Kazakh GEDmatch Results

[Mingle]

Some say a lot of Mongols were Turkified in the area of present-day Kazakhstan. And Volga Tatars are a predominantly European people. Studies say even much of their East Eurasian is not Mongolian-like, but rather Uralic. I posted a study in another section.

Some Kazakh tribes are of Mongol origin. So I was expecting them to be closer.

It's interesting how Tatarstan is a whole other dimension when it's just a stone's throw away from Kazakhstan. It's likely that Northern Kazakhstan was a more even Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix before Russian migrants settled that area. If that area was still Kazak, it might have been less distant (although still very distant) to Tatars. Orenburg also used to be Kazakh in the past.

Also, another thing to keep in mind. The Mongols used here are likely Khalkha Mongols from Central Mongolia. Western Mongolia is Oirat and Oirats are not that far away from Kazakhs. The Kalmyks are ethnic Oirats and are at a distant of "only" @16.

[Leto]

Some Kazakh tribes are of Mongol origin. So I was expecting them to be closer.

It's interesting how Tatarstan is a whole other dimension when it's just a stone's throw away from Kazakhstan. It's likely that Northern Kazakhstan was a more even Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix before Russian migrants settled that area. If that area was still Kazak, it might have been less distant (although still very distant) to Tatars. Orenburg also used to be Kazakh in the past.

Also, another thing to keep in mind. The Mongols used here are likely Khalkha Mongols from Central Mongolia. Western Mongolia is Oirat and Oirats are not that far away from Kazakhs. The Kalmyks are ethnic Oirats and are at a distant of "only" @16.

The Kazakhs weren't an urban sedentary culture, so they were basically roaming the large swaths of the steppe before we settled and built cities in that region. Transoxania is a different story.
Yes, Kalmyks are closer to Kazakhs, they are around 80% mong "only". They look like they're 100% though.

[Mingle]

The Kazakhs weren't an urban sedentary culture, so they were basically roaming the large swaths of the steppe before we settled and built cities in that region. Transoxania is a different story.

Yes, but my point was that the Kazakh nomads in the north would have been significantly different genetically. Even though they weren't a settled population, they likely mixed with genetically different people and didn't wander that far away from their territory. What happened to them? Did they die, assimilate, or did they migrate south?

Yes, Kalmyks are closer to Kazakhs, they are around 80% mong "only". They look like they're 100% though.

The Kalmyks are descended from the Oirats of Northwestern Xinjiang by the way and are survivors of the Dzungar Genocide. The ones in Mongolia may be even closer to Kazakhs considering geography. Also, the Kazakh here is likely from Aktobe or Astana since those are the biggest cities in Kazakhstan. Kazakhs from the east are likely not as distant to Oirats, especially Mongolia Oirats.

[Leto]

Yes, but my point was that the Kazakh nomads in the north would have been significantly different genetically. Even though they weren't settled there, they likely mixed with genetically different people and didn't wander that far away from their territory. What happened to them? Did they die, assimilate, or did they migrate south?

No idea, honestly.

The Kalmyks are descended from the Oirats of Northwestern Xinjiang by the way and are survivors of the Dzungar Genocide. The ones in Mongolia may be even closer to Kazakhs considering geography. Also, the Kazakh here is likely from Aktobe or Astana since those are the biggest cities in Kazakhstan. Kazakhs from the east are likely not as distant to Oirats, especially Mongolia Oirats.

Well, I think Kazakhs are largely homogeneous by virtue of their nomadic lifestyle. The results I've seen so far were not so different from each other. I've also seen a few Kyrgyz, some were close to 70% mongoloid. The Kazakhs were between 55 and 65% or so.

[Mingle]

Well, I think Kazakhs are largely homogeneous by virtue of their nomadic lifestyle. The results I've seen so far were not so different from each other. I've also seen a few Kyrgyz, some were close to 70% mongoloid. The Kazakhs were between 55 and 65% or so.

True. He's semi-close to Siberian Turks (Hakas, Shor) so northerners likely wouldn't have been much different.

[Zanzibar]

No idea, honestly.

Well, I think Kazakhs are largely homogeneous by virtue of their nomadic lifestyle. The results I've seen so far were not so different from each other. I've also seen a few Kyrgyz, some were close to 70% mongoloid. The Kazakhs were between 55 and 65% or so.

Thanks for the result! Agreed, most Kazakh results that I saw on Gedmatch were around 55 to 65% indeed. Most Kyrgyzs that I saw are closer to 65% and some are indeed close to 70% mongoloid.

