.

Hello, interesting takes, and I agree that the inclusion of Japonic and Korean languages here does not make sense because it is not reflected at all in haplogroups.

I don't think we have talked, but it is always good to meet another son of the steppes on TA!

Even his moustache is same (:
This DA89 Göktürk Kaspias' fav. sample, right?

I don't know if it's his favorite sample, but it's one of mine now since I have admixture with it lol.

Yes, this is the first record of the "Hungarian moustache" which the Hungarian moustache club also references as the first evidence of.

[zebruh]

No, we are not. Look at the era on the dataset: Neolithic–Bronze Age sites from Northeast Asia. The word "Türk" as a group identity is not recorded earlier than the 500AD times by the Chinese (6th century authors). Göktürks looked like Scythians and had Scythian Y-DNA. Look at the Y-DNA of Göktürks and you will see a lot of R1. How much R1 do you see in Japan or Korea? The genetic history of Turkic peoples contain Mongoloid results, many of which have quite significant admixture, but are not all predominantly OR exclusively Mongoloid.

This Scythian man depicted on felt (from Altai graves of the time this study is talking about!) is closer in phenotype to we Turkic peoples than any other:



Turkic grave I match:

Most modern Turks arent decended from actual asian original turks. They took they people they conquered more west of them and migrated them over more west from the ones they used in their armies. Otherwise the population was native anatolian for the country of turkey.

[Turul Karom]

Most modern Turks arent decended from actual asian original turks. They took they people they conquered more west of them and migrated them over more west from the ones they used in their armies. Otherwise the population was native anatolian for the country of turkey.

Countless ancestry tests posted here by Anatolian Turks prove this false. They have Eurasian ancestry and specifically, Central Asian ancestry present. I have it, too.

[zebruh]

Countless ancestry tests posted here by Anatolian Turks prove this false. They have Eurasian ancestry and specifically, Central Asian ancestry present. I have it, too.

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

[Turul Karom]

Double post, thanks TA!

Have a video: