Are Kazakhs indeed Turkified Mongols?

[Yaglakar]

The Kyrgyz cubclades of ra1 are identical to the Hunnic paleo R1a subclades from the same region.

main Kyrgyz r1a subclade is r-Z2125, pashtuns have a similar subclade but based on markers origins are different and several thousand years apart. Kyrgyz one is apparently Altaian, several Altains share common markers with the Kyrgyz who tested themselves. A branch of Yenisey Kirghiz must have expanded to Altai and northern Kazakhstan (post 850), mixed with Kimek-Qipchaqs, then migrated to what is today Kyrgyzstan with the Mongol conquests. Do we have Hunnic markers? Because talking about haplogroups and subclades is useless.

[Qamari]

Yes, the majority of them are turkified Mongols. According to the y-dna composition of Kazakhs, they carry the same set of y-dna haplogroups as Mongols (C2b*, C-M86, C-M401, C-M407, D1a etc.). In the image above, in case the names are not understood, they are Mongols, Kyrgyz, Afghan Tajiks/Uzbeks/Turkmens/Hazara/Pashtuns, Pakistani, Iranians and Kazakhs, respectively. The mongolic starcluster is C-M401 (and its father sucblace C-M504) and it is observed that it is present in 13% of Kyrgyz, 4% of Uzbeks, 1.4% of Turkmens, 33.3% of Hazara, 7% of Pakistani men and approximately 15% of Kazakhs.

Even if other y-dna C had a different history at their beginning, like Oirat C-m86, forest Mongolic/Buryat C-m407, when they moved into Kazakhstan they were obviously already mongolic-speaking by then. Although the y-dna composition seems to be a conglomeration of different haplogroups, it is often clear-cut when we dive into specific Kazakh tribes. Therefore, Argyns are mainly y-dna G1 (G-L1323), Naimans are mainly y-dna O2, Qongirat are C-M407, Kipchaks are R-M73/Q-M25 (still hasn't been resolved which of the two), Shanyshkyly are C-F4002 (subclade of M401), Uysyns are also C-F4002, Tore are C-F1756, Alimuly are C-F992. Alshyn are C-M48 and so on. You can read more here in this Kazakhstani research by Sabitov and Jabagin. The turkic element comes from Kipchaks and some other tribes in Northeastern Kazakhstan who are y-dna Q. The mongolic element is more prevalent in the south and west of the country, where we find the Senior zhuz and the Junior Zhuz and tribes like Jalair and Uysyns with mongolic origin. Orta zhuz (Middle Zhuz) are mostly the earlier inhabitans of Kazakhstan (e.g. Argyns) or later allies of the Mongols (Naimans, Kipchaks).

Regarding C-M407, it is a subclade of C-CTS2657, which is prevalent in Koreans. Mongolic tribes which have a high frequency of C-M407 (Qongirat, Buryat) usually have ethnonyms which are reminiscent of old Korean ones like Qoguryeo, Buyeo. So the coalescence of C-M407 must have happened at a very early stage inside a mongolic speaking environment. These tribes are also characteristic of being semi-farming and semi-nomadic, unlike full scale nomadic mongolic tribes. C-M86, a subclade of C-M48, is higher among Oirats in western Mongolia, Oirat-origin tribes in Kazakhstan and Kalmyks (30%, with only 10% C-M401), who are Oirat-speaking.

An anecdote about this, regarding the Dzhunghar genocide, is that Mongols are angry against Manchu for that decision against an ally nation. But it is now known that the ruling class of Manchu, Aisin Gioro, is y-dna C-M401, coming from the Daur (descendants of para-mongolic Khitan people, also high in C-M401) and Dzhunghars (essentially Oirats) in western Mongolia/Xinjiang Uyghur are C-M86, the main Manchu y-dna haplogroup (taking into account the tungusic origins of Manchu). So it is maybe Mongols that should apologize to Manchu for that genocide.

