Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator 
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 15, 2011 8:39:41 GMT -5
Aris Poulianos, is not a modern Anthropologist, also where does he base his work on Coons?
J.Lawrence Angel again is not a modern anthropologist...in fact he was a student of Coons!
Oh come on...Giuseppe Sergi... he was born in 1841 LOL
Renato Biasutti born 1878
In fact all of them are anthropologists from the time of Coon... none of them can be classed as Modern really...
A. James Gregor is perhaps the youngest of the bunch born in 1929 lol. As far as I am aware he isn't an anthropologist, and doesn't follow Coons theories.
Hellenas, if you don't know that one of Coons theories were that Blacks are inferior to whites.. that the KKK even used him to prove their point in court, what more can i tell you?
Look Coon was great at gathering data, I respect that part of his job, but when he interpreted the data he made grave mistakes, I mean he even classes Bengali people as Meds based on the head shape.... anyhow...
As I said MODERN anthropologists disregards his theories, so if you want to be up to date, check out the people I gave you.
|
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 15, 2011 8:47:44 GMT -5
Albanian Dinarics: The Asiatic Dinarics, who appeared early in the Metal Age, were apparently Alpine-Cappadocian hybrids; many of those went to Europe and settled in widely separated places, including sections of the Dinaric Alps. The exaggerated Dinaric type of Albania, with its tendency to light brown eye color may conceivably be derived from this source. It is also to be found in considerable numbers in the Tyrol.
All European Dinarics, however, cannot be traced to this Near Eastern origin; most of them must be the result of primary blendings on European soil.The Illyrians were a European/Caucasian hybrid. carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-13.htmthose lands you claim as greek lands were inhabited by others before greeks too. If anyone has the right to say that anatolia is theors it should be hitites not the greeks who invaded anatolia exactly like many other nations. Free Konstantinoupolis, Ionia, Pontos, Cypros and North Epiros, smash the moslem Turks and Albanians. |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 15, 2011 8:59:01 GMT -5
Hellenas, sometimes you behave like a civilised mature person, at other times you behave very illogically immature.
Please decide one or the other.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 15, 2011 9:00:18 GMT -5
btw, if you guys continue about the origins or Albanians, be aware I will be moving these posts to another sub forum, they do not belong here.
|
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 15, 2011 9:04:40 GMT -5
Aris Poulianos, is not a modern Anthropologist, also where does he base his work on Coons? J.Lawrence Angel again is not a modern anthropologist...in fact he was a student of Coons! Oh come on...Giuseppe Sergi... he was born in 1841 LOL Renato Biasutti born 1878 In fact all of them are anthropologists from the time of Coon... none of them can be classed as Modern really... A. James Gregor is perhaps the youngest of the bunch born in 1929 lol. As far as I am aware he isn't an anthropologist, and doesn't follow Coons theories. Hellenas, if you don't know that one of Coons theories were that Blacks are inferior to whites.. that the KKK even used him to prove their point in court, what more can i tell you? Look Coon was great at gathering data, I respect that part of his job, but when he interpreted the data he made grave mistakes, I mean he even classes Bengali people as Meds based on the head shape.... anyhow... As I said MODERN anthropologists disregards his theories, so if you want to be up to date, check out the people I gave you. The modern "Anthropologists" you refer are these kind of Anthropologists & Geneticists who follow the New World Order of the Sionists( all humanity came from Africa, Greeks descend from sub-saharan Africans,etc). I have no interest in them, I follow the Classic Anthropologists and Scientistrs, lol. I don't know for KKK but the black people always were inferior compared to Europeans(and even better to Greeks), that's not "racism" but history and truth. |
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 15, 2011 9:08:25 GMT -5
Hellenas, sometimes you behave like a civilised mature person, at other times you behave very illogically immature. Please decide one or the other. I decide that Greeks must take back their homes and lands, that is what I decide. Freedom or death. |
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 15, 2011 9:27:44 GMT -5
Of course, as they actually are related peoples as they both are Turkic peoples, and they live close to each other. For example, it's obvious that two peopes like the Ukranians and the Russians are closely related peoples, they live just by each other and have done so for a very long time and they're both Slavic peoples. Trying to say that two people living side by side won't affect each others is just plain wrong, and in this case it is actually two peoples that are of the same origin, the fact that they live so close to each other means that they won't be very different. According to genetics, European Y-DNA is actually stronger in the Kyrgyz than in the Uygurs btw.
