tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post43754998059125480..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Video: Do genes make you fat?Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-3814259708800092402018-10-31T23:35:35.210+01:002018-10-31T23:35:35.210+01:00You are welcome, Mem.You are welcome, Mem.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-57031605442418987302018-10-31T23:32:11.788+01:002018-10-31T23:32:11.788+01:00Thanks and good works. Thanks and good works. Memhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71582515501717944832018-10-31T18:45:06.441+01:002018-10-31T18:45:06.441+01:00Well, the only reliable Y-DNA study for Turkish ge...Well, the only reliable Y-DNA study for Turkish genetics or genetics of Turkey is the Cinnioglu et al. study for now, but, like you point out, it is not ethnically focused. <br /><br />We cannot rely on the Y-DNA percentage charts of FTDNA projects, such as the one posted in the link you gave, because FTDNA projects are only open to FTDNA customers, so their members are not chosen using the representative sampling criteria of the academic studies. Besides, the specific FTDNA project you refer to is the Oghuz DNA project, many ethnic Turks from Turkey who do not have an obviously Oghuz/Turcoman Y-DNA from Central Asia do not join that project because of its name and Oghuz focus.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-77125841872957488522018-10-30T18:45:09.269+01:002018-10-30T18:45:09.269+01:00Dear Onur
Do you have Y-DNA data from the Turks?H...Dear Onur<br /><br />Do you have Y-DNA data from the Turks?How many samples does it contain? if you have any data, can you send me Y DNA SNPs?<br /><br />I know two Y-DNA data.The study,in which one cinnioglu took a sample from 500 people,however,is not very acceptable because it has been a sample of non-Turkish people, not only ethnic Turks but also Kurds, Armenians and ottoman era immigrants, and it has been 15 years since the study.<br /><br />The other work is the turkishdna group.Last updated in July this year and only data from ethnic Turks has been received.But for now,it only have 120 samples.<br /><br />http://www.haplogruplar.com/turkiye-turklerinde-y-dna-haplogruplarinin-dagilimi/Memhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-29796779005671630932018-10-30T18:12:56.464+01:002018-10-30T18:12:56.464+01:00OK, I stand corrected in those two issues.OK, I stand corrected in those two issues.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89729769332631865622018-10-30T08:37:27.228+01:002018-10-30T08:37:27.228+01:00@Maju
You can of course elaborate about what hapl...@Maju<br /><br /><i>You can of course elaborate about what haplogroups did the Seljuk Turks actually carry, and some have suggested that they carried a lot of L for example and that most of L in West Asia might be attributable to Turkic migrations but that is obviously a lineage they picked up "on the march", i.e. a lineage dominant in some assimilated population not in root-Turkics.</i><br /><br />In Turkey Y-DNA haplogroup L is most concentrated in a part of Turkey that entirely lacks Turkic admixture (northeastern Anatolia) and the L subclade found in the studied Afshar village of central Anatolia was later found to belong to the northeastern Anatolian subclade thus most probably associated with native Anatolian migrants from northeastern Anatolia rather than the Turkic migration to Anatolia.<br /><br /><i>3. Then they form a series of states: Gökturk Khaganate, the Bulgarias, Cumans, Pechenegs, Khazars, etc., all then in or near the West-Central steppe.</i><br /><br />Göktürks were always centered in the East steppe (in what is now Mongolia and environs), they gave more importance to the eastern parts of their realms. Many other historical Turkic states were also centered in the East steppe (e.g., Xiongnu if its leading tribes were Turkic, Uyghur Khaganate, Kyrgyz Khaganate). It is only sometime after the dissolution of the Kyrgyz Khaganate what is now Mongolia and environs became mostly Mongolic-speaking rather than mostly Turkic-speaking. Also, in Turkic mythology and culture east is regarded the most favorably and sacred among all the directions (north is regarded the worst probably because of its evocation of the freezing cold of Siberia). Lastly, Turkic migrations were historically usually from the east to the west, that is because Turkic peoples were originally concentrated in the east and the migrations were usually triggered when one group lost the dominance in a region to another group thus leading to the migration of a part of the defeated group to a less favorable region (usually the west, but sometimes the north as in the cases of Yakuts and Volga Bulgars).