Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 12, 2010 15:49:15 GMT -5
u are just porcrastinating pointlessly... u are a walking misinformation. a total lack of facts.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 12, 2010 16:41:35 GMT -5
No.That is you^ Your points will only go with like minded folks in Turkey and her agents outside.
No one else will take a Kemalist word for it.I mean,Sun Language Theory?
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 12, 2010 16:41:40 GMT -5
b/c you constantly say there was no such thing as a Turk - and I am disproving your ignorant comments! Because we are talking about Turkey Turks ! Aren't we !!
Also, Mongolians also have white features as well - isn't that interesting, means that Mongols and Turks are not only black haired and slanted eyed, but have colored eyes and blonde hair as well, as well as different noses than the flat nose - Oguz Turks are white looking, and some Turks in Central Asia are half and half.
Chinese never said they're indo european, they said they're Turk! That is your own idea Mister.
You have no proof that indo-europeans mixed with Turks. My belief is that Turks are a different race - Turanid.
Yeah you just waste so much time on this forum....cahil ne olacak....
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 12, 2010 16:43:52 GMT -5
So thracian,please explain,why,does the Iraqi Turkmens,who are part of the Oghuz branch,looking like Arabs,as shown in the pictures I posted?
Btw,I did not say there is no such thing as Turk.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 12, 2010 17:05:11 GMT -5
yeah you did, re-read your posts.
We are talking about Turks in Turkey right now, don't avoid what we were talking about.
You can't comment b/c they do not look like Kurds or Iranians as you claim.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 12, 2010 17:07:18 GMT -5
ebu cahil. LOL
The sun language theory was invented by a EUROPEAN and Ataturk allowed it to be researched thats all - get that into ur ugly thich head
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 13, 2010 0:23:44 GMT -5
If the Turks looked like Mongolians as u claim, then why did Chinese people say that Turks had green eyes, and looked different than them??? Chinese, Japanese, Koreans have no colored hair or eyes; and Turks in Central Asia do have colored eyes and hair! How do you explain that?? Original home of the proto-Turks is the Volga River basin. Yet the ancient Turks were nomadic, and they were used to visit Central Asia every year since they believed that the place was sacred. That was also what the Scythians did. Ancestors of the Turks met the Mongol tribes in Central Asia and over time, some Mongols were assimilated into the Turks. As centuries passed by, the mixed tribes of Turks and Mongols formed the basis modern Turkic ethnicities of Central Asia. Similarly, the Turks assimilated the Iranian, Syrian, Kurd, Georgian, Chechen, Circassian, Greek, Balkan, Danube Bulgar, Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian populations as they moved towards West.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 13, 2010 3:01:16 GMT -5
No,original homeland of Turkics is in northeast Asia.From there,they moved West and settled en masse in mainland Central Asia and mixed with the largely Indo-Iranians there.Turkic speakers like the Turks,Azeris,Iraqi,Iranian & Syrian Turkmen are of indigenous stock
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 13, 2010 5:29:34 GMT -5
In the present study, nuclear (autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats) and mitochondrial (hypervariable region I) ancient DNA data previously obtained from a 2,300-year-old Xiongnu population of the Egyin Gol Valley (south of Lake Baikal in northern Mongolia) (Keyser-Tracqui et al. 2003 Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247-260) were compared with data from two contemporary Mongolian populations: one from the same location (Egyin Gol Valley plus a perimeter of less than 100 km around the valley), and one from the whole of Mongolia. The principal objective of this comparative analysis was to assess the likelihood that genetic continuity exists between ancient and present-day Mongolian populations. Since the ancient Xiongnu sample might have been composed of some of the ancestors of the present-day Yakuts, data from a present-day Yakut population, as well as published data from Turkish populations, were also included in the comparative analysis. The main result of our study was the genetic similarity observed among Mongolian samples from different periods and geographic areas. This result supports the hypothesis that the succession over time of different Turkic and Mongolian tribes in the current territory of Mongolia resulted in cultural rather than genetic exchanges. Furthermore, it appears that the Yakuts probably did not find their origin among the Xiongnu tribes, as we previously hypothesized.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596591?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=1
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 13, 2010 6:00:09 GMT -5
Reanalysis of Eurasian Population History: Ancient DNA Evidence of Population AffinitiesTable 5 clearly shows a differential pattern in the genetic relationships of Linzi and Egyin Gol to other populations. First, we see that the Egyin Gol and Linzi populations do not share a close affinity with each other, or at least not more so than they do with modern populations (although see earlier results). As for the Linzi individuals, they seem to be most highly related to Near Easterners (Turks, Iranians, and Iraqis), Armenians, and Eastern Europeans (Slavs, Hungarians), although others, such as Catalans and Iraqis, are mixed in. The Icelanders are twelfth on this list. The high placement of the Vietnamese may be an anomaly, error, or some element of ancient genetic history that is not clear [but see Yao et al. (2003)]. However, it should be noted that the Vietnamese sequences lack a section of bases near the cytosine tract, compounded by the large number of sequences compared in this population set, which could provide for some anomalous results. Furthermore, this approach cannot accurately account for significant admixture , although neither of the other Southeast Asian populations (the Akha from Thailand or the Indonesians) even made it into the composite run. Thus, given these issues, it should be reiterated that only general trends should be drawn from this study.