And this does actually concern Serbs and Albanians too, except for their language most Serbs are descendants of Paleo-Balkan peoples. However, at the same time you trying to argue that if Uyghurs and Kyrgyz are related then Serbs and Albanians are so too by following my logic is just wrong.
The Uygurs are an amalgation of local Turkic peoples, that doesn't mean that they aren't related to the Kyrgyz another Turkic people living in the approximately same area only divided by borders, the Kyrgyz have their own country while the Uygurs live mostly in China. Ethnicities consisting of related peoples aren't that very rare, amalgations like that are actually existing in Europe, it's something seen in history and something that one can see happening not so long ago and today even.
Pretty much, most ethnicities were created by the absorbation of small related peoples that had a tribe like existence, an example of that are the Mongols, they were pretty much the same but still they didn't consider themselves as the completely same people untill Ghengis Khan united them.
R1a1 Y-DNA in Central-Asia is supposed to be partially of Scythian origin.
Concerning the discussion we are having now, they do concern each other. I have explained why earlier.
I didn't say that Turks couldn't have light eyes or light hair as some obviously do have, what I'm claiming is that pure Turks can't, at least not naturally occuring light hair and eyes, these traits are of European deriviation.
And the texts do state that the Turks were light haired and light eyed, the texts are making general statements about the Turks that they were light haired and light eyed and not that there are some light haired and light eyed people among the Turks. One of them actually even mentioning that non-light features were considered foreign and that it was a sign of mixing with darker peoples, I myself don't believe in that, however it's you who rely on documents like those.
Of course, I haven't argued that Turks don't have light features, I have argued against the claim that it's a feature of the pure Turks as it isn't, light features among Turks are because of non-Turkish mix, mostly European and European related peoples.
Originally, yes. The pure Turks were dark and Asiatic, the light features found in them are of European origin. This is proven by the fact that they did indeed mix with IE peoples that were in Central-Asia, which is shown by the fact that there were IE peoples living in those areas and the fact that local Turkic peoples show to have genitically European Y-DNA influence, which interestingly is stronger in the Kirgiz than in the Uyghurs which shows that the Uyghurs aren't as related to the original people inhabiting Xianjiang as they would like to be.
Which I have proved.
Seriously, stating that the Yoruks are "known to be less mixed and have blonde and green eyes" is stating that the purer Turks are more light features. As I have said previously, light features in Turks are of European origin, even if it's recent or ancient, however, it's by no coincidence that the places that have the most extensive European mix (mostly Balkan) in Turkey are also the lightest and overall also the tallest seemingly, which differs them from the less. I would say that a large part of the Balkanoid influence in the western parts of Turkey still have mantained pure and not mixed with the Anatolids.
As proven by the study that the article mentions, there was once a mutation in the gene that control pigment, this mutation occured only at one place which happened to affect the eye colour by producing less-to no melanin making the eyes appear blue. The study proved that blue eyes were all of this one source and that all blue eyed people are therefore related, although of course very distantly. Therefore, it's by far most reliable to say that this source was an European one as it's only in Europe that blue eyes are common.
If this one ancestor was of African or Asian origin then it would have been more common in Africans or Asians than in Europeans, but fact is that the more distant you reach out of Europe the less common are blue eyes and also light features overall. Your arguement is something I'd expect to come out of a childs mouth tbh, it's very, very naive.
Carlton Coon was by no means a racist, physical anthropology isn't racist in itself, the way one presents it however can be racist. There is no racism in Carleton Coon's work as he doesn't even mention superiority of any of the races that he speaks of. If you had read anything about him you'd know that he was more of an anti-racist as his work was mostly based upon showing that the difference between the different races were mostly because of different geographical factors and coincidences and that otherwise the differences were only skeen deep. This concerns especially the differences between Europeans, Jews, near-Easterners and Easterners.