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-77800031960888388712018-10-30T08:34:56.594+01:002018-10-30T08:34:56.594+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-56443462214313535872018-10-08T18:01:35.731+02:002018-10-08T18:01:35.731+02:00So any study that claims >0.7% East Asian or ro...So any study that claims >0.7% East Asian or root-Turkic in Anatolia should raise eyebrows. <br /><br />The reconstructed history of the Turkics is as follows:<br /><br />1. They originally lived in or near what is now Mongolia, East of the Altai Mts. We see no genetic permeability before the Iron Age in Central Asia and only some bidirectional mtDNA flow in the Iron Age BCE. <br /><br />2. The Xiongnu/Huns/root-Turkic expanded very vigorously Westwards since the 2nd century BCE, their best known effect was the Hunnic invasion of Europe, which was quite important in the collapse of the Roman Empire, in triggering the late migrations of Germanic peoples (and even the last Scythians: the Alans, who ended up in Spain and Tunisia) and almost certainly favored the Slavic expansion under their shadow (as vassals or allies). <br /><br />3. Then they form a series of states: Gökturk Khaganate, the Bulgarias, Cumans, Pechenegs, Khazars, etc., all then in or near the West-Central steppe. <br /><br />4. Only very late in the history of the Turkic expansion they conquer large parts of West Asia, as Seljuk Turks, which should be a very diluted bunch. The core of their conquest was Greater Persia, incl. Iran, Syria, etc., with Azerbaijan and Anatolia being only peripheral in this conquest. <br /><br />5. Finally the played a subservient role within the Mongol Empire and derived states, as well, as a leading one in the Ottoman Empire (of course). <br /><br />Do we basically agree with this "narrative" of the Turkic expansion? Or am I missing something important?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-42117583128653268932018-10-08T17:45:30.738+02:002018-10-08T17:45:30.738+02:00After trying to dive a bit into your nuances, Ebiz...After trying to dive a bit into your nuances, Ebizur, I decided not worth the effort: anything O or anything C2 would serve as potential Turkic marker, as neither of those lineages has been found in West Eurasia before the Iron Age AFAIK. <br /><br />It seems like Cinnioglu 2004 is still the only relevant study on Turkey's Y-DNA genetics, and all that there in this category is 1.3% C (subclade unspecified). That's the upper limit for root-Turkic immigration (male side) to Anatolia: 1.3%. It just cannot be greater because all other haplogroups are West Eurasia. <br /><br />You can of course elaborate about what haplogroups did the Seljuk Turks actually carry, and some have suggested that they carried a lot of L for example and that most of L in West Asia might be attributable to Turkic migrations but that is obviously a lineage they picked up "on the march", i.e. a lineage dominant in some assimilated population not in root-Turkics. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48845603069531304472018-10-08T17:15:54.590+02:002018-10-08T17:15:54.590+02:00What I require for "signature of Turkic immig...What I require for "signature of Turkic immigration at detectable levels" is some Y-DNA lineages that come from East Asia and can't be attributed to the much older Uralic migration (for example N1 would not work, because it's been around the Black Sea since the Epipaleolithic or Neolithic). All R is West Eurasian, regardless of whether it is Indoeuropean or something else, hence can't be related to Turkic unless you mean "West Eurasian populations assimilated" by Turkic conquests/migrations. I'll try to look at further details now.