Finally, an excerpt from wikipedia states that:
According to a large-scale Kazakhstani study published in 2017, Kazakh males belong to Y-DNA haplogroups C2-M217 (658/1294 = 50.85%, including 322/1294 = 24.88% C-M401, 225/1294 = 17.39% C-M86, 80/1294 = 6.18% C-M407, and 31/1294 = 2.40% C-M217(xM401, M48, M407)), R-M207 (157/1294 = 12.13%, including 78/1294 = 6.03% R1a-M198, 41/1294 = 3.17% R1b-M478, 21/1294 = 1.62% R1b-M269, 13/1294 = 1.00% R2-M124 (predicted), and 4/1294 = 0.31% R-M207(xM198, M478, M269, M124)), O-M175 (140/1294 = 10.82%, including 122/1294 = 9.43% O-M134, 9/1294 = 0.70% O-M122(xM134), and 9/1294 = 0.70% O-M175(xM122)), J-M304 (106/1294 = 8.19%, including 53/1294 = 4.10% J2a-M410 (predicted), 50/1294 = 3.86% J1-M267 (predicted), and 3/1294 = 0.23% J-M304(xJ1, J2a)), N-M231 (69/1294 = 5.33%, including 49/1294 = 3.79% N-M46, 16/1294 = 1.24% N-P43, and 4/1294 = 0.31% N-M231(xP43, M46)), G-M201 (64/1294 = 4.95%, including 44/1294 = 3.40% G1-M285, 18/1294 = 1.39% G2-P287, and 2/1294 = 0.15% G-M201(xM285, P287)), Q-M242 (41/1294 = 3.17%), E-M35 (23/1294 = 1.78%), I-M170 (20/1294 = 1.55%, including 11/1294 = 0.85% I2a-L460 (predicted), 5/1294 = 0.39% I1-M253 (predicted), and 4/1294 = 0.31% I2b-L415 (predicted)), D-M174 (6/1294 = 0.46%), L-M20 (4/1294 = 0.31% (predicted)), H (3/1294 = 0.23% (predicted)), T (2/1294 = 0.15% (predicted)), and K* (1/1294 = 0.08%).[54] However, the distribution was inhomogeneous for some Y-DNA haplogroups: Q-M242 was found predominantly among members of the Qangly tribe (27/40 = 67.50%), C-M407 was found predominantly among members of the Qongyrat tribe (64/95 = 67.37%), O-M134 was found predominantly among members of the Naiman tribe (102/155 = 65.81%), N-M46 was found predominantly among members of the Syrgeli tribe (21/32 = 65.63%), J1-M267 (predicted) was found predominantly among members of the Ysty tribe (36/57 = 63.16%), G1-M285 was found predominantly among members of the Argyn tribe (26/50 = 52.00%), R1b-M478 was found predominantly among members of the Qypshaq tribe (12/29 = 41.38%), and R1a-M198 was found with notable frequency among members of the Suan (13/41 = 31.71%) and Oshaqty (8/29 = 27.59%) tribes and among members of the Qoja caste of Islamic scholars and gentlemen (6/30 = 20.00%), although C-M401 was more common than R1a-M198 among members of the Suan and Oshaqty tribes (25/41 = 60.98% and 11/29 = 37.93%, respectively). Because of this lack of homogeneity among Kazakhs in regard to Y-chromosome DNA, the real percentage of present-day Kazakhs who belong to each Y-DNA haplogroup may differ from the percentages found in this study depending on the proportion of each tribe in the total population of Kazakhs.

The linguistic turkification might have happened in one of the following three ways:
1. The region of Kazakhstan had already been turkified by previous turkic-speaking ruling dynasties, like the Gokturk khaganate, so Mongols had to learn turkic to communicate with their subjects.
2. The linguistic conversion happened in a military environment, before the onset of the expedition, voluntarily, or under a Kipchak leadership. It has to be taken into account that vast areas in Central Asia carry mongolic-specific (either Tungusic, or Korean etc.) haplogroups, so it is unlikely they would independently involve into turkic-speaking simultaenously after their seperation.
3. According to a theory that suggests that Kazakhstan was turkified by a later wave from Kipchaks from Kyrgyzstan who are high in C-F1756, a haplogroup which has a slightly different history from C-M504.

Very interesting, thank you !

[mutabor]

@Mutabor

You have to understand that,to defend the proximity of one language family to another language family, you must look at the structure of the proto language of that language family.

For example,Sanskrit contains a large amount of retroflex sounds.This feature is shared with Dravidian language family and burusashki.According to your logic,because Sanskrit is similar to Dravidian languages,the PIE must be related to the Dravidian language family.
But it has nothing to do.Retroflex sounds have passed through Sanskrit from native Indian languages and the PIE language neither contains retroflex nor is close to Dravidian languages.

But Dravidian populations participated in formation of Sanskrit language even though it was originally from different peoples. Hence original sound shifted towards sound of assimilated language. A lot of languages are hybrids. Uzbek is a mixture of Turkic and Persian hence sound shift towards Persian pronunciation.