The Turks have a rather low rate of light features, however, why do you argue against me when I'm claiming that any light feature among Turks are because of European influence? Surely, you wouldn't have done so if you believed that the original Turks were dark featured.
I have repeatedly told you that light features among Turks is because of the fact that they did mix with light featured European people. You also claim that some of the lighter featured Turkic peoples are known to not mix with foreign elements, this means that they are purer.
As seen below again you clearly state that light features among Turks aren't necessarily because of Balkan or European but it could also be part of their ancient heritage as with the Yoruks, meaning that you don't believe that light features are necessarily because of Europeans but because of this being present among ancient Turks as well, I have however proved that you're wrong as these ancient Turks did mix with IE peoples.
In ancient times it definitely came from Europeans, and in more recent times it definitely came from the Balkans.
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 15, 2011 9:30:33 GMT -5
Just ignore Hellenas.
|
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 16, 2011 9:37:04 GMT -5
Yes, imitate me, as I have already ignore you here and a long time.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 16, 2011 19:18:05 GMT -5
Since you are stuck in your warped world of modern DNA studies and try to ignore the ancient records of the Chinese. Good luck to you.
Here are more Turk groups ALL said to have green eyes and brown eyes, all said to have brown and red hair.....in ancient times.
Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, kipchaks and Nogais.
good luck.... with that...
|
|
|
|
Post by mystery on May 16, 2011 22:07:21 GMT -5
So Turks are asiatic and no different from Mongols?
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 16, 2011 22:37:57 GMT -5
Obviously ancient Turks are from central asia... the steppes... and they did interbreed wth Mongolians at some point too.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 16, 2011 22:50:09 GMT -5
However the Chinese pointed out that some Turks had Green eyes and red hair when describing them... not saying they all had it... but interesting nevertheless..
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 17, 2011 5:15:18 GMT -5
Since you are stuck in your warped world of modern DNA studies and try to ignore the ancient records of the Chinese. Good luck to you. Genetics are much more reliable than any ancient records of the Chinese or anyone else. As I have proven there was IE peoples in Central-Asia before the Turkic peoples came in. The Turks have been proven to have IE mix and therefore the occasional one in a million light featured Central-Asian Turk is of IE extraction and not due to "Asians can be light featured too!" There's nothing that proves that there weren't any IE people in Central-Asia, and these were there before the Turks, my explanation of the occurance of light features in the Turks is therefore the correct one. Not only did they interbreed with the Mongolians, the Turks and the Mongolians are supposed to be of the same origin, linguistics seem to support this seeing as Turkic languages and Mongolic ones fit into the Altaic language group. There's also examples of Turkic peoples coming out of Mongolia as in the case of the Uyghurs, they fled to todays Xianjang after the collapse of the Uighur Kingdom. If you're able to acess Britannica: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/102315/history-of-Central-Asia/73540/The-Uighur-kingdom |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 17, 2011 8:23:46 GMT -5
DNA studies ,ay be more reliable, yet they cannot be tested on ancient people, asince they are DEAD so therefore we have to rely on the records.
I can see Britannica, it isn't the best encylopedia is to go for... but il give it a read later...
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 17, 2011 9:25:13 GMT -5
They can be used on dead people as for example those scientists had done on the mummies of Xianjiang. The enviroment and the climate in Xianjiang was very nice for preserving corpses, scripts and a lot of other things. Those records aren't very reliable either tbh.
It's one of the better ones I'd say, having to pay for being a member makes it less lucrative for trolls, propagandists and such to give wrong information. Therefore the information there will most likely if wrong be because of the author simply just being wrong and not because someone wanted to have some fun, want to make some propaganda or something else like that.
