Comments by "Luis Aldamiz" (@LuisAldamiz) on "Scythian DNA: What was the Genetic Makeup of the Horse Lords of the Eurasian Steppe?" video.

Not really. The Huns were surely the same as the first Turkics to adventure into the Central and Western steppe (Western Eurasian steppe) and did so c. 90 CE after they were soundly defeated by China. A few centuries later they had recovered and threatened Europe and India, with the last remnants of the Scythians, the Alans, being one of the many populations they pushed against Rome in dread.
6
@mr.purple1779 - Then they're not Xiongnu. How do you even "know" that? Ref. paper please. If they were Scythians they were not Turkic by definition. Pazyrk culture was typically West Eurasian (archetypally Indoeuropean in everything genetic and cultural) and distinct from modern Altai Turkics or any other Turkic population in the region.
4
@mr.purple1779 - Nope. The Scythians are not at the origin of the Xiongnu, unless you mean very tangentially via the spread of horse riding to the East. The Scythians or steppe Iranics were conquered and absorbed by the Xiongnu/Huns/Turkics after these were expelled from the Eastern steppe by China.
3
@mr.purple1779 - That's arguable but I find Y-DNA samples very interesting because I'm seeing it in a wider context of other research such as the one[1] about how previously Y-DNA pool did not change in Central Asia in the Bronze and most of the Iron ages but mtDNA pool did change in the Iron Age (both in the Central and the Eastern steppes, bidirectional flow of women but not men, only a little bit in the contact region). I also have in mind modern Altaian Y-DNA pool which is dominated by R1a and Q1. At first, long ago, I thought that Altaian Q1 was residue of the eastward migration of Paleolithic proto-Amerinds but with your info and also the homogeneous R1a pool of Afanasevo culture, it rather suggests that it's actually Turkic/Hunnic (male biased) backflow from "Mongolia". By contrast you're looking only at autosomal DNA and this one is almost invariably much more closely correlated with mtDNA than Y-DNA. _____________ [1] Mercedes González Ruiz et al., 'Tracing the Origin of the East-West Population Admixture in the Altai Region (Central Asia)'. PLoS ONE, 2012. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048904]
3
@mr.purple1779 - What are you talking about now: the Pazyrk culture's genetics? I didn't look at any map because I went cursorily on the matter to what Wikipedia says, which is quite extensive and includes a chart of autosomal DNA, which clearly shows that it is Uralic-like and specifically Nganassan-like (North Central Siberia modernly but maybe more widespread in the past). There's a related issue you may not know that is how West Siberia (taiga area, not the steppe, which remained strictly Indoeuropean AFAIK) went from Uralic to some sort of Altaic (probably Tungusic) in the Bronze Age (Seima-Turbino culture, which arose near Mongolia, maybe bc of Western influence, called Odinovo culture in West Siberia) and then back again to Uralic-like all the way into the local version of Andronovo culture (early Indo-Aryans surely, Indo-Aryan language branch has particularly strong Uralic influence BTW). Later towards the Scythian period they became more European-like instead. So, in short, the shift was Uralic > Tungusic > Uralic (culturally associated to Indo-Aryans) > Scythian (European genetics) > Uralic again (modern Ugrics). This was an mtDNA only study: V.I. Molodin et al., "Human migrations in the southern region of the West Siberian Plain during the Bronze Age: Archaeological, palaeogenetic and anthropological data". Part of a wider book published by De Gruyter (2013), which was back in the day freely available online. ANE is a ghost component: there was no real ANE population, closest would be Gravettian Siberians like Ma'lta boy. It's like representing modern populations of Europe with Paleolithic Europeans, not the Epipaleolithic WHG but with Gravettians and Aurignacians (of which we know the genetics but we don't use them because we have much better more recent samples). ANE tells us about a very ancient link between Europe (and other places) Siberia and Native Americans but it's not a good reference component.