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-25477461097891391222018-10-08T15:41:03.841+02:002018-10-08T15:41:03.841+02:00Nearly all members of C-M217 among Turkic speakers...Nearly all members of C-M217 among Turkic speakers belong to one of four subclades:<br /><br />C-M504/M401/F1918: TMRCA 8,000 [95% CI 6,200 <-> 10,000] ybp (This clade is extremely common among Hazaras, the tribes of the Senior Juz of Kazakhs, and the Kerey tribe of Kazakhs. It is also common among Mongols, especially Khalkhs, and it may also be the most common subclade of C-M217 among Kyrgyz. Despite its apparently ancient TMRCA, it appears to be comprised of at least two distinct subclades, one being found especially among Turko-Mongols, including Kalmyks, Uyghurs, Buryats, Tatars, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Hazaras, and another being found among Mongolo-Tunguses, including the Qing Manchus, Daurs, Xibes, Oroqens, <i>etc.</i> The Turko-Mongol subclade is roughly equivalent to the so-called "Genghis Khan star cluster" plus a few outliers, and its TMRCA is estimated to be 2,500 [95% CI 1,900 <-> 3,200] ybp.)<br /><br />C-M86: TMRCA 3,800 [95% CI 3,100 <-> 4,600] ybp (This clade is extremely common among the Tungus proper <i>i.e.</i> Evenks and closely related tribes, as well as among the Oirat <i>i.e.</i> western Mongolic speakers and the Alshyn/Junior Juz <i>i.e.</i> western Kazakhs. It is slightly more closely related to C-B90, which has been found among indigenous peoples in the extreme northeast of Siberia, than it is related to other subclades of C-L1373.)<br /><br />C-448del/F1756: TMRCA 5,300 [95% CI 4,400 <-> 6,400] ybp (This clade is generally uncommon but widespread among present-day speakers of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages. In Kazakhstan, it seems to be found most notably among the Tore, "an aristocratic privileged class in the traditional Kazakh society, which is considered as the descendants of Genghis Khan, and therefore they are not a part of the tribal structure of the Kazakh zhuzes." One fairly old branch of this clade has been found in the Czech Republic and Poland, and another has been found in Shandong. Specimens from Bronze Age strata of some archaeological sites in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria also have been found to belong to this haplogroup, dating back at least as far as the first half of the first millennium BCE. The population of the Jinggouzi site in southeastern Inner Mongolia has been associated by some with the Donghu people mentioned in Chinese historical texts. The C-F1756 clade is slightly more closely related to North American C-P39 than either of them is related to other subclades of C-L1373.)<br /><br />C-M407: TMRCA 4,100 [95% CI 3,200 <-> 4,900] ybp (Unlike the other subclades of C-M217 found among modern Turkic speakers, C-M407 belongs to the C-F1067 subclade common among Chinese and Koreans rather than to the C-L1373 subclade common among eastern nomads and indigenous Siberians and Americans. C-M407 is very common among indigenous people living in southwestern Buryatia, near the southern end of Lake Baikal, and among the Qongyrat tribe of Kazakhs. It is also common among the Dörwöd subgroup of the Kalmyks, but less so among their other subgroups. Rather large percentages of a few samples of Han Chinese from Shandong and Gansu, which are located at the eastern and western edges of northern China, respectively, have also belonged to C-M407.)<br /><br />The idea of linking Turkic languages with O-M122 seems very farfetched.<br /><br />Linking Turkic with C-M217 is less absurd, but it still faces a similar problem as that faced by the hypothesis that subclades of both R-M17 and R-M269 have been spread by proto-Indo-Europeans. Namely, although most extant Turkic-speaking populations contain at least some members of C-M217 (however small a fraction of the total population they may comprise), they do not all contain members of the same subclade, and even the more closely related subclades of C-M217 among those that are found in Turkic-speaking populations share a MRCA who lived in the era of the first human settlement of the American continent.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71777900393099289782018-10-08T15:40:14.506+02:002018-10-08T15:40:14.506+02:00C-F1067, on the other hand, appears most likely to...C-F1067, on the other hand, appears most likely to have originated near the shores of the East China Sea (including <i>e.g.</i> the Yellow Sea, Korea Bay, and Bohai), with all or nearly all its extant members probably being descendants of agriculturalists who have thrived in eastern China and Korea. Some members of this clade in Japan are of recorded foreign ancestry; <i>e.g.