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

[Kaspias]

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

Not exactly. The article claims that Transeurasian ancestor was an Asian and Altaic derived from it. But how? In order for a language can develop and shape into another language, it must interact with another or must live isolated for thousands of years. I doubt Turkic was isolated considering they have got a massive living zone for a proto population. Then the explanation is probably the migration of Transeurasian speakers to the region from the South of Altai to the West of Baikal and transforming there by contact with the natives. We can observe the shift from Trans-Baikal to the Baikal N, and Baikal_N comes out as a half-half mix of Amur and Ust Ida. That's probably how Proto Altaic was born.



And these are the HGs found in the region during the Neolithic. Blue boxes are R1b, reds are Q, light-blue ones are C, purple ones are N. One can estimate where Turks have lived just by looking at, just reference the N and Q. But the more important thing here is that these R1bs are staying in their roaming zone, around Altais. Moreover, Altai_MLBA(Proto Turkic) samples seem to have a certain amount from this R1b admixture.



The one above is a Neolithic spreading map. Now compare it with the Bronze Age and note the migration of N's. Both red and green weird things are Q, green circles are R1a.



N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.

[zebruh]

Not exactly. The article claims that Transeurasian ancestor was an Asian and Altaic derived from it. But how? In order for a language can develop and shape into another language, it must interact with another or must live isolated for thousands of years. I doubt Turkic was isolated considering they have got a massive living zone for a proto population. Then the explanation is probably the migration of Transeurasian speakers to the region from the South of Altai to the West of Baikal and transforming there by contact with the natives. We can observe the shift from Trans-Baikal to the Baikal N, and Baikal_N comes out as a half-half mix of Amur and Ust Ida. That's probably how Proto Altaic was born.



And these are the HGs found in the region during the Neolithic. Blue boxes are R1b, reds are Q, light-blue ones are C, purple ones are N. One can estimate where Turks have lived just by looking at, just reference the N and Q. But the more important thing here is that these R1bs are staying in their roaming zone, around Altais. Moreover, Altai_MLBA(Proto Turkic) samples seem to have a certain amount from this R1b admixture.



The one above is a Neolithic spreading map. Now compare it with the Bronze Age and note the migration of N's. Both red and green weird things are Q, green circles are R1a.



N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.

What neolithic R1b samples are those?
Like specific kit names of the R1b ones?

[Hektor12]

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.

I wanted to approach with suspicion until Kaspias comment, since i dont have enough knowledge my self. As he said study is fair, theres no problem anymore bro.

But it is not surprising to change lifestyle from hunter to farmer but the opposite????

At first it was suprising also for me. But thinking deeper, i see possible scenarios.

>>> Farmers moved westwards, to an area which is extremely cold and unsuitable for farming. (Kaspias comments)
>>> Farmers came into contact with proto-Aryan nomadic pastoralists.
>>> How and why eastern language became lingua-franca? Perhaps relations with east was denser than to west and eastern language was more useful?
>>> There more important question, what religion farmers brough into area? Nomads came with shamism which was originated in modern Czechia and we see only this in Turkic people.

N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor.

R1, J, religion and lifestyle from west
Q, N and language from east

Melted around west of Baikal, this is best conclusion now, right?

[Dr_Maul]

N were migrated to the Westwards around Altai and the region surrounded by R1's (and a very small amount J, there was only a clade if I recall). That's prolly how the Turkic language should have evolved; Transeurasian speaker being full Asian doesn't mean the rest were assimilated until some point. Assimilation begins in Xiongnu, many of the J clades have origin from Iranics of the confederation for example. But R comes out as a founding member of Turkicness as the language developed following the interaction with them even though the language inherited from the Altaic ancestor. These are my conclusions, at least.

It doesn't make sense for the J to be assimilated Iranics. If anything, the R1 in Medieval Turkics are assimilated Iranics because 1/3 of them are under 30% Mongoloid (some basically 0%) whereas all the J2 samples are 45-75% Asian (except 1 which belongs to an unrelated clade of J2 to the others and is probably Sogdian, TSB001). Not to mention the Turkics J2a belong to clear cut clades and Y Match with Early Xiongnu J2a, whereas some of the R1s are clearly not related (DA126 despite being 45% Mongoloid belongs to Irano-Jewish clade of R1a CTS6). Not to mention the R1b Z2103 are matching with mf Armenians and Iranic iron age IRN_Hajj_Firuz_IA, albeit these samples are all under 20% Mongoloid to begin with. Only R1b M73 makes sense in this situation but I doubt Botai is Proto Turkic because that would make more Mongolians descended from it than any modern Turk population. R1b Ph155 is also a contender for the same reasons but again, extremely rare.

