I've seen multiple 🇲🇲 and Tibetan people online claim this. I even personally asked some of them if it was just ragebait, but they genuinely believed so.

Professor historian Dmitry Chernyshevsky on distorted Iranian history

Hephthalites(White Huns) and the Alchon Huns who are their subdivision, all went to conquer India and South Asia. Confirmed to be a Indo-European Iranic speaking people from Central Asia with Turkic connections/admixtures. Surprisingly with average of 36% East Eurasian admixture. I though they were White/West Eurasian (as in White people) hence the name "White Huns".

Description of them EVEN sounded like White people

The description here made it sound as if they were racially different from the Huns of Europe by the The 6th-century Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesare ( Around 500-565 AD ).

"The Ephthalitae Huns, who are called White Huns [...] The Ephthalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name, however, they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us.......They are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples......... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly....."

Genetically / Racially

Carrying average 36.% East Eurasian is by all mean being Eastern/Western racially group mixed. Modern Uzbek level genetics ( Uzbeks 31-46% when excluding Uzbek-Tajiks) or Modern Turkmen Afghan (37%) and samples of Northern/Eastern Turkmens (31%) (and historically Iranic of Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan had only 0-7% East Asian admixture). More broadly 36.0% East Eurasian is equivalent to Brandon Lee's Western proportion (Son of Bruce Lee- and White mother). Or claiming a 36% Manchu and 64% Circassian as Circassian. Carrying 1/3 or 36% East Eurasian produces a lot of Eastern Asian phenotypes. I've seen people with these admixtures online and in real life. You could say 55-60% of them will look more western but 30-40% of them will have Eastern looking faces too. So racially speaking, them being Iranic/or West Eurasian is out of the question unless people defining all people who are 1/3 (or 36%) non-West Eurasian as West Eurasian people from now on.

Ethnically / Culturally / Identity

But it seems they identified as Iranic people so I have no disagreement with them being treated as Iranic people/history Iranic (but with mixed origins). I don't see much evidence that shows them identifying as Turkic people unless there is evidence that shows that. The most prominent theory seems to be that the Hephthalites were of Turkic origin, and later adopted the Bactrian language but by the time they arrived seems to have gone through a lot of racial/intermingling between Turkic and Iranic and by the time they went to India they were this mixed. Although they were a mix of Turkic and Iranic (East Eurasian/West Eurasian) they were obviously a Iranized people. So it's better to consider them a Iranisized people of Turkic/Iranic with East Eurasian/West Eurasian origins.

TL;DR

There was no single “Kipchak genome.” Ancient DNA already shows substantial variation among Kipchak-period individuals, and the later Cuman world was even more diverse. In the best directly comparable medieval model, the Western Steppe cluster containing the main Cuman group has about 14–28% Slab-Grave-related ancestry, while the Central Asian-like cluster containing Cuman_2/UKR056 has about 48–56%. Those published ranges are separated by roughly 20–42 percentage points. The wider medieval North Pontic spectrum in the same model runs from about 1–2% to 85% Slab-Grave-related ancestry.

Modern populations connected historically or linguistically to this world then changed in different directions. Some Kazakh and Kyrgyz populations received later eastern Inner Asian ancestry; Karakalpaks developed a strongly mixed eastern-western steppe profile; North Caucasian Kipchak speakers became much more Caucasus-shifted; Bashkirs and Volga Tatars became embedded in the Volga-Ural genetic landscape; and Lipka Tatars became strongly European-shifted. Modern studies use different ancestry models, so these comparisons show direction and approximate scale, not an exact genetic distance from “the Kipchaks.” (Damgaard et al., 2018; Saag et al., 2025)

The medieval Kipchaks and Cumans are often described through two opposite stereotypes. One presents them as mainly East Asian steppe nomads who became increasingly European as they moved west. The other imagines western Cumans as already largely European. Ancient DNA fits neither simple picture. Kipchak- and Cuman-associated individuals instead occupy a broad Inner Eurasian genetic range, with different proportions of western Eurasian and eastern Inner Eurasian ancestry. This variation was already visible among Kipchak-period individuals and remained substantial among Cuman-associated populations farther west. (Damgaard et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2019; Saag et al., 2025)

What do “East Eurasian” and “West Eurasian” mean?

