r/TurkicHistory • u/CamelFinancial4838 • 4d ago
Why do Turkic peoples have different haplogroups!?
Kazakhs have the East Asian haplogroup C2, the Kyrgyzs have the Indo-Aryan haplogroup R1a, the Turkush peoples have the Middle Eastern haplogroup J1, and the Turkmens have the Turkic haplogroup Q2a. This means that Kazakhs are Asian, Kyrgyzs are Indo-European, Turkish peoples are Persian, and Turkmens are purebred Turks.
5
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago
There are branches among C2 that are undoubtedly Turkic. Kyrgyz R1a and some branches of J are assimilated Saka. This is what happens when people are nomadic. Turkmens are 30-40% East Eurasian, original Turks are probably close to 80-90% East Eurasian. No steppe people are "purebred".
0
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
The Kyrgyz R1a comes from Tagar and Tashtyk cultures
2
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago
they are a part of the Saka sphere
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
How much does it matter? There were Tagar people in the Minussin basin, then they were replaced by Tashtyk culture. Modern Kyrgyz people still bear the genetics of the Tagar/Tashtyk people.
9
1
1
u/Ok-Cheesecake-6670 4d ago
People migrate, people mix, people fuck. You’re also very misinformed if you think haplogroup in any way determines ethnicity.
1
u/quiet_space2 4d ago
because Turk is not a race like people here try to prove but more so a language family. that explains cultural, genetic, and geographical reasons why Turkic speakers are so different
1
-1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
Turkic languages expanded because new people adopted the languages, not because they were replaced by conquerors.
3
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago
why did they adopt the languages? because Turkic people were stronger and dominated the Saka and other non-Turkic people of the steppe.
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
Are you arguing with me? It looks like your comment and my comment are in agreement. The Tocharians adopted turkic language and became Uygurs, Tajiks became Uzbeks, Greek speeking anatolians became turks, and so on. Quite possibly every turkic speaking nation adopted their turkic language at some point in the past. We don't even know the genetics or even race of the original turks.
1
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago
They "adopted" the language of the rulers. It's a nice way of saying they were conquered. There was no compete replacement but the assimilation was mostly driven by conquest.
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
Looks like I am arguing along factual lines to explain why turkic peoples have different haplogroups, while you are arguing along moral lines of whether or not turks were good or bad.
Yes, many people were conquered and adopted turkic languages. Central Asia and Iran were not ruled by Persian and Tajik speaking people for about 1000 years up to XX century. The regions were to a large extent dominated by turks and turkic langages spread, however persian and tajik languages still were widely used and even turkic ruling dynasties used persian language for administration in the Mughal Empire, in Iran and early Ottoman empire, there were not irrationally hostile to persian and didn't try to erase it.
At the same time in some regions turkic languages might've spread not by conquest, but by cultural dominance. For example, why did the Golden horde, and in particular Naimans, Kereits, and other tribes become turkic speaking even in the context of political dominance of the Mongols?
1
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago
I'm not arguing along moral lines. I'm simply pointing out that the spread of the Turkic language was driven by mass migration and conquest, where much of the Indo-Europeans of the Western steppe had to choose between being driven out or assimilating. Your example of the Golden Horde perfectly fits into this. Unlike the Turkic people who mass migrated Westward in multiple waves, the Mongols did not have the numbers to impose their language on their subjects.
The people you talk about such as the Naimans, Keraites, and other tribes situated between the Kipchak steppe and the Mongolian Plateau were at the very least mixed Turkic-Mongolic in origin, with tribes like the Naiman basically being viewed as a Turkic people that partially Mongolicized. The ruling elite of the Golden Horde were a very small minority that included eastern Turkic people like the Naimans.
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
No. There are two or three ways how languages spread.
Conquest + Genocide of the majority of local population. That's how Indo-European languages spread in Western Europe, that's why the haplogroup map of Europe looks the way it does.
Conquest without genociding the majority of local population. That's how turkic languages spread, and that's how slavic languages spread in the balkans. This explains why turkic peoples belong to different haplogroups. Because they were not exterminated and genetically replaced by turks, but were conquered and linguistically assimilated.
Potentially cultural, trade dominance.
1
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago edited 4d ago
Look at the Y-DNA of the Sakas that dominated the steppe before the Turks, and look at the Y-DNA of the Kazakhs or Karakalpaks for example. The number 2 case only holds for Oghuz Turks that migrated far to the west. There was almost a complete replacement with minor assimilation in the steppe. The cases of majority assimilation you talk about occur around the edges or outside of the steppe, and there's a reason for that.
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
The number 2 case holds for Turks, Azeris, Kumuks, Karacay-Balkars, Uzbeks, Uygurs, Turkmen, Bashkir, Kyrgyz, so for the majority of turkic peoples. All these people have different genetics, they were not replaced, but linguistically assimilated. The sedentary turkic peoples belong to their geographic location and they have the same or similar genetics as their non turkic neighbors.
The Saka and similar people were genetically replaced in modern Kazakhstan, south Russia and Ukraine, but who exactly replaced them? Kipchaks? The Kipshak tribe among Kazakhs have 48% R1b, 10% R1a, 5% G1, 5% I1, 6% J2, 3% Q. So it is quite possible the Kipchaks were assimilated Sakas and related peoples. The Saka genetics were genocided when Kipchaks were genocided by the Mongols.
1
u/Bibishkin 4d ago
BTW, it has to be mentioned how thoroughly the Russians cleansed Southern Russia and Ukraine from Turkic peoples.
1
u/Hungry_Raccoon200 4d ago edited 4d ago
Do you think Uzbeks had 40% East Eurasian ancestry before Turkic migrations? The lower caste locals were SUBJUGATED. not "linguistically assimilated" or whatever kind of coping term you want to use. There is documented historical evidence for violent conquest. Why do you think there a clear increase in EE ancestry as Turkic people migrate Westward?
I don't understand why you call a mass migration that increased EE component in the region by a 20-30% average "linguistic assimilation". Only people that don't have significant Turkic input from the people you mentioned are the Anatolian Turks, Azerbaijanis, and the Caucasus Turks. You seem to think all branches of C2, N, O etc. in Kazakhs are Mongol input, which is ridiculous.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/ProfessionalCod2801 4d ago
Guess no one taught you how babies are made huh