Proof ataturk was a Yörük Turkmen From balkan

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

I have not at any point said that Turks were not asian, I have however said they were recorded to have green eyes by the Chinese. Take it or leave it.

Many Turks today still have that slight asiatic eye shape. No one here has actually said otherwise.

The point is of colouring. There is no DNA evidence whatsoever that states Turks were all of a certain type, or colouring. There are ancient writing that state Turks were of a diverse colouring.
These are the facts at hand at the moment.
Until other sources are brought, this is what we know.

Nobody can comment for definate about the colour of range of eye colours among the ancient Turks until there is clear evidence. If there is DNA evidence than I would happily love to learn about it, its not like I am winning or losing anything with this, I am just the kind of person who prefers REAL FACTS over opinions. I am open to different theories..

So far, you have only been able to tell us that Turks - TODAY are mixed and that NON TURK mummies were IE.
That doesn't seem much really, you have no evidence about ancient Turks at all.. are you aware of this?

As for the book you are reading that is quite comical... Yoruks are an ethnic group of Turks, Yoruruk - Yoruk - the walkers... they are nomads still to this day. I have met a few.... The Yoruks were around way before the Ottomans. So any "later term" describing them otherwise is certainly not going to hold any ground.

As for Hellboy.... stfu about Ataturk. You just never ever stop making up lies...

[hellboy87]

May 18, 2011 15:03:58 GMT -5 @odel said:

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.

I don't know if being a Yoruk was ever a problem for him though.

Yes,I did read somewhere on the web that the Yoruks weren't of one ethnicity and that the Ottomans set up military settlements in the Balkans for military,travelling and communication purposes.

I think I will agree with the author that very Turks actually settled in the Balkans too.

Another thing is why do the Balkan Turks look Balkanian/European while Anatolian Turks look Middle Eastern?

You know,I have seen many pictures of Yoruks and most do look European.But I've also seen pictures of Middle Eastern looking Yoruks in Turkey.

Funny that DY says what she says about the Yoruks being the purest Turkics and about the racial features because in Cyprus,most of the Turkish-Cypriots there look Middle Eastern.

We have to be careful about Turkish sources regarding these things.The Turkish goverment is known to encourage the Turkification of facts to serve the Turks like for example,making the Turks seem responsible for the happening or creation of certain things,like that.

But of course not all Turkish scholars are like that.You have good ones like Dogu Ergil and Elif Safak.

[hellboy87]

to DY,think of this:

The Turkics speak an Altaic language which originated in Northeast Asia.You know how Northeast Asians look like,don't you? Look at the Turkics' fellow Altaians the Japanese,Koreans and Mongolians.

Any European features that some Turkics in Central Asia have are from the ancient Indo-Europeans.Some Turkics acquired these features after they had settled en mass in Central Asia.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

Turkish Cypriots are just as mixed as any other nation in the region. Many came there from Anatolia, so don't come here chatting bollox again. Not that you have EVER been to Turkey or Cyprus,,, u think you know what Turks look like. You know jack shi.t.

Nobody here is debating their language, nor there asiatic roots, what is being discussed here is that the Chinese have recorded that Turks also had Green eyes and Red hair, in fact it is recorded in the New History Of Five Dynasties, that any Kyrgiz that had black hair must be of Li Ling descent, and that the original Kyrgiz were green eyed and red haired. This doesn't mean ALL Turks are the same, but most Turks of ancient have been described as such, and until there is evidence disproving the historical records, it shall stand so, whether certain people like it or not.

[hellboy87]

So the kyrgyz settled in Central Asia which already had some Indo-European populations and mixed with them and the Chinese said there were Kyrgyz who had European colouring.

The fact that Altaians originated in the Northeast of Asia and all their cousins there look Mongolic today tells us their race.

So what if I have never been to Turkey or Cyprus? I don't need to in order to know FACTS.

Historical records are not always accurate.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

Since you have trouble reading:

the New History Of Five Dynasties, that any Kyrgiz that had black hair must be of Li Ling descent, and that the original Kyrgiz were green eyed and red haired.

Nobody is debating their race.

You will never ever be accurate about Turkey or Cyprus, because you have never been, you are some saddo who sits and looks at google images thinking that is what all Turks look like. You are a fool.
I have been to Cyprus - half of my family are Cypriot. i have lived in Turkey... My husband has been to 3 different Turkic states, I know people from Azerbaijan, Ozbekistan and other places.

you know ZILCH

Stop coming here with your "opinion" without basis... go and play in the malaysian or indian or losers forums where you belong.

[Hellenas]

May 19, 2011 1:22:20 GMT -5 hellboy87 said:

Another thing is why do the Balkan Turks look Balkanian/European while Anatolian Turks look Middle Eastern?

The modern Turks of Anatolia differ little in most or their metrical characters from peoples whom we have already encountered in central and southeastern Europe.

The faces of the Osmanli Turks of Anatolia, as well as their head vaults, have dimensions reminiscent of southeastern Europe.

In these dimension the Turks resemble Balkan Mediterraneans and Alpines; their faces are not long enough for exaggerated Dinarics. Like the Greeks and the peoples to the west of the Black Sea, they preserve a forehead-jaw ratio which emphasizes the width of the mandible.

The unexposed skin color of the Turks is mostly brunet-white or swarthy (von Luschan #11-16), the head hair color, in 90 per cent of cases, dark brown.[/b] Black hair, however, is found in less than 5 per cent, and blondism is rare. The ratio of dark brown hair is constant, except in the eastern provinces, where it is nearly 100 per cent. [/i]

On the whole, the Anatolian Turks are prevailingly brunet in pigmentation, but brunet in a condition in which the skin is brunet-white, the hair dark brown, and the eyes brown or dark-mixed.

carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-17.htm

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

Hellenas, i told you, you are stuck using outdated anthropological data. Coon and his peers aren't reliable. The data is certainly outdated today.

Blondism is certainly not rare in Turkey, however it is less than brown hair. Also surprisingly red is seen often.

As for eyes, the main eye colours i noticed in Turkey was very light/hazel brown, honey brown, and darkish brown, also Green. I didn't notice that many blue eyes to be honest.
People were usually always talking about my eyes, because they are very DARK yet not black, and almond shaped, whereas a lot of Turks still have the slightly asiatic slant to their eyes.

Now this of course is down to the exposure I had living in turkey for 5 years, it varied according to which city i was in, with European Istanbul as an exception, it didn't feel like being in Turkey there.

Coons fairytales need to be laid to rest.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

If you go to Izmir, Bursa, Eskisehir, you will find a lot more blonde than Brunette, if you go to Hatay, you will find very dark skinned arabic types, if you go to Diyarbakir you will find the Kurdish type of light eyes and dirty blonde hair, or jet black hair.

Go to Adana and you will find the Yoruk type, the arab type and the Kurdish type due to immigration from the SE.

When I say arab type I talk of the darkish skin, dark eyes and black hair... however I am aware not all arabs are this type, I am only speaking of the ones in Turkey.

[Hellenas]

May 19, 2011 17:18:33 GMT -5 Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning said:

Hellenas, i told you, you are stuck using outdated anthropological data. Coon and his peers aren't reliable. The data is certainly outdated today. Coons fairytales need to be laid to rest.

Carleton Stevens Coon is a serious and a classical Anthropologist/Scientist who spent his life analyzing racially different people and races, I don't care what some of the modern anthropologists, who have no respect for him, say about him. The only fairytales comes from "your" modern anthropologists: "All humanity originate in Africa" etc.

[odel]

The New History Of Five Dynasties, that any Kyrgiz that had black hair must be of Li Ling descent, and that the original Kyrgiz were green eyed and red haired.

Nobody is debating their race.

But yet again I'll have to inform you that these light features came from IE peoples, this has been proven. The ones who made the documents didn't know this and they made a very unscientific statement. The race is also important as the light features aren't Asian but of European extract. I'm repeating myself again and again.

And Hellboy is correct, historical documents aren't always exact, actually more often than not they aren't exact at all. Then there's also the documents that are more reliable and etc, the writers tended to exagerate things very much. You trying to paint the ancient Turks as light featured based on some vague historical documents that can easily be dismissed while not taking actual facts to your head shows that you just have a complex concerning this.

If you go to Izmir, Bursa, Eskisehir, you will find a lot more blonde than Brunette, if you go to Hatay, you will find very dark skinned arabic types, if you go to Diyarbakir you will find the Kurdish type of light eyes and dirty blonde hair, or jet black hair.

Izmir and Bursa are both populated extensively with Balkan people, Izmir has quite a large Albanian population, Bursa aswell. These are bad examples to use when you're trying to discuss that the light features found among Turks in Turkey isn't because of Balkanian influence. According to what I've read, the men in Izmir and Bursa are also the tallest and the healthiest among the Turks. Eskisehir also lies in Northwestern-Turkey and is also therefore in the zone where the Balkanian influence on Turkey has been felt the most.

As for your comments on Coon, he's much more reliable than what you had seen. You obviously have a bias, Coon didn't and his work is quite scientific, at his time he was the foremost expert concerning his field and his work can still be regarded highly. His work being old doesn't mean it's outdated. Einstein's work is old too, still it's not outdated in anyway.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

But yet again I'll have to inform you that these light features came from IE peoples, this has been proven. The ones who made the documents didn't know this and they made a very unscientific statement. The race is also important as the light features aren't Asian but of European extract. I'm repeating myself again and again.

How has this been proven? If it had been proven we would not be debating here. The ONLY thing that has been proven is that: THE TARIM BASIN MUMMIES WERE IE.
Nothing else....
There aren't any scientific studies on the ANCIENT TURKS are there? unless you are hiding some from me?

Who says that light features are only of European extract?

And Hellboy is correct, historical documents aren't always exact, actually more often than not they aren't exact at all. Then there's also the documents that are more reliable and etc, the writers tended to exagerate things very much. You trying to paint the ancient Turks as light featured based on some vague historical documents that can easily be dismissed while not taking actual facts to your head shows that you just have a complex concerning this.

Lol, so now we are generalising the correctness of historical documentation?
See this is where your comprehension and interpretation skills aren't functioning at full force.... I AM NOT - I REPEAT - AM NOT, trying to paint the ancient Turks as light features. I am just bringing forward quite reliable historic documentS that nobody here has been able to contest with counter document or scientific evidence that SOME KYRGIZ TURKS WERE DESCRIBED AS GREEN EYED AND RED HAIRED.

Izmir and Bursa are both populated extensively with Balkan people, Izmir has quite a large Albanian population, Bursa aswell. These are bad examples to use when you're trying to discuss that the light features found among Turks in Turkey isn't because of Balkanian influence. According to what I've read, the men in Izmir and Bursa are also the tallest and the healthiest among the Turks. Eskisehir also lies in Northwestern-Turkey and is also therefore in the zone where the Balkanian influence on Turkey has been felt the most.

This is where your comprehension has failed you, i was replying to Hellenas's Coon derived anthropological statement in regards to blondism in Turkey, NOT in reference to ancient Turks.
Come on lad... follow the conversation... are you understanding what I am saying here?
BTW Eskisehir is a very high % Tatar city with Yoruks in-between lol,, thanks for your... "guess?" LOL

As for your comments on Coon, he's much more reliable than what you had seen. You obviously have a bias, Coon didn't and his work is quite scientific, at his time he was the foremost expert concerning his field and his work can still be regarded highly. His work being old doesn't mean it's outdated. Einstein's work is old too, still it's not outdated in anyway.

LOL - here is a nice example, you just defend the man who says that Blondism is rare in Turkey, but in the previous paragraph talk about how Izmir and Bursa have light features LOL...
First of all, people from izmir, Izmit and Bursa, are not largely Albanian AT ALL. Izmir and Izmit has more Greek ancestry, Bursa has much more Bulgarian than Albanian, in fact in Bursa they say "Yugoslav Gocmeni" therefore they could be Serbian, Croation or any ex Yugo ethnicity, whilst it is well known that Albanians call themselves Arnavut, not Yugoslav Gocmeni.

I hope this has been easy enough for you to understand.

I don't give a toss what Hellboy says, if you reference him into the conversation i shall just ignore it

[odel]

How has this been proven? If it had been proven we would not be debating here. The ONLY thing that has been proven is that: THE TARIM BASIN MUMMIES WERE IE.
Nothing else....
There aren't any scientific studies on the ANCIENT TURKS are there? unless you are hiding some from me?

It has also been proven that the descendants of the ancient Turks are a mix of Asians and Europeans, the European part being the indigenous IE people. That there isn't any scientific study that tells us 100% surely that the ancient Turks were Asians with no light features doesn't mean that it's not correct.

We can conclude that the ancient Turks were on a lot of things we do know, we do know that the Turkic languages are related to Mongolic and other Asian languages that are in the Altaic language group. That means that these peoples have the same origins. You calling me a typical stubborn Arnaut is really ironic you dolt.

Who says that light features are only of European extract?

Genetics, anthropology, logic and etc. Light features such as weak blondism is in fact seen in the Aboriginals of Australia, its a really dirty blonde type of blondism, this is not of European extract however as they were described as such before the Europeans came to Australia. Except for that they're not light featured and the blondism there is quite rare even.

In Central-Asia the European influence has been proven and light features such as blue eyes have been shown to have come from the same genetic source, this concerns also other such features such as blonde hair, red hair, green eyes and whatnot.

Lol, so now we are generalising the correctness of historical documentation?
See this is where your comprehension and interpretation skills aren't functioning at full force.... I AM NOT - I REPEAT - AM NOT, trying to paint the ancient Turks as light features. I am just bringing forward quite reliable historic documentS that nobody here has been able to contest with counter document or scientific evidence that SOME KYRGIZ TURKS WERE DESCRIBED AS GREEN EYED AND RED HAIRED.

I'm not saying that there weren't Kirgiz with light features, dear. I'm saying that they were so because of European influence, meaning they were pure. You however were also trying to prove that light features were typical of some Turkic peoples such as the Yoruks, you even used these to prove your point:

From the book: McGovern states, “It so happens, however, that the Chinese have a tradition that the ancient Kirghis were decidedly blond in appearance, or, as the Chinese say, were tall with white skin, red hair and green eyes.”

See? There's a generalization of the Kyrgyz as a decidedly blonde people.

The T’ang period falls outside the framework of the present studies. I mention only in passing the Europoid ‘Tokharians,’ depicted with their red hair and green eyes on the wall paintings in northern Hsin-chiang . . . The barbarian horsemen from Yu-chou in a poem by Li Po, probably Turks, had green eyes. Even later the Chinese know of Mongol Huang t’ou Shih-wei, ‘Shih-wei with the yellow heads,’ and Genghis Khan and his descendants had blond or reddish hair and deep-blue eyes.

This one even claims that Genghis Khan had light features aswell as his descendants had so. As we know Genghis Khan spread his genes quite well and a huge portion of Asian peoples have his genes in them, the number is actually quite large almost 50%, yet we don't see all these blondes and reddish haired people with deep-blue eyes in Asia. This because he never was so.

You don't use the best references tbh, and as I've said there are so many things that can be wrong with historical documents, as I have said they're not used to see the greater picture but only to get some few hints.

This is where your comprehension has failed you, i was replying to Hellenas's Coon derived anthropological statement in regards to blondism in Turkey, NOT in reference to ancient Turks.
Come on lad... follow the conversation... are you understanding what I am saying here?

Lol, seriously, I think you're the one with the lack of comprehension. Where did I mention the ancient Turks? I was saying that Coon's studies weren't outdated, and that his observations concerning the blondism in Turkey is much more reliable than yours! That you even make the connection that you have made is jaw-breaking.

BTW Eskisehir is a very high % Tatar city with Yoruks in-between lol,, thanks for your... "guess?" LOL

Oh, and seemingly a large Bosniak and Bulgarian population aswell. As most of Northwestern-Turkey it's largely influenced by Balkanoids.

LOL - here is a nice example, you just defend the man who says that Blondism is rare in Turkey, but in the previous paragraph talk about how Izmir and Bursa have light features LOL...

I talked about how Izmir, Bursa and Northwestern-Turkey overall has lighter features than Turkey as a whole, not that they're Swedes. I see nothing wrong with his statement about blondism being rare in Turkey, it is in the Balkans too, although much more common than in Turkey.

First of all, people from izmir, Izmit and Bursa, are not largely Albanian AT ALL. Izmir and Izmit has more Greek ancestry, Bursa has much more Bulgarian than Albanian, in fact in Bursa they say "Yugoslav Gocmeni" therefore they could be Serbian, Croation or any ex Yugo ethnicity, whilst it is well known that Albanians call themselves Arnavut, not Yugoslav Gocmeni.

I have not said that they're largely Albanian either, I've said that they have large Albanian populations which also Coris an Albanian descended Turk has told me too. Albanians overall are more numerous in Turkey than Yugoslavs anyways, everyone not calling themselves Albanians doesn't mean they aren't Albanians by origins I think the numbers were something like 1.5 mill-3 mill people identifying as Albanians (although not necessarily speaking the language) and some larger numbers of people with partial Albanian descent.

There were a lot of Albanians that moved to Turkey a long time ago that surely were assimilated, and then there's the more recent arrivals that came mostly from Kosova and Macedonia. Anyways, we had a large influence in Northwestern-Turkey.

I don't give a toss what Hellboy says, if you reference him into the conversation i shall just ignore it

You don't seem to give a toss about anyones opinions but your own and you're never able to bring up any good arguements, rather you just like to make statement that end with something that says "this is something everyone should know, you don't know? You're ignorant, lol!" If you reference any of the people you have done till now or similar people, I'll just ignora that

[EriTopSheqeri]

May 10, 2011 18:46:36 GMT -5 Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning said:

May 10, 2011 12:10:40 GMT -5 EriTopSheqeri said:

UMMM, if you see the medieval paintings' depiction of the Turks...they had Asian features, their eyes especially.

I studied 4 years at the Mehmet Akif Ersoy koleji in Tirana (that's where I learned Turkish), and it was common knowledge among my proffessors that anyone who was blond or red-haired originated from the Balkans. The physics teacher especially looked like a Norse lol

I have never seen an Albanian with redhair, unless its dyed.
We are not discussing features, we are discussing colouring.
If you really believe that all original Turks had jet black hair and eyes you are truly mistaken, since in history the lightness of their eyes and colouring of their hair is what distinguished them from the mongolians and other asiatic peoples.

I used to be red-haired (kokekuq) til my 20s lol they used to call my Caksi, short for Chuck Noris ;D. You may have not seen them but there are quite a few.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

It has also been proven that the descendants of the ancient Turks are a mix of Asians and Europeans, the European part being the indigenous IE people. That there isn't any scientific study that tells us 100% surely that the ancient Turks were Asians with no light features doesn't mean that it's not correct.

Ok, I am going to have an open mind, can you show me the scientific fact that Ancient Turks were a mix of IE and Asian people.
You say it has been proven, so I am assuming you mean scientifically.
Please do enlighten me I would love to read about the ANCIENT TURKS.

We can conclude that the ancient Turks were on a lot of things we do know, we do know that the Turkic languages are related to Mongolic and other Asian languages that are in the Altaic language group. That means that these peoples have the same origins. You calling me a typical stubborn Arnaut is really ironic you dolt.

Lol Ural Altaic is just a language grouping, it doesn't actually show any ethnic connection between the people that use it. However if you do go by this theory, you are assuming that Finnish, Swedish, Hungarian, Turkish, Turkmen, Tatar and Mongolian are all from the same ethnicity LOL.

LOL what about the IE languages all the people have the same roots LOL... I guess you need to learn to differentiate between language roots and ethnic roots.. ho humm.

Genetics, anthropology, logic and etc. Light features such as weak blondism is in fact seen in the Aboriginals of Australia, its a really dirty blonde type of blondism, this is not of European extract however as they were described as such before the Europeans came to Australia. Except for that they're not light featured and the blondism there is quite rare even.

LOL there are naturally blonde people ALL OVER THE WORLD. The frequency of them being higher in Europe, yet this does not limit natural blonde ONLY to Europeans. There are very blonde Aborigines also Berbers too.

In Central-Asia the European influence has been proven and light features such as blue eyes have been shown to have come from the same genetic source, this concerns also other such features such as blonde hair, red hair, green eyes and whatnot.

Oh, please now you exaggerate, can you show me the source of this great finding please. LOL

I'm not saying that there weren't Kirgiz with light features, dear. I'm saying that they were so because of European influence, meaning they were pure. You however were also trying to prove that light features were typical of some Turkic peoples such as the Yoruks, you even used these to prove your point

Ok so show me the scientific study on the Kyrgiz ancient Turks and I shall happily be a wiser person.

This one even claims that Genghis Khan had light features aswell as his descendants had so. As we know Genghis Khan spread his genes quite well and a huge portion of Asian peoples have his genes in them, the number is actually quite large almost 50%, yet we don't see all these blondes and reddish haired people with deep-blue eyes in Asia. This because he never was so.

LOL and Gengiz Khans biological ancestors are said to be Kyrgiz coincidence??

Who says it isn't so? you? deep blue eyes? no... mainly green eyes is the lightest colour found among Turk people. There are LOTS of red heads too.

You don't use the best references tbh, and as I've said there are so many things that can be wrong with historical documents, as I have said they're not used to see the greater picture but only to get some few hints.

You haven't countered my referenced sources, nor the historians, anthropologists or the journalists I have used.
Here is a hint to you, bring me a scientific fact published, a study perhaps on the ancient Turks, or a selective study of the ancient Kyrgiz population. Then we can continue, until then,,, your opinion won't mean anything to me.

Lol, seriously, I think you're the one with the lack of comprehension. Where did I mention the ancient Turks? I was saying that Coon's studies weren't outdated, and that his observations concerning the blondism in Turkey is much more reliable than yours! That you even make the connection that you have made is jaw-breaking.

LOL Coons studies aren't outdated!! lmao... I am not going to discuss this with you.
Here is the lack of comprehension:

These are bad examples to use when you're trying to discuss that the light features found among Turks in Turkey isn't because of Balkanian influence

Did I ever say that Europeans or people of the Balkans haven't influenced the ethnic make up of Turkey? including their colouring?
I just said, that they are perhaps not the only influence and that it could also be down to ancient Turk roots too. comprende?

Oh, and seemingly a large Bosniak and Bulgarian population aswell. As most of Northwestern-Turkey it's largely influenced by Balkanoids.

Eskisehir isn't one of those that is influenced.

I talked about how Izmir, Bursa and Northwestern-Turkey overall has lighter features than Turkey as a whole, not that they're Swedes. I see nothing wrong with his statement about blondism being rare in Turkey, it is in the Balkans too, although much more common than in Turkey.

Firstly I don't think you should get into a conversation in regards to different areas of Turkey as you will lack the knowledge required to debate. Secondly, if you do go against my advise and try to get into this debate I advise you that your information about Northwestern Turkey having lighter features as a whole isn't only to do with the Balkans. Thirdly there are parts of Eastern Turkey where the people are very blonde and light eyed...yet do not have ANY Balkan influence.

I have not said that they're largely Albanian either, I've said that they have large Albanian populations which also Coris an Albanian descended Turk has told me too. Albanians overall are more numerous in Turkey than Yugoslavs anyways, everyone not calling themselves Albanians doesn't mean they aren't Albanians by origins I think the numbers were something like 1.5 mill-3 mill people identifying as Albanians (although not necessarily speaking the language) and some larger numbers of people with partial Albanian descent.

Coris is not an expert in this field, he made some other claims too which were iffy. There are statistics in regards to the different ethnic groups in Turkey. Some say only 66 000 whereas others say 3000000. I don't think it much matters, because there are other groups that number larger than the Albanians and are of a much greater influence.

There were a lot of Albanians that moved to Turkey a long time ago that surely were assimilated, and then there's the more recent arrivals that came mostly from Kosova and Macedonia. Anyways, we had a large influence in Northwestern-Turkey.

The biggest influences in Turkey don't include Albanians, its mainly the Bulgarians, Bosnians, Laz, Georgians, Circassians, Kurds in fact,,, after 500 years of the Ottoman empire... Turkey is just a huge mix. In regards to modern Turkey, maybe an influx did come, but they seem to call themselves Turks, during the last few studies of ethnic roots in Turkey, Arnavuts didn't play a big role.

I don't give a toss what Hellboy says, if you reference him into the conversation i shall just ignore it

You don't seem to give a toss about anyones opinions but your own and you're never able to bring up any good arguements, rather you just like to make statement that end with something that says "this is something everyone should know, you don't know? You're ignorant, lol!" If you reference any of the people you have done till now or similar people, I'll just ignora that

Hellboy knows why he is ignored. As for bringing good arguments? errmm I just showed some references and expressed my view on them, you are the one arguing against them, yet without anything factual. I find the above statement you made ironic.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

Some more sources regarding the Ancient Kyrgiz:

V.V. Bartold, The Kyrgyz: A Historical Essay, Frunze, 1927. Reprinted in V.V. Bartold, Collected Works, Volume II, Part 1, Izd. Vostochnoi Literatury, Moscow, 1963, p. 480 (Russian)

↑ Mirfatyh Zakiev, Origins of the Turks and Tatars, Part Two, Third Chapter, sections 109-100, 2002. Retrieved on 15 May 2009

Both these sources state the ORIGINAL Kyrgiz and not the modern, had Green eyes and red hair.

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

Kipchak/Cuman Turks:

Kipchak Turks were called Polovtsi by Russians, Falb by Germans and Hardes by Armenians. The common meaning of names these three nations used for Kipchak, was blonde.

Many researchers believe that Kipchaks were blondes and blue-eyed, some researchers even connect their origin with the "Dinlins", who lived in the steppes of Southern Siberia in the end of the 1st millennium BC, and who were, according to the Chinese chroniclers, blondes. It is certainly quite apparently that among Kipchaks were some blonde individuals, however some of the Türkic-speaking people with an admixture of Mongoloidness (according to anthropologists) of the Kimak-Kipchaks was some dark-haired and brown-eyed

[Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning]

From all this information we can probably understand that Turks were very mixed, came from various different roots, some of those roots were asian, others were Caucasoid, but together they joined to be Turks. sharing the same language and culture.

[hellboy87]

May 20, 2011 20:51:42 GMT -5 Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning said:

Kipchak/Cuman Turks:

Kipchak Turks were called Polovtsi by Russians, Falb by Germans and Hardes by Armenians. The common meaning of names these three nations used for Kipchak, was blonde.

Many researchers believe that Kipchaks were blondes and blue-eyed, some researchers even connect their origin with the "Dinlins", who lived in the steppes of Southern Siberia in the end of the 1st millennium BC, and who were, according to the Chinese chroniclers, blondes. It is certainly quite apparently that among Kipchaks were some blonde individuals, however some of the Türkic-speaking people with an admixture of Mongoloidness (according to anthropologists) of the Kimak-Kipchaks was some dark-haired and brown-eyed

And where did you get that from?

[hellboy87]

May 20, 2011 21:05:29 GMT -5 Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning said:

From all this information we can probably understand that Turks were very mixed, came from various different roots, some of those roots were asian, others were Caucasoid, but together they joined to be Turks. sharing the same language and culture.

If the Turkics have various roots,how come that is not the case with their Altaian Tunguistic and Mongolic cousins?

It is known that the Turkics turkicized or Turkization happened to their conquered subjects.

And the Turkics today DON'T have the same language and culture but have similarities of those because of their Turkic connection/heritage.That's like saying the Indo-Europeans are all the same.