3
@mr.purple1779 - Where am I saying that they differed from what is listed on Wikipedia (with reference to two studies)? It is you who are haphazardly claiming that rather by dismissing the relevance of "three samples" (each), even if they're coherent with the cultural data and (in the case of late Uralized Scythians also with autosomal DNA). I'd certainly expect more diversity, especially among the commoners of common and hard to find burials, but (until more research arrives) this plausibly explains the overall changes in the populations or at least the elites. Y-DNA is important in Patriarchal contexts because it will be directly related to the culture and language, while mtDNA (and by extension autosomal DNA in many cases) rather reflects subordinated elements such as conquered substrate. You're assuming that the conquered Scythian women (and whatever men survived in subservience, who clearly left a legacy of c. 50% R1a, which may be from Afanesevo culture even, the rest being mostly East Asian, incl. Q1 and C2) were the leading core of Turkic Altaians (ancient or modern) but that's impossible first of all because there was a language shift (from Indoeuropean to Turkic) and such changes happen only by conquest and elite domination (or by conquest and population replacement). I just can't buy that, sorry.
2
@mr.purple1779 - TY for the references. I'll need some time to read both papers even cursorily (when I was more active I liked to dig deep into supp. materials, which often had much more info and sometimes even contradicted the core paper, I don't do that much anymore, subjective time shortens as you grow old and there's so many things to do). I'll try to get back to you after I read them, cheers.
2
I had a thought but was deleted by YT censorship. It was about how the genetic flow between East and Central steppe was strictly female-mediated before the Turkic/Hunnic expansion. It came with an academic reference that I don't dare to repost here for fear of being censored again.
2
@mr.purple1779 - Buan Koba culture (Wikipedia): "A genetic study published in Nature in 2015 examined the remains of three Bulan-Koba samples,[10] the three Y-DNA samples extracted belonged to Q1a-M25/YP844 (samples RISE600 and RISE601[11] from Verkh-Uimon site dated to 350-450 CE) and J2a-PH358 (sample RISE602[12] from Sary-Bel site dated to 200 BCE to 100 CE) and three mtDNA belonged to K2a5, M8a1 and C4+152.[13] the autosomal composition of the Bulan-Koba samples resemble preceding Iron age Eastern Scythians (50% RUS_Sintashta_MLBA, 40% RUS_Baikal_EBA, 10% BMAC) with few gene flow from Xiongnu and Slab Grave". Notice that Q1, is NE Asian (and Native American) since Neolithic times (or surely older) and that it's strongly correlated to earliest Xiongnu/Huns in the Mongolia-North China area. On Pazyrk culture people: "Two closely related males from the Pazyryk culture were found to belong to the East Eurasian paternal haplogroup N.[17][18] Another Pazyryk specimen was found to belong to the West Eurasian paternal haplogroup R1a-Z93.[19]" These are different patrilineal populations: they show Uralization from the Taiga (Y-DNA N, Nganasan-like very strong component) and not Turkification from the Eastern Steppe (Y-DNA Q1). I'm focusing on Y-DNA because that's a clear hint of ethnic identity in a patriarchal context.
1
@mr.purple1779 - Don't you understand the relevance of the Y-DNA? I have no idea who you are, probably random novice who has frequented some forums and got the wrong advice.I have a decade behind of being a global reference blogger on these matters under the nickname Maju (ask around or visit my old blog "For what they were we are"), I do understand the matter even in shallow inspection, I've trained for decades. I can be wrong but I'm not any ignoramus, please stop treating me like that. Now pay attention because you're missing my point altogether: the two articles provide different data in terms on Y-DNA and that seems very important to explain the transition: 1. It seems that Eastern Scythians in the Altai region were rather strongly admixed with Uralics of Nganassan affinity, that is apparent in both their Y-DNA N and mtDNA C (both absolutely typical Uralic and totally unrelated to Altaics) and also the autosomal DNA. Considering all that it is even possible that they spoke an Uralic language and were not true Scythians (i.e. Indoeuropeans, Iranic speakers) but that we will never know for sure. 2. Later, when the Hunnic expansion happened, this local population (which for some weird reason you equate to "Western Huns") seem to have been Turkified only on the paternal side (reflects strongly on the Y-DNA but not on the mtDNA or autosomal parts). You say that this is "continuity", I say that this is conquest and male replacement (but not female). I will add that this does not say much about the overall Western Turkics (whose Y-DNA is much more typically in the O3 and C2 haplogroups) but it is very informative for the Northern Turkic branch producing the Shaka and such, the only ones that are rich in Q1 (other than Altaians).
