Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?
    Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:45

I  Am a member of Kiptchak family. You haven't even been here. It's as if I tell you there are Arabs living among Uighurs; because there are lots of Uighurs who are caucaid. I told you 'no; there's not any Mongol here'. How come you think you should be able to find Mongols among Kiptchaks. Mongls invaded parts of Europe. Why do you think you're not able to find Mongols there? If Mongols were quite different, they must have survived or the time being. Turks were ranked third in Mongol society; out of four... not a good degree. So how come you think they all have been lost in Turkic world?

Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:53

Asking me again about sources, reveals the fact you havent' checked what I told you. Buy any of those famous books and you'll discover most of what you need to know about anthropology and races.

First, Iralians are typically different from originaly people of Northern Europe, in the case of facial characteristics including nose. They ARE Europeans, but they don't look like, for instance, people of Germany or England. Climate could change the shapes of eyes and especially nose. The form of the nose relates to the percentage of the air and the humidity you face in your area. That's why Italian nose is quite differnt from a German nose. Even among present day Tungusic people, there are people who seems to have yellow facial hair. Do they have something to do with Russians you think? Ofcourse no; just a matter of geographical place.

Please, first be familiar with antrhoplogy and then you're welcome to talk about it.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:55
 
Now you are telling me new theory that Mongols were not assimiliated into Turkic stock. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
There are slight discrepancies between the new and the sixteenth-seventeenth-century manuscript copies of the genealogy (for example, the ``Akhund Kurbanali,'' ``Khanikov,'' and "Sheykh Suleyman'' published versions). Undoubtedly, this genealogy lists those tribes at the time of the Altin Orda, meaning prior to the separation of the Mangit-Nogay and the Kazak. They are as follows: Min, Yuz, Qirq, Ungechit, Calayir, Saray, On, Qonrat, Alchin, Nayman, Argin, Qipchaq, chichak, Qalmaq, Uyrat, Qarliq, Turgavut, Burlas, Buslaq, chemerchin, Qatagan, Kilechi, Kineges, Boyrek, Qiyat, Bozay, Qatay (Khitay), Qanli, Ozce Buluci (?), Topchi (?), Upulachi, Culun, Cit, Cuyut, Salcavut, Bayavut, Otarchi, Arlat, Kireyit, Unqut, Mangit, Qangit, Oymavut, Qachat, Merkit, Borqut, Quralas, Qarlap, Ilaci, Gulegen (?), Qisliq, Oglan, Kudey, Turkmen, Durmen, Tabin, Tama, Mechet, Kirderi, Ramadan, Mumun, Aday, Tuqsaba, Qirgiz, Uyruci, Coyrat, Bozaci, Oysun, Corga, Batas, Qoysun, Suldiz, Tumay, Tatar, Tilev, Qayan, Sirin, Kurlevut, chilkes, Uygur, Yabu(=Yabaqu), Agir(Agiran), Buzan, Buzaq, Muyten, Macar, Qocaliq, choran, churchut, Barin(=Behrin), Mogul, Nokus[Nukus].

Thirty-three of these tribal names belong to the Mongol, others to the renowned Turk tribes of the Jochi Ulus, the remainder to those unknown to us today.
 


Edited by barbar - 30-May-2006 at 04:57
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:57
I don't need your Bravo at all. The correct form is to say there are Mongol tribes who live among Kazaks; but not among Kiptchaks. There are more than pure Turkic tribes than what you think.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:00
 
I mean Qipchaq by including all the groups who speak Qipchaq turkic, not only the Qipchaq tribe.
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:07
Oh, so you're right. But it would be better to clarify what you mean.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:12
 
I did clarify in my previous post (Uyghur, Azeri, Mongol numbers one) wih bracket. Maybe you didn't read it carefully.
 
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 04:08
You're just telling me 'among Kiptchaks' without specifiying you meant a nation. And the truth is that, they don't use the term Kiptchak as you did. When Kazaks say Kiptchak, they refer to the original tribe.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
kroglu View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote kroglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 19:58
Originally posted by AFG-PaShTuN

I just noticed that, thankio Got Toruk.

I also have a feeling that Turks have a high ratio of Indo-European blood in them, so far the Turks that i have come across look nothing like Turks, in fact most look more Afghan than they do Turk, the hooked nose and long face, not too long, tall etc.
 
 
 
I would see the difference everytime between an Afghan and a TURK. You must be blind...
 
