PDA

View Full Version : Comparison of 700s AD Kimek Khanate(?) genome w Ancient Steppics and modern Turkics



Ryukendo
03-09-2017, 08:16 AM
Basmaci has alerted me to a genome that was unearthed from Kytmanovo village in Russia North of Altai carbon dated to 720s to 840s AD, which neatly overlaps with the time and place of the Kimek Khanate, comprised of Kipchaks and Cumans, who had left the collapsing Gokturk Khanate into Central Asia just a few decades prior. Since we now have such a wide selection of ancient genomes, we can compare this against the rest to gain a picture of the genetic changes that took place over time, as well as the gene pool that likely lay behind the Turkic expansion. We can also test the findings of Yunsubaev et al

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

who found that the signal of shared haplotypes for Turkics peaks around Altai populations like Tuvinians, Altaians and Buryats.

Aggregating all the steppic genomes:

14423

Kyrgyz and Altaian were the Turkic populations provided in the Allentoft data, and, sourcing all the same sets of populations from the Scythian paper, we see that the ancient Turkic genome is very similar to Altaian and Kyrgyz, providing strong support for the results of Yusnubaev et al. This is prior to the Mongolic invasions, so the autosome of the Proto-Turkics was probably quite Eastern even before the later periods of gene flow.

The closest genomes we have in time to this sample are Altai_IA, which were cotemporary with Xiongnu but were too far west to fall into the Xiongnu Khanate or to represent their genome, and the Paryzyks, who resemble the Altai_IA very strongly and indeed come from virtually the same place and time in the 5-3rd Century BC. These genomes are quite different from the Turkic Khanate genome and modern-day Turks, and look broadly "Scythian", which they most likely are, judging from historical sources.

Gravetto-Danubian informs us that we are getting more genomes from the historical steppes, and we will see how genomes from the historical core of the Gokturk Khanate turns out in relation to this one.'

chenmatthew0428
03-09-2017, 09:03 AM
Basmaci has alerted me to a genome that was unearthed from Kytmanovo village in Russia North of Altai carbon dated to 720s to 840s AD, which neatly overlaps with the time and place of the Kimek Khanate, comprised of Kipchaks and Cumans, who had left the collapsing Gokturk Khanate into Central Asia just a few decades prior. Since we now have such a wide selection of ancient genomes, we can compare this against the rest to gain a picture of the genetic changes that took place over time, as well as the gene pool that likely lay behind the Turkic expansion. We can also test the findings of Yunsubaev et al


http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

who found that the signal of shared haplotypes for Turkics peaks around Altai populations like Tuvinians, Altaians and Buryats.

Aggregating all the steppic genomes:

14423

Kyrgyz and Altaian were the Turkic populations provided in the Allentoft data, and, sourcing all the same sets of populations from the Scythian paper, we see that the ancient Turkic genome is very similar to Altaian and Kyrgyz, providing strong support for the results of Yusnubaev et al.

The closest genomes we have in time to this sample are Altai_IA, which were cotemporary with Xiongnu but were too far west to fall into the Xiongnu Khanate or to represent their genome, and the Paryzyks, who resemble the Altai_IA very strongly and indeed come from virtually the same place and time in the 5-3rd Century BC. These genomes are quite different from the Turkic Khanate genome and modern-day Turks, and look broadly "Scythian", which they most likely are, judging from historical sources.

Gravetto-Danubian informs us that we are getting more genomes from the historical steppes, and we will see how genomes from the historical core of the Gokturk Khanate turns out in relation to this one.'

Thank for the post! Can you post some turkic people 23andme results on here? Thanks!

evon
03-09-2017, 10:30 AM
Why use Mongola and not Mongolian or Buryat? Mongola have more east Asian ancestry than Mongolians and they live in modern day China.

Ryukendo
03-09-2017, 10:40 AM
They were not included in the Allentoft et al paper.

Kristiina
03-09-2017, 02:28 PM
Ryukendo, the discourse must go on! :)

So, now we have this Kytmanovo genome that is dated c. 800 AD. Kytmanovo is located in South Siberia close to Novosibirsk:

14425

You presume that this genome represents Kipchaks and Cumans who left Gokturk Khanate and established the Kimek Khanate in Kazahstan:

14426

I agree that the Kytmanovo genome is very similar to modern Kyrgyz and Altaians, although Kytmanovo is outside of the area of Kimek Khanate. However, Kipchaks and Cumans left their original area and we do not know to what extent they were copies of modern Kyrgyz and Altaians and we still do not know the area of origin of pre-proto-Turkic and their autosomal makeup.

If Iranian speaking Tajiks are related to Iranians in Altai, we should also compare the autosomal makeup of Tajiks with that of Iron Age Altai and Eastern Scythians.