You can see that on Wikipedia as most of the articles dealing with science and such are often very reliable, and they're good, when it comes to history and especially in certain areas it often depends on which side the author is on.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 17, 2011 13:07:04 GMT -5
The mummies were not the Turks were they? Therefore, you have no DNA evidence in regards to the ancient Turks  The records are much more valuable than mickypedia resources, especially since they are quoted by prominent historians and anthropologists. The Chinese were known to have very accurate historical chronicles. Neither Wikipedia (Mickypedia) nor Brittanica are overly reliable sources, in fact, no one source on its own is reliable, If there are other sources backing it up, or they have been accurately checked by proper historians that is when they start to matter. |
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 18, 2011 1:45:00 GMT -5
The mummies weren't Turks. However, one can easily find corpses of ancient Turks too. The reason these Tocharian corpses were mummified was because of the enviroment, they didn't embalm them like the Egyptians did. Therefore, there will be genetic evidence concerning the Turks. Anyways, let's say we don't have any genetic evidence of ancient Turks, we do however know that the current Turks in the area have IE influence genetically meaning that the original Turks mixed with the previous inhabitants, that alone shows that the original Turks were Asiatic seeing as the Turks also have large Asian influences originally, influences might be the wrong word seeing as it is the basis of the genetic foundation of the Turks.
The records aren't that reliable, as I have said DNA is much more reliable, also it's the majority of scientists against some few historians of which it seems they are the regular "I have a theory that is different from everyone elses, I'm special" meaning that they're the usual new age historian types, the article about the historian didn't make an impression of anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on May 18, 2011 13:43:17 GMT -5
I'm with odel here.Team odel! Thank god we have corris here too!
Again,Turkics are not European(white).Original ones that is.
They are from Mongolia and migrated westward into mainland Central Asia en masse,mixing entensively with the already settled population there.
From Central Asia,bands of them migrated out to start and extend their kingdoms.
The Turkics who went to Europe,Transcaucasia,Iran and Anatolia were conquering minorities.The Turkics were very good militarily.
Racially,the Turkics are Northeast Asian just like the Mongolians,Koreans,Japanese and Chinese.That is the original race of Turkics.
Today,because of the large Turkicized populations,you can find racially European and Middle Eastern "Turkics" : Anatolia,Cypriot and Balkan Turks, Azeris, Iraqi and Iranian Turkmen, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkarians, Tatars....
It is the same thing with Indo-European peoples today.Indo-Europeans are white but because they have conquered and assimilated peoples of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent,you get Middle Eastern(Persian,Kurdish) Indo-European people and Indian(Punjabi,Gujarati,Bengali) subcontinental IE people.
All this doesn't change the fact that original Indo-Europeans are white and original Turkics are Northeast Asian.
And yes,the white mummies of West China are the Tocharians.I remembered watching a documentary on this on Discovery Channel in 2004.It was narrated by that actor who starred in that John Malkovich movie.
And also,yes,the European features found among Turkics of Central Asia are from the Indo-Europeans who roamed,conquered and settled there before the Turkics.If I'm not mistaken,they(the CA IE folks) were the ones who invented the chariot.
As for Ataturk,yes,he was documented as saying that he was a Yoruk,but Ataturk was also known for making up stories about himself(for example,his birthdate).And as coris wisely put,as he was trying to build a nation,it made sense to make up such things.
Hell! Ataturk even told an American journalist that Turks discovered America 50 years before Columbus did!
We don't know for sure if Ataturk was Albanian or not,but I did remember reading in that Mango book that some relative said that someone in the family was Albanian or something.I can't remember exactly.Mango went on to say Albanians and Slavs are likely to figure among his ancestors. You can read that part on Amazon you know? Well,I think you still should be able to.
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 18, 2011 15:03:58 GMT -5
Actually, Hellboy. It seems like being a Yoruk wasn't that much of a big deal either, according to the book I'm reading at the moment, the term Yoruk was much more of a social-military category than a ethnic one. As an example is an Ottoman decree that called upon extra military forces in Macedonia considered Muslim Gypsies as Yoruks. In the book the author also argues that there were very few actual Turks in the Balkans that settled in the Balkans, he argues that mostly they were just Turkified locals.
|
|
must be closely related.