</i> a certain Mr. Imamura who belongs to haplogroup C-Z31667 is allegedly (according to the paternal ancestor name reported by this user at FTDNA) a descendant of a certain ceramic artist who relocated to Hirado from Ungcheon ("Bear Stream" in Sino-Korean, with the Chinese characters also read as <i>Komogai</i> or <i>Komogae</i> in Japan, following a now obsolete native Korean reading of the same characters: <i>cf.</i> Modern Korean <i>gōm</i> "a bear" and Modern Korean <i>gae-ul</i> "a small stream, a brook," <i>gae-cheon</i> "a ditch, a drainage canal; a small stream, a brook," <i>gae-golchang</i> "a ditch, a drain, a gutter, a sewer; [in dialects spoken near the southern end of the Korean Peninsula] a small stream, a brook," also dialectal or obsolete <i>gae</i> "an estuary, an inlet, a creek") when the Japanese withdrew from southern Korea after their failed attempt to conquer the Kingdom of Joseon in the final decade of the 16th century CE. Ungcheon was at one time one of three ports in Joseon where accommodations for foreigners (Japanese) had been established and international trade with Japanese could legally be conducted. Invading Japanese warriors constructed a large fortress in the Ungcheon area; the stone foundation walls of this fortress remain in fairly good condition today, though no buildings remain. Tangentially, it appears that a disproportionately large number of at least the non-academic samples from Japan on YFull and on FTDNA projects allege themselves to be of Korean or Chinese ancestry, and therefore may not represent authentic Japanese people. I suppose that this may be an unintentional result of greater interest in genetic genealogy among people whose pedigrees indicate foreign ancestry, but it is something that third-person observers should keep in mind. (Besides the ones who have publicly indicated a Korean or Chinese ancestor, there may be an indeterminable number of others who are also in fact of known Korean or Chinese ancestry and yet have not made any indication of such ancestry.)<br />Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67375674346661735942018-10-08T15:38:41.155+02:002018-10-08T15:38:41.155+02:00Maju wrote,
"Turkic ancestry in Turkey is de...Maju wrote,<br /><br />"Turkic ancestry in Turkey is demonstrated with O3 and C2 (that's the new name of old C3, right?) Y-DNA"<br /><br />The former O3-M122 is the current O2-M122. This haplogroup does not exhibit any signs of having been originally Turkic. It is found with non-negligible frequency and diversity among a few Turkic peoples (<i>e.g.</i> Uyghurs in the Hotan area of SW Xinjiang: 26/478 = 5.44% O-M117, 15/478 = 3.14% O-M134(xM117), 15/478 = 3.14% O-P164(xM134), 3/478 = 0.63% O-JST002611, 1/478 = 0.21% O-KL1(xJST002611), 60/478 = 12.55% O-M122 total Uyghur/Hotan area according to Lu Yan 2011). However, a great deal of this appears to be a result of recent or historical gene flow from Chinese and Tibetans.<br /><br />A subclade of O-CTS2643 looks like it has experienced a founder effect among the Naiman Kazakhs, most of whom inhabit eastern Kazakhstan, the Ili region of northern Xinjiang, southern Altai, or western Mongolia. Branches of O-F430 basal to O-CTS2643 are represented on YFull by individuals from Beijing, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Fujian, Sichuan, and Ho Chi Minh City, and O-CTS2643 itself is also well-represented in China, with members also found in Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. It appears that this clade is most likely Chinese in origin, and some Chinese man may have been very genetically successful among the ancestors of the Naimans.<br /><br />It also appears that a branch of O-N6 (O-P164(xM134)), a subclade of O-M122 known for its high frequency among Polynesians and some other Austronesian populations, has experienced a founder effect in some steppe nomad population that has contributed to several modern Turkic-speaking groups (<i>e.g.</i> Uyghurs, Volga Tatars), though this founder effect is of minor magnitude compared to the O-CTS2643 founder effect among the Naimans. The branch that is concerned here is a typically Chinese and Korean one, not an Austronesian one; its TMRCA with the typically Austronesian subclade of O-N6 is estimated to be 13,300 [95% CI 12,100 <-> 14,600] ybp, so they only share a common ancestor around the end of the Palaeolithic era, probably somewhere in what is now eastern China, and it does not by any means indicate any sort of exotic, mysterious relationship between Turks and Polynesians. DA45, a specimen from Mongolia (radiocarbon 14C date: 2083 +- 27 BP uncal, population label: XiongNu according to Damgaard <i>et al.