14429

All interested parties should read this article: Edwin G. Pulleyblank, The peoples of the steppe frontier in early chinese sources
“I proposed there to identify [Turks] in the first place, with a group of three peoples, Dingling, Gekun or Jiankun, and Xinli, located to the north in Southern Siberia that were conquered by Modun after he had subdued the Eastern Hu and the Yuezhi on his eastern and western flanks. There is a thread of historical continuity linking the Dingling of Han times with the Tiele of the fifth and sixth centuries out of whom the Uighurs eventually emerge and I have recently discussed linguistic evidence that shows that they were Turkish speaking when they were known to the Northern Wei dynasty as the High Carts lying on the western flank of the Rouran. The Gekun/ Jiankun have long been identified with the Kirghiz.”

“Unfortunately, the original linguistic affinities of the Yuezhi-Tocharoi are not easy to determine. My own view (Pulleyblank 1966; 1995) is that they, as well as the nomadic Wusun farther west, who became allies of Western Han against the Xiongnu, and the Kangju who established themselves first at Tashkend on the Syr Darya and later moved south to conquer Sogdiana almost certainly spoke Indo-European languages of the Tocharian type. Direct linguistic evidence for this, or any other, identification of the Yuezhi language is admittedly slight.”

J Man
03-16-2017, 02:25 AM
Basmaci has alerted me to a genome that was unearthed from Kytmanovo village in Russia North of Altai carbon dated to 720s to 840s AD, which neatly overlaps with the time and place of the Kimek Khanate, comprised of Kipchaks and Cumans, who had left the collapsing Gokturk Khanate into Central Asia just a few decades prior. Since we now have such a wide selection of ancient genomes, we can compare this against the rest to gain a picture of the genetic changes that took place over time, as well as the gene pool that likely lay behind the Turkic expansion. We can also test the findings of Yunsubaev et al

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

who found that the signal of shared haplotypes for Turkics peaks around Altai populations like Tuvinians, Altaians and Buryats.

Aggregating all the steppic genomes:

14423

Kyrgyz and Altaian were the Turkic populations provided in the Allentoft data, and, sourcing all the same sets of populations from the Scythian paper, we see that the ancient Turkic genome is very similar to Altaian and Kyrgyz, providing strong support for the results of Yusnubaev et al. This is prior to the Mongolic invasions, so the autosome of the Proto-Turkics was probably quite Eastern even before the later periods of gene flow.

The closest genomes we have in time to this sample are Altai_IA, which were cotemporary with Xiongnu but were too far west to fall into the Xiongnu Khanate or to represent their genome, and the Paryzyks, who resemble the Altai_IA very strongly and indeed come from virtually the same place and time in the 5-3rd Century BC. These genomes are quite different from the Turkic Khanate genome and modern-day Turks, and look broadly "Scythian", which they most likely are, judging from historical sources.

Gravetto-Danubian informs us that we are getting more genomes from the historical steppes, and we will see how genomes from the historical core of the Gokturk Khanate turns out in relation to this one.'

This is interesting. This must be the Kytmanovo [RISE504] sample that belongs to Y-DNA haplogroup J2. There is also the earlier Sary-Bel [RISE602] sample that belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup J2a.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

lukaszM
08-06-2017, 10:44 AM
Thank for the post! Can you post some turkic people 23andme results on here? Thanks!
Following rise samples show Turkic admixture in different calculators:
RISE493 Sabinka 2, Russia M Q-L712 C4a1c 3214 years
RISE495 Arban 1, Russia M R-F3105 D4j1
RISE496 Arban 1, Russia F U5a1a2a 3070 years
RISE497 Arban 1, Russia F-P142 A2f2 ~2000 years
RISE502 Bystrovka, Russia F U5a1d 3140 years
RISE504 Kytmanovo, Russia M J-CTS3732 C4a1d 1208 years
RISE600 Verh-Uimon, Russia M Q-M25 K2a5
RISE601 Verh-Uimon, Russia M M8a1 ~2000 years
RISE602 Sary-Bel, Russia M J-M410 C4 ~2000 years

I have only this:
RISE493 - gedmatch Z317195

RISE600 - gedmatch T579804

Somebody have more?

Also Turkic influences genoems from "Ancestry, demography, and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe"

T265461 - Be9_I05622 Berel’, Kazakhstan Pazyryk 4th–3rd c, BCE
M362842 - Be11_I0563,Berel’, Kazakhstan Pazyryk 4th–3rd c, BCE
M837055 - A17_I0576, Arzhan, Russia AldyBel 7th–6th c, BCE
M446756 - A10_I0577, Arzhan, Russia AldyBel 7th–6th c, BCE
M456377 - Is2 Ismailovo, Russia Zevakino-Chilikta 9th–7th c, BCE
T866391 - Ze6 Zevakino, Russia Zevakino-Chilikta 9th–7th c, BCE