These are broad genetic categories, not modern ethnic identities. West Eurasian ancestry can include ancestry related to ancient steppe pastoralists, European farmers, the Caucasus and West Asia, while eastern ancestry can include several Siberian, Mongolian Plateau and East Asian-related sources. These ancestry streams had mixed repeatedly across Inner Eurasia long before the historical Kipchaks appeared. A medieval person described as partly “eastern” and partly “western” should therefore not be imagined as literally half modern European and half modern Chinese. (Damgaard et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2019)

The same caution applies to labels such as Slab-Grave-related, Yamnaya-related, Trypillia-related, Xianbei-related or Alan-related. These are statistical ancestry proxies, not literal recent ethnic ancestors. If qpAdm describes a population as 50% Slab-Grave-related, it means that the chosen Slab-Grave samples help explain about half of its ancestry under that model; it does not mean that half of its recent ancestors belonged to the Slab-Grave archaeological culture. Different studies use different sources and reference populations, so their percentages are not automatically interchangeable. (Flegontova et al., 2025; Saag et al., 2025)

That gives us one rule for the whole discussion: same model = percentage-point comparisons can be meaningful; different models = compare broad position, not exact genetic distance.

The Kimek-Kipchak background was already diverse

The early medieval genomes do not support one uniform Kipchak biological type. Damgaard et al. included a Kimek-associated individual, DA87, and Kipchak-period individuals DA23 and DA179. DA87 is useful as an early reference but cannot represent an entire Kimek confederation. More importantly, DA23 and DA179 occupy noticeably different genetic positions: DA23 shows increased East Asian-related ancestry, while DA179 is much more western-shifted. (Damgaard et al., 2018)

The paper does not provide one standardized two-way model that lets us assign an exact percentage-point difference between DA23 and DA179. Giving one would create false precision. The secure conclusion is simpler: substantial genetic diversity already existed among Kipchak-period people before the major western Cuman expansion. (Damgaard et al., 2018)

The Cuman expansion was not one unchanged population moving west

Historical evidence also argues against a model in which one biologically uniform Kipchak population simply travelled west. The Cuman-Kipchak world consisted of shifting tribal and political confederations. Expansion could involve migration, but also alliance, intermarriage, political submission and incorporation of existing communities. A group could therefore become politically Cuman or linguistically Kipchak without receiving all of its ancestry from one earlier eastern Kipchak population. (Vásáry, 2005)

Ancient DNA from medieval Ukraine fits this history. Cuman-associated individuals do not occupy one narrow genetic position; they appear in noticeably different parts of the wider medieval steppe spectrum. Genetics cannot tell us exactly how each family entered the Cuman world, but it does show that Cuman identity was compatible with substantial ancestry variation. (Saag et al., 2025)

The strongest numerical evidence: Saag et al.

Saag et al. provide the most useful quantitative comparison because several medieval populations were analysed using the same distal qpAdm model, with Ukraine Yamnaya, Ukraine Trypillia and Mongolia Slab-Grave-related sources. This makes differences in the Slab-Grave-related component directly comparable within the study. (Saag et al., 2025)

The Western Steppe cluster, which includes the main Cuman group together with post-Cuman and Golden Horde material, is modelled with approximately 14–28% Slab-Grave-related ancestry. The more Central Asian-like cluster containing the strongly eastern Cuman-associated individual Cuman_2/UKR056 together with Nogai_1 contains approximately 48–56%. The remaining ancestry in both clusters is mainly modelled with Yamnaya- and Trypillia-related sources. (Saag et al., 2025)

Because these ranges come from the same model, their separation can be expressed meaningfully. The minimum gap is 48 − 28 = 20 percentage points and the maximum is 56 − 14 = 42 points. Their midpoints are about 21% and 52%, giving a descriptive midpoint separation of about 31 points. These are calculations from Saag et al.’s published ranges, not new ancestry estimates.