What is clear is that the Linzi material does have an affinity to the West, most highly to the groups mentioned. The East Asians that made the list are generally toward the bottom, save for the Vietnamese. The other interesting thing is that the few Central Asian Turkic peoples are generally toward the bottom, with only the Uighur appearing in the middle of the top half (but still outside the top 10 matches). It has been noted that Near Eastern Turks actually bear more affinity with Europeans and Near Easterners than with their linguistic cousins in Central Asia and that the Turks came to dominate Turkey through an elite dominance process, meaning that the effect on maternal heritage should be minimal (Comas et al. 1996, 1998). Thus we may be able to include them with the Iranians and other Near Easterners, who bear a close affinity with Linzi, although the relatively high distance between the ancient Linzi sample and Central Asian Turks may actually be from more recent East Asian admixture. The other high-affinity groups, mostly from Eastern Europe in the Slovakians and Hungarians, may be related either directly or through the indirect process of east-west settlement in Central Eurasia that has been occurring in Eastern Europe for at least the past several thousand years, beginning possibly with the Indo-Europeans and definitely by the time of the Iranian Scythians and Sarmatians, as well as with later Turkic groups (although we have noted the distance between modern Central Asian Turkic peoples and Linzi).
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200608/ai_n17171074/pg_11/?tag=content;col1
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 13, 2010 6:36:47 GMT -5
It says that the Turks are indigenous,hence the similarity with their neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 13, 2010 7:20:45 GMT -5
The study does not conclude that the present day Turks are indigenous. It points out that the DNA samples extracted from ancient bruials in Mongolia is top matched by the DNAs of the Turkish people of today's Turkey. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 13, 2010 9:02:56 GMT -5
No
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 13, 2010 11:48:44 GMT -5
Yes.
Vizier you are correct. The only reason Europeans like to say Turks of Turkey are the local populations and not ethincally Turks, is b/c they think their "white" race is superior, and also try to lay claim to Turkish land. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 14, 2010 8:50:28 GMT -5
When they say the Turks of Turkey are not Turks,they mean that they are not blood Turks.
Of course there are those in Turkey,the majority ethnic group,who are ETHNICALLY Turkish,whose ancestors became ethnically Ottoman/Turkish during the Ottoman Empire.
Only a minority of people in Turkey today descends from those original Turkics who settled in Anatolia.The DNA studies that I say that state most ethnic Anatolian Turks are indigenous also mention that Central Asian/Turkic DNA is found among people in Turkey,but just a minority.
And this minority,their Turkic ancestors are very distant.
You have famous people who descend from these original Turkics today:the Ottoman dynasty are the most famous of all as well as the descendants of some other rulers of Turkic principalities in Anatolia who maintained their power throughout or during Ottoman rule.
DNA studies have also shown that other Turkic ethnic groups are largely assimilated indigenous people:the Chuvash,the Gagauz and the Azeris.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 14, 2010 9:21:20 GMT -5
Estimation varies, of course depending upon overall percentage of the Mongol DNA existed in the Turks who migrated to Anatolia. However, as one could notice from the Cuman DNAs of the 13th Century, the Mongol connection was not significant at all. So, the Cumans basically looked like Westernly populations, such as Hungarians or Circassians. Let us recall that the Chuvash populations who never been to Anatolia bear similarities with the Turks of Turkey. So, the connection amongst the Cumans, Chuvash, Turks and samples from ancient bruial site (located in Mongolia) is undeniable. In my opinion, ancient Turks used to carry some DNA combination of the Caucasian peoples of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. This combination changed over time in line with the migration patterns that took place. Certanily, the ones left in Central Asia (peoples who did not migrate to Iran, Crimea, Balkans and Anatolia) must have later on assimilated and mixed with the East Asian populations, most probably after the Mongol Invasion. That is why, the DNA connection with the Kazaks is less apparent compared to the DNA connection with the Danube Bulgarians or Iranians.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 14, 2010 10:28:07 GMT -5
You keep on insisting that the originate from Eastern Europe.
How is that when they speak an Altaic language? Similar to people of Northeast Asia like the Mongolians,Japanese and Koreans.
Much of the armies of the Mongols consists of Turkics.Central Asia was inhabited by Indo-Iranians.Mainland Central Asia received large Turkics who mixed with the Indo-Iranians.
Turkics in most of East Europe and the Middle East are assimilated indigenous people.Even the geneticist Spencer Wells says that of the Turks of Turkey.One of the DNA studies carried out even involved a Turkish geneticist.
Just like the "Arabs" of North Africa and in the Levant are Arabized indigenous people.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 14, 2010 11:31:07 GMT -5
Altaic is a language classification like the Indo-European. After all, the Swedes and Hindus speak a similar language too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 14, 2010 15:09:18 GMT -5
So what if it's a language classification?
It is well known that the Indo-Europeans travelled,conquered and settled in many places.They did so all over Europe,Central Asia,much of West Asia,a large part of the Indian subcontinent and West China.They even arrived in Morocco!
But original Indo-Europeans are Europeans(White).Just like the Turkics,you get several races who are now part of the Indo-European group:the Persians(Westna),Germans(European) and Marathis(Indians).
Just like the Turkics of the Middle East and most of Europe,the Indian and Westna(West Asians/North Africans) Indo-Europeans are largely of indigenous stock.And traces of European DNA is found among them.
I'm half Punjabi and I dont see my fellow Indo-Europeans the Swedes as my brother brother like how you Turks see the Kazakhs and other Turkics as just a first brother.I mean,we have an Indo-European connection,but thats just it.We are still very distinct.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 14, 2010 15:59:43 GMT -5
Turkic is a specific language classification as well as cultural affiliation. People speak Spanish in America, but that does not mean the American natives are ethnically Spanish.
As one could notice from DNA studies, The Turks are/were a mixture of Western Asian and Eastern European peoples in general. Central Asian Turkics can be easily traced as they represent a mixture between Caucasian and Eastern Asian peoples.
|
|