Talk:Ancient Northeast Asian

"the study's erroneous title"

@Hunan201p:

• Claiming that the title of a 2023 academic study is "erroneous" [1] seems fairly presumptuous. Presumably the authors adopted their title "Ancient Genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate" [2] for a reason, and based on their intimate knowledge of the question. As Wikipedians, we can only follow our sources, and claiming that their "title is erroneous" is not something we should do. I assume they understand the Ashina tribe as the founders of the "Göktürk Khanate", so that for them "origin of the Ashina tribe" and "origin of the Göktürk" are synonymous. It seems fairly legit, we should respect that perspective, as we should generally respect our sources without distorting them.
• You also claim an "awkward spelling "khanate" for the Göktürk Khaganate" [3]... It is not a matter of spelling. As far as I know, the Göktürks at their beginning can be described as "Khanate" [4] as well as a "Khaganate" [5]. So I'm afraid there is no ground to reject the usage of our source ("Göktürk Khanate") as improper.
• I also see that our sources uses "Türkic Empire" and "Turkic Khanate" when mentionning the broader origins of Central Steppe Turks and Medieval Turks ("In contrast to Ashina, Central Steppe and early Medieval Türk exhibited a high but variable degree of West Eurasian ancestry, indicating there was a genetic substructure of the Türkic empire."). Here, they do not use the term "Göktürk Empire", probably as an attempt to define the larger and later Turkic realm, so we should respect that. I suspect the nuance is important, especially as they discuss "Central Steppe Turks" and "Medieval Turks", which indeed have nothing to do with the origin of the Göktürks. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please use common sense. The primary authors of this study are not native English speakers, and the study is published in a botany journal. It is clear that the authors refer to the Gokturk Khaganate from page 3 of the article, and their early medieval Turkic sample is from Jeong 2020, described as Türk (550-750 CE). Göktürkic tribes ... from 5 Türk sites in this study: Nomgonii Khundii (NOM), Shoroon Bumbagar (Türkic mausoleum; TUM), Zaan-Khoshuu (ZAA), Uliastai River Lower Terrace (ULI), and Umuumur uul (UGU).

Rather than "respecting these authors" you seem to be trying to take verbatim quotes from their poorly-written study without context, deliberately. No author with good English-proficiency and English-language historical knowledge of Turkic history would refer to the Turkic Khaganate as "Turkic Khanate", but we know from context that they're referring to the Gokturk Khaganate. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward Allen (Institute of Archaeological Science, Fudan University) co-authored the study, and this study is indeed properly written, so I don't think you can attribute the vocabulary they used to any kind of defective "not native" language. As to the "Medieval Turkic" sample in question, all the specimens are taken from the later-conquered territory of Mongolia ("an empire that ruled over Mongolia from 581-742 CE" [6]) and cover a period up to 750 CE, when the empire was already highly heterogenous, which is well after the formation of the initial Göktürk Khaganate (552 CE) and its expansion "across Eurasia beginning in 552 CE", and after the death of Empress Ashina (578 CE): therefore these "Medieval Turks" absolutely cannot be considered "at the origin" of the Göktürks, contrary to what you have written [7]. Nor can the "Central Steppe Turks" be, since they were so far to the West ("The geographically remote Central Steppe Türk (Kyrgyzstan_Turk and Kazakhstan_Turk)" [8]). So it is fairly obvious that the recontruction of the study is coherent and logical: first the origin of the Ashinas and the Göktürk Khanate/Khaganate is found almost exclusively among Ancient Northeast Asians (per the title "the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate"), then the "Turkic Empire" became more heterogenous as it expanded, as shown by the "Central Step Turk" and the "Medieval Turks" which display a higher proportion of Western Eurasians. The title of the study "Ancient Genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate" [9] should be taken literaly (no reason to claim that it is "erroneous"), as should be their description of the later and wider "Turkic Empire" (rather than "Göktürk Khaghanate") as heterogenous. Overall, there is no reason to distort the statements made by this source (and we should never distort a source anyway). If you have alternative sources with a different story, please do mention them for balance. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read Jeong, et al. (2020). They date the admixture between West and East Eurasian populations in their Göktürk sample to 500 AD, which is well before the birth of Princess Ashina.

The admixture dates estimated for the ancient Türkic and Uyghur individuals in this study correspond to ca. 500 CE: 8 ± 2 generations before the Türkic individuals and 12 ± 2 generations before the Uyghur individuals (represented by ZAA001 and Olon Dov individuals).

So it does't matter what time period the samples are dated to, the admixture clearly pre-dates the expansion of the empire. This is also corroborated by Yang, et al. (2023) (see table S2, F).

It is not "distortion" to use the common name for what the authors are referring to, which is the Göktürk Khaganate in the English language. Rather, the distortion occurs when we use ahistorical terms like "Turkic khanate" or vague list links like Turkic Empire. Especially when we're talking about a poorly written article.

There is literally nothing in any of these sources corroborating your tale of the Gokturk Empire starting off "East Asian" and becoming less so as the empire expanded. They both describe the Türks as starting off with a hefty dose of West Eurasian ancestry before the empire expanded. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you are simply distorting sources to make your own case. This is not what we do on Wikipedia. As long as we use Yang, et al. (2023) we should report what they say, not what you want them to say or what a random Wikipedian thinks they should be saying. Then, you can also quote other sources, which have a slightly different take on the question. This is standard Wikipedia practice: in case of discrepancies we should simply attribute clearly each statement in the article: "According to Yang, et al. (2023)......", and then "According to "Jeong, et al. (2020)....", precisely reflecting what each author has to say and how they say it. We shouldn't play around with the wordings/designations they use, that would be highly WP:OR. Our task is simply to be faithful to what the sources say, let's focus on that, and the overall result will be better, less contentious, and more trustworthy. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I can understand, why do you can't undersatnd the fact, that the true nomadic conquer were a North East Asians? All evidences about that available on the free sources. 2601:640:8301:1210:5AFA:9B9C:9E33:3253 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)