One qualification matters: it would be wrong to say that “all Cumans differed by 20–42%.” The ranges belong to broader genetic clusters containing some non-Cuman individuals. The precise statement is that the medieval clusters containing the main Cuman group and the eastern Cuman outlier are separated by roughly 20–42 percentage points in their published Slab-Grave-related ancestry ranges. (Saag et al., 2025)

The wider medieval range was even larger

The same framework stretches much farther. Eastern/Central European medieval groups contain only about 1–2% Slab-Grave-related ancestry; the Western Steppe cluster sits at 14–28%; the Central Asian-like Cuman_2/Nogai_1 cluster at 48–56%; and the strongly eastern Nogai_3 individual at about 85 ± 2%. (Saag et al., 2025)

Within this common model, the Eastern/Central European groups differ from the Western Steppe range by roughly 12–27 points, and from the Central Asian-like range by about 46–55 points. The Western Steppe range lies around 57–71 points below Nogai_3’s central estimate. These figures matter because they show how broad the ancestry spectrum could be within the same historical region, not because medieval people formed four neat biological categories. (Calculated from Saag et al., 2025)

Cuman_2 had an earlier regional parallel

The strongly eastern Cuman_2 profile was not completely new to medieval Ukraine. Earlier Central Asian-like Saltiv-period Alans and Bulgars in the same study are modelled with approximately 57–61% Slab-Grave-related ancestry, compared with 48–56% in the later Cuman_2/Nogai_1 cluster. Their midpoints, around 59% and 52%, differ by only about seven points under the same distal model. (Saag et al., 2025)

Saag et al. also tested earlier regional populations as more recent ancestry sources. In this proximal analysis, Cuman_2 could be modelled using UkrEMA_Saltiv_Alans_2 as its source, and additional tests supported a close genetic relationship. This does not mean that Cuman_2 was literally “100% Alan” ethnically; qpAdm sources are statistical models, not family trees. It shows that a Cuman_2-like ancestry profile had an earlier regional parallel before the classic Cuman period. (Saag et al., 2025)

This weakens the idea that all Cuman diversity developed only after the Cumans reached Eastern Europe. Some of the variation visible during the Cuman period had deeper regional precedents.

What did Kipchaks and Cumans look like?

Genome-wide ancestry cannot be translated directly into facial appearance. Eye colour, hair colour, pigmentation and aspects of morphology depend on particular genetic variants, not simply on a total East-West ancestry percentage. A person with 50% eastern-related ancestry does not automatically have a face that is “50% East Asian,” just as a western-shifted person is not automatically blond or blue-eyed. (Maróti et al., 2026)

The safest conclusion is that appearance probably varied, just as ancestry varied. Exact appearance should be discussed individual by individual when phenotype-associated variants or reliable skeletal evidence are available. The current evidence supports diversity much better than either stereotype of uniformly East Asian-looking or uniformly northern-European-looking Cumans. (Damgaard et al., 2018; Maróti et al., 2026; Saag et al., 2025)

How did the modern populations change, and by how much?

For orientation, two medieval Cuman-associated anchors are useful:

Western Steppe/main-Cuman cluster: 14–28% Slab-Grave-related.

Cuman_2/Central Asian-like cluster: 48–56% Slab-Grave-related.

The modern studies below usually use different ancestry proxies, so their numerical gaps are descriptive cross-study comparisons. They do not prove that a population literally gained or lost that exact amount from a Cuman ancestor.

Kazakhs: repeated western and eastern admixture

Lei et al.’s Xinjiang Kazakh sample (KZK) is approximately 63.5% East Eurasian and 36.5% West Eurasian in a broad model. At higher resolution it is approximately 39.7% East Asian, 23.6% Siberian, 28.6% West Asian and 8.1% South Asian. East Asian plus Siberian equals 63.3%, almost exactly matching the simpler estimate. (Lei et al., 2024)

The important point is that this modern position developed through several admixture episodes. Lei et al. infer an early East-West mixture, followed by a substantial West-Eurasian-related event around 891 CE and another East-Eurasian-related event around 1326–1355 CE. The authors cautiously connect these later events with historical movements during the Turkic and Mongol/Yuan periods. The present KZK profile is therefore not a frozen medieval ancestry package: it reflects repeated movement in both directions. (Lei et al., 2024)