1
@MAKDavid-1 - I had no idea there was a Magyar tribe in Kazakhstan, much less that it was genetically "identical" to modenr Hungarians, whose genetics are anything but Uralic at all (something between Germanics and Slavs rather, there's no trace of Magyars in the genetics of Hungarians for some reason or another: zero!, even less than the traces of Turkic in Anatolian Turks). I don't know which language the ancient Scythians or their Uralic allegiances spoke anyhow: that's not something that genetics or material culture will tell you with any certainty. Cheers.
1
@lineage13 - They were not "genetically East Asian". The Uralic or EHG substrate of Khvalynsk-Yamna was only slightly East Asian (lots of admixture with European natives happened before) and it was even more diluted by the Caucasus-Zagros Neolithic migrants northwards. They were essentially Europeans (of Eastern type). Learn before you issue opinion.
1
@lineage13 - I know well, and, unlike you, I know that EHG = WHG + Uralic (or if you prefer "Ancient Siberian") admixture. This is apparent not just in the East Asian autosomal affinity of EHG but also in lots of ancient mtDNA in the are carrying lots of C, an East Asian haplogroup that is signature of Uralic expansion (even if today less common, still present). These people were characteristically patrilocal and to this day retain lots of their Oriental Y-DNA N1. Linguistically it's also very apparent that Uralic languages influenced both proto-Indoeuropean initially (to the point of some talking of Indo-Uralic as a single family, which is IMO excessive) and later proto-Indo-Iranian (in the same broad area of the West-Central Steppe prior to their invasion of Southern Asia).
1
@lineage13 - ANE is a ghost bc it corresponds to Gravettian of Central Siberia, probably admixture of proto-Amerind and European Gravettian peoples. We don't use such old and blurry references in European genetic reconstructions anymore because they are just too old to mean anything significant, all it says is that there's some sort of "old Siberianness" involved. This Mal'ta boy (which is the ANE reference) was surely transitional between the proto-Amerinds (early UP) and the Uralics (late UP and Epipaleolithic) in the region.
1
@lineage13 - No.
1
@lineage13 - Fair enough re. "Tianyuan". That's an interesting bit. It doesn't make EHG dominated by East Asian genetics (I knew that already) but confirms that they are to a lesser degree East Asian (I know that already too but didn't know the fine detail). 12% is similar or maybe a bit larger than modern Finns from Finland, what underlines the amazing continuity (broadly speaking) of Uralics in NE Europe, it's the type of genetic "residual" ancestry that does not normally shows up in any obvious way in the phenotype but may occasionally resurface in this or that detail. To me the partial epicanthic fold in West Eurasians, most common in North and East Europe but much rarer in the Mediterranean, is basically Uralic legacy mediated by Indoeuropean conquests.
1
@lineage13 - EHG are not Asian except in some lesser degree.
1
@lineage13 - Never heard of that anti-Finnish sentiment before.
1
@Casualphilosopher-db9gy - An ancient Hunnic sample did indeed have mostly Q1, which was and is not that rare in NE Asia (several Neolithic North Chinese populations also had it for example, Altaians are rich on it and so are Siberian Turkics and Yeniseian peoples (Kets). It is also of course the almost only Amerind and Chutko-Inuit patrilineage. Now, does this patrilineage truly represent all Huns (early Turkics IMO) or only one subgroup?, one whose descendants or close relatives migrated northwards to Altai and Yakutia and is less well represented in more southernly Turkics such as Kazakhs, who anyhow also have NE Asian patrilineages, notably O3 and C2? More research would be desirable. What is clear to me is that we can't just dig and sequence one or even a few biased sites and reach to over-arching conclusions based on their DNA. Only when many different sites from different locations and chronologies exist we can really begin to truly understand ancient genetical landscapes. Meanwhile extrapolating from modern descendants is also necessary.
1