Regarding Kalmyks, it is interesting to know that they are around 80% mongoloid. Btw, most Outer Mongolian results that I saw are close to 90% Mongoloid with a few being closer to 80% Mong but I don't know which part of Mongolia are these Mongol results from. The most Mongoloid genetically of Mongols that I saw were those from China who can be around 95 to almost 100% Mong but they seem genetically different and have a lot more Chinese like or Korean like admixture.

[Demon Revival]

Some Kazakh tribes are of Mongol origin. So I was expecting them to be closer.

It's interesting how Tatarstan is a whole other dimension when it's just a stone's throw away from Kazakhstan. It's likely that Northern Kazakhstan was a more even Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix before Russian migrants settled that area. If that area was still Kazak, it might have been less distant (although still very distant) to Tatars. Orenburg also used to be Kazakh in the past.

Also, another thing to keep in mind. The Mongols used here are likely Khalkha Mongols from Central Mongolia. Western Mongolia is Oirat and Oirats are not that far away from Kazakhs. The Kalmyks are ethnic Oirats and are at a distant of "only" @16.

It is less so when you include other intermediary groups like Bashkirs and Nogays (also Kypchak speaking).

And as explained, you can't just use these straight geographic patterns with nomads. Uzbeks and Uyghurs are far more eastern than Kazakhs yet they're still more West Eurasian genetically than them.

[Mingle]

It is less so when you include other intermediary groups like Bashkirs and Nogays (also Kypchak speaking).

Nogais would probably be closest to Oirats since their far origins are said to be from Inner Mongolia. And even though Kazakhs would be closer to Nogais, it wouldn't be that close. For example, they get @16 regarding the Oirats of Kalmykia which is definitely not close.

Bashkirs are probably not that different to Tatars, but yes, it would be wise to include them as they would be closer to Kazakhs than Tatars. However, the difference between Tatars and Kazakhs is @35! That's greater than the difference between me and Anatolian Turks and we are geographically much more distant to each other. So @35 is HUGE!

Kazakhs and Tatars also look very different on average.

And as explained, you can't just use these straight geographic patterns with nomads. Uzbeks and Uyghurs are far more eastern than Kazakhs yet they're still more West Eurasian genetically than them.

Uzbeks aren't really more eastern.

Both of those are south of Kazakhs and the south-north division is far more significant than the east-west one in Asia, though both are important.

[Demon Revival]

Nogais would probably be closest to Oirats since their far origins are said to be from Inner Mongolia. And even though Kazakhs would be closer to Nogais, it wouldn't be that close. For example, they get @16 regarding the Oirats of Kalmykia which is definitely not close.

Bashkirs are probably not that different to Tatars, but yes, it would be wise to include them as they would be closer to Kazakhs than Tatars. However, the difference between Tatars and Kazakhs is @35! That's greater than the difference between me and Anatolian Turks and we are geographically much more distant to each other. So @35 is HUGE!

Kazakhs and Tatars also look very different on average.



Uzbeks aren't really more eastern.

Both of those are south of Kazakhs and the south-north division is far more significant than the east-west one in Asia, though both are important.

These are Nogays, I do not think they look close to Oirats:

[Leto]

Thanks for the result! Agreed, most Kazakh results that I saw on Gedmatch were around 55 to 65% indeed. Most Kyrgyzs that I saw are closer to 65% and some are indeed close to 70% mongoloid.

Regarding Kalmyks, it is interesting to know that they are around 80% mongoloid. Btw, most Outer Mongolian results that I saw are close to 90% Mongoloid with a few being closer to 80% Mong but I don't know which part of Mongolia are these Mongol results from. The most Mongoloid genetically of Mongols that I saw were those from China who can be around 95 to almost 100% Mong but they seem genetically different and have a lot more Chinese like or Korean like admixture.

Agreed 100%.

Let's add his MDLP World results:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 31.5
2 North_Asian 24.42
3 North_and_East_European 13.93
4 Caucaus_Parsia 12.13
5 South_and_West_European 8.21
6 Indian 3.72
7 Arctic_Amerind 2.89
8 Middle_East 2.11
9 Mesoamerican 1.1

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Kazakh 4.6
2 Karakalpak 6.39
3 Kyrgyz 8.11
4 Altaic 12.34
5 Uygur 13.04
6 Nivhi 14.12
7 Hakas 14.37
8 Shor 16.6
9 Hazara 16.66
10 Kalmyk 18.29
11 Mongol 19.77
12 Uzbek 20.04
13 Buryat 22.32
14 Bashkir 22.64
15 Tuva 25.35
16 Tatar_Lithuania 27.92
17 Turkmen 32.3
18 Nogai 33.55
19 Oroqen 34.69
20 Mongola 34.75