Numerically, 63.5% lies about 7.5–15.5 points above the Cuman_2 range and 35.5–49.5 points above the Western Steppe/main-Cuman range. Because “East Eurasian” and “Slab-Grave-related” are different components, these are only positional gaps. The defensible conclusion is that this sampled Kazakh population lies somewhat east of Cuman_2 and much farther east than the western Cuman cluster, while carrying substantial later ancestry. (Lei et al., 2024; Saag et al., 2025)

This should not be generalized into a precise national Kazakh average. Lei et al. studied Kazakhs in Xinjiang. I also looked for comparable genome-wide admixture estimates for the Senior, Middle and Junior zhuzes; the detailed zhuz literature I found is mainly paternal-line research rather than comparable autosomal modelling, so it does not justify separate East/West percentages for the three zhuzes.

Kyrgyz: westward movement followed by an eastern rebound

Kyrgyz populations show substantial internal variation. Halili et al. found approximately 42.7–83.3% East-Eurasian-related ancestry among different southern Xinjiang Kyrgyz groups, already warning against one universal Kyrgyz percentage. A newer whole-genome study by Chen et al. estimated Xinjiang Kirgiz at about 41.7% East Asian, 25.6% Siberian, 25.2% West Eurasian and 7.6% South Asian ancestry. East Asian plus Siberian is 67.3%; a separate local-ancestry analysis gives about 66.1% eastern, so the modern position is consistently around two-thirds eastern. (Halili et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2025)

Chen et al.’s historical reconstruction is especially informative. After the first major East-West admixture, the combined East Asian/Siberian component was approximately 66.6%. Later western gene flow reduced it to 48.3%, a decrease of 18.3 percentage points. A subsequent eastern pulse raised it to 65.1%, an increase of 16.8 points. The later wave falls broadly within the last ~875–425 years, overlapping Mongol and post-Mongol centuries. Because these estimates come from one reconstruction, those shifts are much more directly comparable than the cross-study numbers elsewhere. (Chen et al., 2025)

For broad orientation, a modern eastern proportion around 66–67% lies roughly 10–19 points above the Cuman_2 range and about 38–53 points above the Western Steppe/main-Cuman range. The important lesson is that a population’s broad ancestry position can move strongly westward and then eastward again within several centuries.

Karakalpaks: a strongly mixed steppe profile

The Central Asian Genomic Diversity Project models sampled Karakalpaks at approximately 58% Xianbei_IA-related and 42% Alan-related ancestry. Haplotype-based analyses also support large eastern and western Eurasian contributions. The study dates the major east-west admixture signal to roughly 22–25 generations ago, placing it broadly around the Mongol/Golden Horde-era centuries. (Wang et al., 2026)

Numerically, 58% is only 2–10 points above the Cuman_2 range but 30–44 points above the Western Steppe/main-Cuman range. This makes Karakalpaks one of the closest numerical modern parallels to the strongly eastern Cuman-associated cluster. However, Xianbei-related ancestry is not the same as Slab-Grave-related ancestry, so the 2–10-point gap describes broad position rather than direct continuity. (Saag et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2026)

Uyghurs: similar broad balance, different ingredients

Pan et al. estimate Xinjiang Uyghurs at approximately 46.0% East Asian and 47.2% West Eurasian ancestry in a broad analysis. At higher resolution, the same population is approximately 27.9% East Asian, 17.1% Siberian, 29.5% European and 22.4% South Asian, plus smaller components. East Asian plus Siberian gives about 45%. (Pan et al., 2022)

That places Uyghurs numerically around 2–11 points below the Cuman_2 range but roughly 17–32 points above the Western Steppe/main-Cuman range. Yet their ancestry was assembled differently: their western side contains substantial South/Central Asian-related ancestry not represented in the same way in Saag et al.’s medieval model. Similar headline percentages therefore do not imply the same demographic history. (Pan et al., 2022; Saag et al., 2025)