</i> 2018), also belongs to this branch according to YFull.<br /><br />Members of several branches of O-F18 (TMRCA 12,500 [95% CI 11,200 <-> 13,800] ybp according to YFull), which is another typically Chinese clade and the major subclade of O-JST002611, also have been found among Turkic speakers (<i>e.g.</i> Azeris), but it does not seem to be any more concentrated among them than among their neighbors who speak other languages (<i>e.g.</i> Armenian, Persian, Brahui). Chinese/Hui merchants might be the most plausible ancestors for these individuals, or perhaps even patrilineally Chinese men working for the Mongols.<br /><br />Likewise, the former C3-M217 is the current C2-M217. Within this clade, there is a very ancient division between C-L1373 and C-F1067, comparable to the division between Q-M242 and R-M207 within P-M45.<br /><br />C-L1373 contains a great deal of basal diversity, but each of its many extant subclades contains rather little diversity, which suggests that it may have expanded rapidly over a wide territory and then lived under conditions unfavorable to population growth ever since its initial rapid expansion. That initial expansion seems to have been roughly contemporaneous with initial human settlement in the Americas, most likely between 15,000 and 16,000 ybp.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10006753753442230862018-10-05T15:05:55.766+02:002018-10-05T15:05:55.766+02:00@Ebizur
You seem to be very interested in Turkic...@Ebizur <br /><br />You seem to be very interested in Turkic peoples.Your comment was really up to date and full of information. I'm giving you links in case you're interested.I'd appreciate it if you wrote your comment after reading all of it.I like to answer if you have questions.<br /><br />http://archive.is/Kt533<br /><br />http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-origins-of-bulgaro-turkic-languages.html?m=1<br /><br />http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-lexicostatistics-and_7.html?m=1<br /><br />http://chuvashlar.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-internal-classification-migration.html?m=1<br />Memhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13478714212238863602018-10-05T11:35:40.808+02:002018-10-05T11:35:40.808+02:00Thank you, Mem: they don't look anything "...Thank you, Mem: they don't look anything "Turkic" to me in the Y-DNA at all. As for the mtDNA, there are a few instances (I think it's five, not many) of lineages that can be attributed to Altaic female-biased flow. Doesn't look like it could justify the autosomal DNA results but I'm not really willing to dive into the supp. materials in order to, once again, straighten a wrong without any economic compensation for my work. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31377212054747018272018-10-05T11:28:06.573+02:002018-10-05T11:28:06.573+02:00To all: the question is not if there were Turkics ...To all: the question is not if there were Turkics with Western genetics before the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, the question is that they still carried both sets of lineages and yet in Anatolia the Eastern set does not exist... at all. It's HOMEOPATIC DILUTION LEVEL, just as with Magyars in Hungary: homeopaty does not get proven but its ethno-linguistic equivalent, elite domination, does, very clearly so.<br /><br />Anyhow, if you think about it, it makes total sense: Anatolia was always a very densely populated region, one of the centers of the Ancient World and not some backwater semidesert like Kazakhstan. You just can't pump enough nomads from Central Asia to make any major dent, much less after going through filter after filter (Uzbekistan, Persia), just as you can't draw enough Bedouins from Arabia either. In order to settle a region or country, the source population must be larger than the conquered population, for example England vs Australian Aboriginals, Germany vs the Lakota, things like that. And it helps if migration is sustained century after century and not just a single conqueror burst. This is almost beyon history, demographics and genetics: it's basic thermodynamics, if the pressures are balanced, gases (people are collectively like gases or fluids) do not move from one recipient to the other, much less if the flow only has a very limited time to happen. <br /><br />Turkic ancestry in Turkey is demonstrated with O3 and C2 (that's the new name of old C3, right?) Y-DNA, exactly as Corded Ware/Unetice influence in Western Europe (much more intense) is directly measurable by apportioning R1a relative to East Germany, the Czech Republic or Poland. Sure, most of the actual immigration (Celts, Germanics, Italics) happened from West Germany or Italy, but it still it gives a ratio above those buffers or intermediate dilution zones, then you can recalculate but what you can't say is that R1a is not a measure of Indoeuropeanness in Western Europe or that O3+C2 is not a measure of Altaicness, etc. In terms genetic, more so when it was the men who made the migration primarily, that is it. <br /><br />With autosomal DNA you can make all sorts of errors and cheats instead, notably when you tinker the sample sizes (intently or accidentally, the result is the same: errors and biases) or, worse, when you use "zombie" components as if they'd be real populations, what is becoming a true scandal, totally abusive. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34925602212941002172018-10-05T11:06:01.790+02:002018-10-05T11:06:01.790+02:00@Mem: sorry, my bad about the nature of the links....@Mem: sorry, my bad about the nature of the links. In any case, I still renounce to head to read half a dozen of links when you are not even quoting an enticing excerpt (for each of them preferably). Don't you understand I do not have energies anymore? I just don't: information overload! It's not that my mind broke, my curiosity or enthusiasm, my desire to discuss things over and over, my "spirit" did. I need calm, rest, quietness, relaxation, not more endless links and debates. It may just be because of the fall of testorone levels for males at my age, it may be because of whatever. What matters is that I don't want to end up every day engaged on an anthro discussion or a dozen. Because I get truly exhausted emotionally. <br /><br />So quit all this Maju, Maju, Maju. I'm retiring as soon as I can publish the Puerto Rico - Guanche connection paper. This blog is too stressing for old age. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22980501198622595472018-10-04T17:59:31.901+02:002018-10-04T17:59:31.901+02:00Maju, there is no evidence that speakers of proto-...Maju, there is no evidence that speakers of proto-Turkic belonged in part or in their entirety to Y-DNA haplogroup O-M122 or C-M217.<br /><br />You should be aware that historical linguistics reveals a great deal of contact between speakers of Turkic and Mongolic both prior to or contemporaneous with the MRCA of each family (<i>i.e.</i> prior to or contemporaneous with the proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolic stages) and afterwards.<br /><br />You might also consider the onomastics of Kazakh and Mongol tribes, which overlap to a great extent. It is not easy to determine which tribe was (at least in name) originally Turk and which tribe was originally Mongol. Kereit, Naiman, Qongirat, Jalair, Dughlat... No one can declare confidently whether any one of these peoples was originally Turkic, originally Mongolic, or neither. Tribes or clans bearing these names still exist among present-day speakers of Turkic and Mongolic languages. According to Ashirbekov <i>et al.</i> (2017), most modern Kereis, Dulats, and Jalayirs in Kazakhstan belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M401 (which includes the former so-called "Genghis Khan star cluster"). Most modern Qongyrats in Kazakhstan belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M407, which otherwise has been found with high frequency in Buryats around the southern end of Lake Baikal (and in some neighboring populations, such as Soyots and Khamnigans). C-M407 belongs to C-F1067, the relatively southern half of C-M217 whose members have been found mainly in China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, <i>etc.</i>, and its relationship to C-M401 is very remote, roughly comparable to the distance between Q-M242 and R-M207. The Naimans in Kazakhstan mainly belong to a subclade of O-F444 (O-M134(xM117)) that is clearly recently (like perhaps historically -- Li Ling?) derived from an ancestor from China. Many relatively geographically isolated, linguistically and culturally divergent Turkic groups (Chuvash, Yakut, Khakas, Shor, Loplik, Keriyalik) contain nearly zero members of C-M217, O-M122, or both.<br /><br />It is difficult to discern the haplogroups to which members of the proto-Turkic linguistic community may have belonged, but that does not mean that you have <i>carte blanche</i> to presume that every proto-Turk belonged to C-M217 or O-M122.<br />Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34729207313583425312018-10-04T17:55:58.744+02:002018-10-04T17:55:58.744+02:00@Mem
