Why do Tatars mostly belong to the indo-European haplogroup r1a despite being Turkic?

Why do Tatars mostly belong to the indo-European haplogroup r1a despite being Turkic?

Secondly, does this indicate that many Tatars are descendent of Scythio-Sarmatians that shifted into Turkic Kypchak culture...

also Bonus: Does anyone have that meme of a Turk screaming ULAN! that used to always get posted and its variants?

Gee I wonder maybe they married into local families and they are not descended from Scythians. Tatars came from Mongolia and were until they settled down in Russia, a Mongolian people

Ruskies whitewashed them

Russian genes.

Central Asia is a hotspot of R1a, possible origination point. It's common in a wide belt from Poland in the west to Pakistan in the east.

Russians don't have enough R1a to make Tatars majority R1a. Different subclade anyway.

>Tatars came from Mongolia
nope. Tatars are basically the descendents of Kypchaks and other steppe Turkic peoples. Gheghisid Nobility were quickly absorbed into the population

here's the thing tho. r1a is a paternal haplogroup. So if they took Slavic women- it wouldn't change their paternal haplogroup.
Now if It was Russian men taking Tatar women- well, essentially they would have been christianized and basically been lost to Tatar culture.

R1a coalesced ~20,000 BP.

The origins of it's comparatively recent star-like expansion can be traced to the kurgan culture and eastern Europe. R1a1a specifically.

>essentially they would have been christianized and basically been lost to Tatar culture.
The women raise the children, user.

Plot twist is that Tatars aren't Russians, but Russians are Tatars.

>mostly
Only 24% of Tatars are R1a.

Yes but children adopt the dominant religion- that is that of the father. So the descendents of such unions would be considered Russians

Russians have nothing to do with it. They're mixed with Scythians and share their R1a subclade.
Tatars and Russians have the same amount of R1a overall I think. Both have like 1/4 N1c too.

>Only 24%
good point, but its the largest group. So i guess a plurality but not majority

>Tatars and Russians have the same amount of R1a overall I think.
Not even close. See

It means 76% of Tatars are NOT R1a.

>They're mixed with Scythians and share their R1a subclade
that was my hunch to. They also descendents of Volga Bulghars who may have had indo-Iranian genes as well .

Well of course you'de expect an altaic and Uralic haplogroups to be in the mix. BAsically, i'm trying to explain the indo-European connection to Tatars and so far Iranian steppe nomads seem to be the most likely common ground between Slavs and Tatars

Russians are not really Slavic though, they are more similar to Ugric and Finnic groups than to real Slavs, and their high N1 admixture proves that.

Like Tatars they are also pretty heavily mixed but its a bit of a stretch to say they aren't Slavic

Real Slavs are mostly R1a-M458 and R1b. Russians however are mostly R1a-M558 and N1.

Both R1a are Corded Ware origin. Slavs are just generic Corded Ware people at best.

>generic
Consider suicide.

Slavic Russians then

You think Slavs are an improvement over CW?

>Scotland

I guess Bede was correct about the Picts coming from Scythia after all.

How are they not?

Turkic is a enth-linguistic group. It includes both mongol-like and indo-european-like and mixtures.

Tatars are and have been "Turkic" due to the fact that a large Turkic nomadic supergroup known as the Gokturk existed in the region prior to Mongol expansion. Gokturks themselves were sort of a Xiongnu offshoot.

>he dinks haplogroup is all that determines genetics
kek

You should meet the Tatars. They're a mixed breed as one would expect from the locals.

>Its as if Turkic isn't an ethnic identity but a cultural-linguistic one. Really boggles the senses.

Jesus fucking Christ, I hate how this board handles Egypt and Central Asia. Nobody discusses the culture of the places anymore due to racial autism.

>does this indicate that many Tatars are descendant of Scythio-Sarmatians
no the only definite descendants of the sythians are ossetians

No but I got THIS

> ITT: let's treat Turkic and Slavic as ethnic groups and torture fact to create a narrative to unite all into one neat simplistic formula!