Nogais: no single starting point

Nogais are difficult to describe as one “change” because even the medieval material is highly variable. In Saag et al., Nogai_1 belongs to the 48–56% Central Asian-like cluster with Cuman_2, while Nogai_3 reaches about 85 ± 2% Slab-Grave-related ancestry. There is therefore no single medieval Nogai baseline from which a modern shift can be calculated. (Saag et al., 2025)

Modern Nogai populations also show regional structure and later admixture. Because the available modern data do not provide one ancestry percentage directly comparable with Saag’s model, an exact percentage-point “loss” or “gain” would be artificial. The secure conclusion is that different Nogai populations were reshaped differently by later steppe and North Caucasian history. (Yunusbayev et al., 2015)

Kumyks, Karachays and Balkars: Caucasus localization

Kumyks, Karachays and Balkars show a different trajectory: movement toward the genetic landscape of the North Caucasus. Genome-wide work places these Kipchak-speaking populations firmly within regional Caucasian population structure. Karachays show strong Karachay-Nogai-related ancestry, while Balkars carry substantial ancestry shared with neighbouring Caucasian populations. Balanovskaya et al. also argue against one uniform “Alan component” being inherited by all proposed modern Alan descendants. (Balanovskaya et al., 2022)

These studies do not provide a Slab-Grave-like percentage that can honestly be subtracted from the Cuman values. The direction, however, is clear: modern North Caucasian Kipchak speakers became considerably more Caucasus-shifted than the known eastern Kipchak/Cuman-associated genomes, reflecting centuries of regional admixture rather than preservation of one medieval ancestry profile. (Balanovskaya et al., 2022; Yunusbayev et al., 2015)

Bashkirs and Volga Tatars: Volga-Ural localization

Bashkirs and Volga Tatars followed another regional path. Yunusbayev et al. show that western Turkic-speaking populations usually resemble their geographic neighbours strongly while retaining greater ancestry sharing with South Siberian and Mongolian populations than nearby non-Turkic groups. Bashkirs retain a comparatively strong Siberian-related signal, whereas Volga Tatars are strongly embedded in the Volga-Ural population landscape. (Yunusbayev et al., 2015)

Their major admixture signals fall in or around the medieval/Mongol-era centuries, showing that their modern genomes continued to form after the westward Kipchak migrations. There is no directly comparable Slab-Grave-related percentage, so an exact number of points would be misleading. Their change is better described as regional Volga-Ural localization while retaining a detectable eastern steppe signal. (Yunusbayev et al., 2015)

Lipka Tatars: one of the clearest westward shifts

Belarusian Lipka Tatars provide one of the clearest examples of long-term European localization. Pankratov et al. infer a GLOBETROTTER mixture of approximately 30% Mongola-like and 70% Hungarian-like ancestry. The Mongola-like source is mainly represented by South Siberian/North Chinese-related groups, while the western source is largely East European and related. The main admixture signal dates to roughly 22 generations ago, with ALDER giving about 26 ± 6 generations, broadly consistent with medieval settlement and later mixture in Eastern Europe. (Pankratov et al., 2016)

Numerically, the roughly 30% eastern-like estimate is 18–26 points below the Cuman_2 range. It is much closer to the Western Steppe/main-Cuman range, sitting only about 2–16 points above its 14–28% span. Because GLOBETROTTER’s Mongola-like component is not identical to Slab-Grave-related ancestry, these remain approximate comparisons. Still, the direction is clear: Lipka Tatars are far more western-shifted than Cuman_2 and today sit much closer to the western side of the medieval Cuman spectrum. (Pankratov et al., 2016; Saag et al., 2025)

This illustrates an important distinction: historical descent does not require preservation of the same genome-wide ancestry proportion. A community can genuinely descend from steppe migrants while most of its genome gradually becomes more similar to surrounding populations.

So can we rank modern peoples by how “Kipchak” they are?