Turkic language was created by different tribes who merged together. Judging from DNA analysis and sound of surrounding peoples proto-Turkic was formed by merging of Siberian and Manchurian-Mongolian components. Siberian component is influenced by ANE populations including linguistic influence.

I'm not saying that proto-Turkic = paleo-Siberian. I say that I hear influences from paleo-Siberian languages. Grammar could be of Tungusic origin but sound shift could be attributed to paleo-Siberian tribes.

[Yaglakar]

Are the modern Kyrgyz closely related to the Yenisei ones? How much Mongolian blood do they have?

Well at least they carried the ethnonym to what is today Kyrgyzstan. The rest is unclear, the migrations patterns i mean due to absence of documented sources. But how much they are related is debatable. Their language is classified as Qipchaq, but they have certain Altaian features, remnants if you will. I am not a fan of Turkic language classifications anyway, they are too forced by linguists. Traditional economy of Yenisey Kirghiz is also different from Kyrgyz, or rather their immediate nomadic ancestors. Yenisey Kirghiz possessed a mixed economy - agro-pastoral. Minusinsk is not your traditional steppe zone if you know what i mean, perhaps this is one of the primary reason for limited Mongolid proto-Turkic penetration and more Europoid features.

But ethnonyms and forms of self-identification including tribal designations seem to have changed easily throughout history of the eastern steppe. There were the Türks a separate people, but then for some reason by 10th century all Turkics began to identify as Türks with little or no connection to the actual clan or people. The migration patterns of Oghuz are also unclear and how they appeared in Aral-Caspian zone and why they identified themselves as such when the majority of Oghuz/Toquz Oghuz remained in Mongolia struggling with the Türks.

[mutabor]

Tungusic, Mongolic peoples and Turkic Kazakhs are haplogroup C. Altaic linguistic family.

Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are R1a. Slavic linguistic family.

If Kazakhs are turkified Mongols, then thinking in the same manner Russians are russified Poles or Ukrainians. Ukrainians are polified Russians etc. LOOOOOL.

Since haplogroup C was expanding from Tungusic populations Mongols are mongolified Tungusic people.

Mongols themselves are not a pure reference population but a mix of Siberian and Tungus-Mongolian peoples.

[Freeroostah]

Not really. They are only about 60% Mongoloid and have a lot of Scythian/Aryan admixture. Mongolians are 80-90% Mongoloid.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...iww/edit#gid=0

The only people who have pred. Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

[Mingle]

Tungusic, Mongolic peoples and Turkic Kazakhs are haplogroup C. Altaic linguistic family.

Poles, Ukrainians and Russians are R1a. Slavic linguistic family.

If Kazakhs are turkified Mongols, then thinking in the same manner Russians are russified Poles or Ukrainians. Ukrainians are polified Russians etc. LOOOOOL.

Since haplogroup C was expanding from Tungusic populations Mongols are mongolified Tungusic people.

Mongols themselves are not a pure reference population but a mix of Siberian and Tungus-Mongolian peoples.

But Ukrainians (and Belorussians) are of Russian origin though. If they weren't conquered by the PLC, then they'd be calling themselves Russians today. They're only not considered Russia cause of historical circumstances. Calling Ukrainians "Polonized Russians" is more true than false.

This doesn't mean that Kazakhs are Mongols though. They may just share a common ancient origin. There's a decent argument presented by a Mongol user earlier in this thread that you should rebuke. I personally don't have any opinion on the subject yet.

[Mingle]

The only people who have Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

Them looking Asian is irrelevant. They score a very significant amount of West Eurasian on all calculators. Much of that may be Scythian.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

The only people who have pred. Scythian ancestry in Kazakhstan are the Russians. Kazakhs as an ethnic group are very Asian looking therefore Mongols and Kipchak Turks

Yes in phenotypes, but genetically they arent pure mongoloids

[mutabor]

Them looking Asian is irrelevant. They score a very significant amount of West Eurasian on all calculators. Much of that may be Scythian.

If a West Eurasian component influenced a proto-Turkic language it has to be R1b ( but not R1a) because the only component which is missing in East Eurasian languages is Umlaut vowel system ( present in Germanic and French languages) which is very important in Turkic language.

Which again returns us to Q haplogroup influence because Q and R1b are related. Maybe Bashkirs with their high R1b % are a link to that influence.