Assuming C/Q/N is proto that would make Proto Turks 100% Mongoloid population which doesn't make sense but I guess its somehow theoretically possible, and these clades are basically 0-10% in a lot of modern Turkics so I doubt.

Btw, the 1 J you are referring to in Altai MLBA is J1-P58, complete outlier when it comes to J in that region (J1a* and J2s)

[Roy]

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.

That progress-regress dichotomy in itself though is arguable as there are many advantages of leading a HG lifestyle. Plus, they could have still engaged themselves in trade and obtain farming products.

[Dunai]

That progress-regress dichotomy in itself though is arguable as there are many advantages of leading a HG lifestyle. Plus, they could have still engaged themselves in trade and obtain farming products.

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.

[Chelubey]

I see references to Russian Altaists under the article, who believe that they have proved the existence of not only the Altai family, but also the Nostratic one, which is 10-12 thousand years old. In both cases they use the same toolbox. Can anyone disprove this nostratic etymology? (There are hundreds of them). http://starlingdb.org/cgi-bin/etymol...coding=utf-rus
In fact, it is stupid to look for the ancestral home of the pra-Altaians if the ancestral home of the Proto-Japanese, Proto-Korean, Proto-Tungusic one and so on is not yet known.
This is how Russian Altaists describe the Proto-Altaian economy:

The core of the pra-Altaian economy, apparently, was seasonal grazing (cf. the presence of the term "cattle corral", which is absent in the PIE) - or a developed seasonal hunting with a corral component. There are names for cows, sheep, goats and pigs, but age and sex terminology is common to all livestock species. There is a word for horse and several terms associated with horse riding. The role of agriculture was less significant, although there are a number of names for cultivated cereals. The main tool was probably a kind of hoe (possibly also used for digging up wild root crops, which was later practiced by the Siberian peoples).

[Chelubey]

Can anyone tell when geneticists will finally start checking their findings against historical sources?? This is some kind of historical trolling:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1....466891v1.full
Finally, we modeled Turkmens as a mixture of Central Asia basal ancestry (represented by Yaghnobis) and East-Asian ancestry (we obtained a negative value for f3(TUR; TJY, DevilsCave_N); f3 = −0.0025, Z =-5.266). qpAdm modelling for Turkmens produces a single nonrejected model (p-value = 0.048007) implying 6% of Golden Horde Asian and 94% of Tajiks
What?Turkmens are Tajiks, turkized during the late Golden Horde (15th century)?

[Sterling Archer]

Some interesting criticism of this paper is presented here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...590169611.html
Will try to find others that I saw and add here.

[Chelubey]

It doesn't make sense for the J to be assimilated Iranics. If anything, the R1 in Medieval Turkics are assimilated Iranics because 1/3 of them are under 30% Mongoloid (some basically 0%) whereas all the J2 samples are 45-75% Asian (except 1 which belongs to an unrelated clade of J2 to the others and is probably Sogdian, TSB001). Not to mention the Turkics J2a belong to clear cut clades and Y Match with Early Xiongnu J2a, whereas some of the R1s are clearly not related (DA126 despite being 45% Mongoloid belongs to Irano-Jewish clade of R1a CTS6). Not to mention the R1b Z2103 are matching with mf Armenians and Iranic iron age IRN_Hajj_Firuz_IA, albeit these samples are all under 20% Mongoloid to begin with. Only R1b M73 makes sense in this situation but I doubt Botai is Proto Turkic because that would make more Mongolians descended from it than any modern Turk population. R1b Ph155 is also a contender for the same reasons but again, extremely rare.

Assuming C/Q/N is proto that would make Proto Turks 100% Mongoloid population which doesn't make sense but I guess its somehow theoretically possible, and these clades are basically 0-10% in a lot of modern Turkics so I doubt.

Btw, the 1 J you are referring to in Altai MLBA is J1-P58, complete outlier when it comes to J in that region (J1a* and J2s)

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.