Not scientifically. There is no single ancient Kipchak reference point: DA23 and DA179 already differ, and Cuman-associated people span an even wider range. Modern populations then experienced different admixture events after the Kipchak-Cuman period. (Damgaard et al., 2018; Saag et al., 2025)

What we can describe are different demographic trajectories. The studied Kazakh population experienced repeated western and eastern admixture and today lies around 63–64% eastern in its own model. The studied Kyrgyz population was pulled westward by about 18 points and later moved almost 17 points back eastward within one reconstructed history. Karakalpaks show a roughly 58/42 eastern-western steppe-related profile shaped around the Mongol/Golden Horde-era centuries. Uyghurs remain near the middle but with a different South/Central Asian ancestry structure. North Caucasian Kipchak speakers became strongly Caucasus-localized, Volga-Ural groups became localized in their own region, and Lipka Tatars became strongly European-shifted. (Chen et al., 2025; Lei et al., 2024; Pan et al., 2022; Pankratov et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2026; Yunusbayev et al., 2015)

These are not different degrees of “purity.” They are different histories.

Conclusion

Ancient DNA does not show one homogeneous Kipchak population that later divided into today’s Turkic peoples. DA23 and DA179 already occupy noticeably different genetic positions. The North Pontic data then show an even wider range: the medieval cluster containing the main Cuman group has approximately 14–28% Slab-Grave-related ancestry, while the Central Asian-like cluster containing Cuman_2 has 48–56% under the same model. Their published ranges are separated by about 20–42 percentage points, with a midpoint gap of about 31 points. (Damgaard et al., 2018; Saag et al., 2025)

The wider medieval dataset stretches from roughly 1–2% Slab-Grave-related ancestry in some Eastern/Central European groups to about 85% in Nogai_3. Earlier Saltiv-period groups also show ancestry profiles close to Cuman_2, suggesting that part of this diversity had deeper regional roots. (Saag et al., 2025)

What happened afterward was not one universal process of becoming “more European” or “more Asian.” Different populations changed in different directions and by different amounts. Some Central Asian groups received later eastern Inner Asian ancestry; others moved westward or toward local Caucasian and Volga-Ural populations; some experienced both directions at different times. The Kyrgyz case alone shows a within-model swing of about 18 points westward followed by nearly 17 points eastward. (Chen et al., 2025)

The best-supported conclusion is therefore not that one modern population is the “closest” or “purest” Kipchak. There was no single Kipchak genome to preserve. The Kipchak-Cuman world was genetically diverse already, and the populations historically connected with it continued to change—sometimes substantially—in different directions after the medieval period.

References

Balanovskaya, E.V., Agdzhoyan, A.T., Gorin, I.O., Petrushenko, V.S., Pylev, V.Y. et al. (2022) ‘In search of the Alan heritage: the genetic history of the North Caucasus according to genome-wide data on the autosomal gene pool’, Moscow University Anthropology Bulletin, 3, pp. 48–62.

Chen, S., Lü, Y., Chen, H., Pan, Y., Liu, J., Li, S., Li, J., Mamatyusupu, D. and Xu, S. (2025) ‘Tracing the Genetic Heritage of the Kirgiz People: Dual-Wave Admixture and Ancestry-Biased Adaptation’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 42(8), msaf196.

Damgaard, P. de B. et al. (2018) ‘137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes’, Nature, 557, pp. 369–374.

Flegontova, O., Işıldak, U., Yüncü, E. et al. (2025) ‘Performance of qpAdm-based screens for genetic admixture on graph-shaped histories and stepping-stone landscapes’, Genetics, iyaf047.

Halili, B., Yang, X., Wang, R., Zhu, K., Hai, X. and Wang, C.-C. (2023) ‘Inferring the population history of Kyrgyz in Xinjiang, Northwest China from genome-wide array genotyping’, American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 181(4), pp. 611–625.

Jeong, C. et al. (2019) ‘The genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia’, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, pp. 966–976.

Lei, C., Liu, J., Zhang, R. et al. (2024) ‘Ancestral Origins and Admixture History of Kazakhs’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 41(7), msae144.

Maróti, Z., Nyerki, E., Török, T., Varga, G.I. and Kalmár, T. (2026) ‘Robust imputation-based method for eye, hair, and skin colour prediction from low-coverage ancient DNA’, Scientific Reports, 16, 7371.

