|
|
Post by ryukyurhymer on Jun 16, 2008 9:15:50 GMT 3
I was reading this journal hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/PNAS_2001_v98_p10244.pdfabout chromosome diversity in Central Asia and surrounding regions. what was shocking and interesting is how they placed the Kyrgyz. The Karakalpaks, Uzbeks, and most of the central asian turkic groups are usually grouped close together. Kazakhs and Mongols close together (who are close to the other central asians). Azeris and Turkish are close together. but the Kyrgyz are grouped quite far, interestingly, and are in a group with the Ukrainians and certain type of Tajik! At least physically looking, the Kyrgyz look the same, or similar to the Kazakhs and Karakalpaks. Yet genetically they seem to be quite far. is something off?  |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 16, 2008 11:14:24 GMT 3
?!?!?!?!
Ok - that makes no sense, whoever did that research needs to research again. Tajikistan is Iranic yes? Ukrainians are very mixed - Slavic/Iranic/Mongol/Turkic/maybe Hellenic? Ne ways so is this research trying to say Kyrgyz is Iranic like Tajikistan? Cause they're nothing like Iranics. Strange
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2008 18:01:07 GMT 3
Yea it's bullnuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jun 16, 2008 20:49:16 GMT 3
Yeah, Knowing how the glorious Iranics of steppe looked like and the languages they spoke, the Kyrgyz certainly couldn't be part of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 17, 2008 3:23:44 GMT 3
The Qyrghyz are one of the most "Turkic" Turkic people of CA. The research must have been done from genetic examples collected from the local peoples/tribes who joined the Qyrghyz after their migration to the region.
Oh and btw, glorious Iranics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jun 18, 2008 0:15:42 GMT 3
Yeah, the nomad Iranics of the steppe I mean. Sakas and their successors
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 18, 2008 18:38:25 GMT 3
what do you mean with "glorious"?  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 19, 2008 0:37:40 GMT 3
what do you mean with "glorious"? Yes, this is what I asked |
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jun 24, 2008 10:39:55 GMT 3
We tend to call them glorious Iranics. c'mon like you guys do for yours |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 24, 2008 13:35:15 GMT 3
I personally don't do that |
|
|
|
Post by birinchi on Feb 12, 2010 7:06:06 GMT 3
Kyrgyz have 63% r1a1 as well as Altais have 50 - 55% r1a1, see the connection... But the gene differs from ukrainian or polish r1a1, I don't know the exact details, as it has to do something with mutations and etc.
Genetic examples were mostly collected from the "purest" Naryn region, which is almost entirely homogenous kyrgyz and surrounded by the chains of mountains...
PS Huns also had r1a1, therefore the gene is not totally allogenic to turkics
|
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 12, 2010 18:11:46 GMT 3
What exactly is the problem?
Turkic is not "gene" it's about the language and culture.
Scythians lived in Altai that is the source of R1A1. Besides, Huns were heavily mixed with Sarmatians So, it's totally normal that they had R1A1 as well.
|
|