Modern Turkmens and Uzbeks of Central Asia ...@Mem <br /><br />Modern Turkmens and Uzbeks of Central Asia should not be used as representative of the genetics of the Oghuz/Turcomans coming to Anatolia 1000-800 years ago from what is now Kazakhstan because modern Turkmens and Uzbeks themselves are products of the admixture of Turkic peoples coming from what is now Kazakhstan with the Iranic natives of what are now Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and environs during the last 1000 years. It is best to wait for ancient DNA results of Oghuz/Turcoman skeletons from about 1000 years ago.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-16029296401810468112018-10-04T14:40:00.505+02:002018-10-04T14:40:00.505+02:00https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/1...https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/scythian-cimmerian-sarmatian-y-dna-mtdna.png<br /><br />There is ydna,mtdna results.Sorry for my rudness again,picture was in Carlos blog,not in article,my badMemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-91748289051432436692018-10-04T14:33:29.484+02:002018-10-04T14:33:29.484+02:00Maju
first of all,I'm sorry, I didn't me...Maju <br /><br />first of all,I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude when I said read carefully.In the meantime, I did not throw antrogenica link and I can read comment in apricity without becoming a member, the last two of the links just blog links.Memhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38892709955397642312018-10-04T14:25:59.708+02:002018-10-04T14:25:59.708+02:00http://www.haplogruplar.com/on-turklerde-antik-y-d...http://www.haplogruplar.com/on-turklerde-antik-y-dna-ornekleri/<br /><br />The results of the Hazar,xiugnu and göktürks,as you can see, there are quite a number of western Eurasian specimens at that time.<br /><br />http://www.haplogruplar.com/turklerde-otozomal-dna/<br /><br />Autosomal DNA results of turkic peoples.<br /><br />http://www.genelturktarihi.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/?MA<br /><br />The results of the Y DNA of some of the Turkic peoples,even the kazakhs that you think are the purest, are quite complex.<br /><br />Memhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18187296722668110917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-5606111555242561832018-10-04T14:21:15.925+02:002018-10-04T14:21:15.925+02:00"Read carefully" is a phrase that should..."Read carefully" is a phrase that should be declared illegal. Cite carefully is what I demand instead. I just don't see them in a rapid overview and I do not have patience anymore. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-84773330802790275222018-10-04T14:19:14.095+02:002018-10-04T14:19:14.095+02:00Be aware that anthrogenica's cookies make it a...Be aware that anthrogenica's cookies make it a semi-hidden forum. Members can access freely but nonmembers will not unless they repeatedly delete the cookies. This is silly on their part but that's how they work and a reason not to care about that forum.<br /><br />Also, I'm not reading all that. I don't feel like, if you want to underline something be specific, please. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35013018184470648602018-10-04T14:14:01.171+02:002018-10-04T14:14:01.171+02:00In Sicily Y-DNA J (all sublineages) adds up to 25%...In Sicily Y-DNA J (all sublineages) adds up to 25%, with emphasis in J2a (16%) rather than the most common in Europe J2b.<br /><br />In overall Italy my "other West Asian" Y-DNA category reaches 26%, with greatest concentration in the Center-South (Tuscany somewhat lower), which scores well above 30% (also NE oddly enough scores c. 30%). Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com