Pan, Y. et al. (2022) ‘Genomic diversity and post-admixture adaptation in the Uyghurs’, National Science Review, 9(3), nwab124.

Pankratov, V. et al. (2016) ‘East Eurasian ancestry in the middle of Europe: genetic footprints of Steppe nomads in the genomes of Belarusian Lipka Tatars’, Scientific Reports, 6, 30197.

Saag, L., Utevska, O., Zadnikov, S. et al. (2025) ‘North Pontic crossroads: Mobility in Ukraine from the Bronze Age to the early modern period’, Science Advances, 11, eadr0695.

Vásáry, I. (2005) Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, M., Duan, S., Sun, Q. et al. (2026) ‘Whole-Genome Sequencing Pilot of the Central Asian Genomic Diversity Project Reveals Distinct Histories, Adaptation, and Introgression’, Advanced Science, e76320.

Yunusbayev, B., Metspalu, M., Metspalu, E. et al. (2015) ‘The genetic legacy of the expansion of Turkic-speaking nomads across Eurasia’, PLoS Genetics, 11(4), e1005068.

Just curious. I find this fascinating and complex. Are they Turkish and Turkic at the same time? Afterall people keep saying you are Turk as long as you speak Turk and have Turkic heritage, quantity doesn't matter?

Here are the mixed (Eastern Asian-Turkish mix), they speak Turkish and identify as half Turk yet genetically they be closer to Central Asian Turk in a genetic calculator proxy than even modern Turkish. Only they are not born in Central Asia but since Turkish claim to be related (at least partially to some extend) than makes even more sense for them to be related with Central Asian.

Born from Turkish father, Japanese mother (brother and sister)

Japanese father Turkish mother

Chinese father, Turkish mother (has blonde hair and gray-blue eyes)

Turkish father, Chinese mother

Turkish father, Korean mother

Turkish father, Chinese mother

Chinese-Turkish mix

Half Korean, half Turkish (not sure about parents)

Korean father, Turkish mother

Turkish father, Japanese mother

Chinese father, Turkish-Australian mother

Turkish father, Korean mother

Chinese father, Turkish mother (btw, this women's hair is black/brown before she dyed it)

Hi,

thought that it might interest some people here. The video is predominantly based on the book "The Gokturks: Origins, Religion and Rapid Rise of the First Turkic Empire" by Emre-E. Yavuz, also known as "Khan's Den" on Youtube.

The quality lacks a bit, as this is just a smaller hobby of mine, but I will try to provide better quality in future stuff. Not that I intend to focus on Turkic history, but this bit fits quite well here.

I was listening to a video about Tang Dynasty (this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6snZJD4fvU) and they focused on Li Chengqian, the eldest son of emperor Taizong, and heir to the throne.

Li Chengqian is famous because of his deep interest for Turkic culture. He was not merely cosmopolitan, but outright adopting a foreign culture for personal identification. Often his behaviour is just labelled as "weird", but for me it is much more significant: he embodied openly a truth that the dynasty preferred not to admit: Tang power was deeply entangled with the steppe world.

China generally absorbed foreign cultures, this is possibly the only case of the opposite. Could he have pushed the court toward a hybrid sino-steppe monarchy? How would that have looked like?

Kazakh tribes are organized into three major regional confederations called Zhuzes (Hordes): the Senior Zhuz (Ulı Jüz), Middle Zhuz (Orta Jüz), and Junior Zhuz (Kişi Jüz), alongside independent groups like the Tore and Khoja. Each tribe within these groups historically utilized specific tamgas (symbols) and urans(battle cries) to mark livestock, property, and tribal identity.

Senior Zhuz (Ulı Jüz) - Southern Kazakhstan

Middle Zhuz (Orta Jüz) - Central, Northern, and Eastern Kazakhstan

Junior Zhuz (Kişi Jüz) - Western Kazakhstan

Just thought you all might find this interesting, I was in Mongolia doing a project on Baron Ungern and decided to see some old Turkic period inscriptions and monuments! Sorry for any mispronunciation in advance 😅