Irano-AFghanoid:
 
 
(Turanoid) TURKS:
 
 
 
 


Edited by Seko - 02-Jun-2006 at 13:04
Back to Top
kroglu View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote kroglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 20:05
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1770000/images/_1771941_dostum300.jpg
This is Uzbek-TURKIC General Rashid Dostum from Afhanistan. Look at his eyes. Does he look like an IranianAfghan?? Please. Hooked nose and long face makes not an Afghan.

Edited by kroglu - 01-Jun-2006 at 20:07
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 20:51
Koroglu,
 
I've been looking for you in the Active topics section lately; I have to own up to an error. Tamerlane, was, in fact, a Turk with no Mongol blood, as you correctly stated. While I don't quite believe this oversight of mine renders me an idiot, it is an example of shoddy research on my part, for which I am sorry.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Jun-2006 at 20:54
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 11:34
Ancient Turkic looked like this.

Portrait head of Kul Tegin,
Gktrk Khan/ Minister,
Museum at Ulaanbaatur,
capital of Mongolia.
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 12:18
Originally posted by Zorigo

Ancient Turkic looked like this.

Portrait head of Kul Tegin,
Gktrk Khan/ Minister,
Museum at Ulaanbaatur,
capital of Mongolia.
 
he's a bit chubby isn't heBig smile
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 12:27
Originally posted by kroglu

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1770000/images/_1771941_dostum300.jpg
This is Uzbek-TURKIC General Rashid Dostum from Afhanistan. Look at his eyes. Does he look like an IranianAfghan?? Please. Hooked nose and long face makes not an Afghan.
 
 
I agrea but koroglu but has any one of you heard about proto-mongoloid
Longer face than a mongoloid. a higher nose bridge(meaning bigger or longer nose) and so on.
 
btw the ottoman sultans mostly didn't looked like turks I think most of the have hooked noses(like me broken it 2 times thow) THE "wifes" of the ottoman sultans were largely persian right?


Edited by xi_tujue - 03-Jun-2006 at 12:40
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 17:36

first off I want to say sorry for my apparent illiteracy on Turkish facts, I just dont know a whole lot about this part of the world and am looking for more facts.

I didn't want to start a new thread on the subject so I am posting my questions here.
 
Now I know that Turks live in both Turkey and Central Asia, However in my experience Turkish Turks tend to look a lot more Greek/Iranian Caucasian in general, while people from Turkmenistan look an in between of Caucasian and Mongoloid, and Uzbekistan and Kazhakistan's people look mostly Mongoloid. Can anyone explain to me if these people have a common racial ancestry, or just a common culture.
 
Furthermore where do Mongols fit in this? I've heard that as they swept across central Asia, by mixing with local inhabitants, they formed the Turks. Others say the Turks are Mongols who have changed in culture and are Muslim. And where does Turan fit in all of this?
 
Also does anyone have information specific to the Jaxartes River region? Are they Turks or Mongols, what is the area's history, just wondering because I read about some battles in that region.
Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 00:07
Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

 
Now I know that Turks live in both Turkey and Central Asia, However in my experience Turkish Turks tend to look a lot more Greek/Iranian Caucasian in general, while people from Turkmenistan look an in between of Caucasian and Mongoloid, and Uzbekistan and Kazhakistan's people look mostly Mongoloid. Can anyone explain to me if these people have a common racial ancestry, or just a common culture.
 
They surely have common racial ancestory (who have kept the common culture), only as a nomadic stock, they always had interaction with the people they ruled or were ruled in a vast region inlcuding racially completely different  groups.  This is the reason for their being racially diverse.  Historical ancestry of Turkic people which can be traced by the documents infer that they were Caucasian.  
 
 
Furthermore where do Mongols fit in this? I've heard that as they swept across central Asia, by mixing with local inhabitants, they formed the Turks. Others say the Turks are Mongols who have changed in culture and are Muslim. And where does Turan fit in all of this?
 
 
This is totally absurd. Mongols were assimiliated by Turks. Anyone who knows a little about history can see that Turkic people were living as Turks all through Euro Asia steppe before Mongol expansion. Turan is the land Turkic people ( Tura tribes ) dominated.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by barbar - 04-Jun-2006 at 00:08
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
lena View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 28-May-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote lena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 06:17
I suppose the ancestors of Turks were tribes(mostly Mongolian ones) who live in areas of present day Mongolia. Maybe you heard that the oldest runic inscriptions were found there, in the valley of the Orkhon river.  
Back to Top
lena View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 28-May-2006
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote lena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 06:24

An article about the Orkhon runic writing can be seen here:

Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 04:24
Originally posted by lena

I suppose the ancestors of Turks were tribes(mostly Mongolian ones) who live in areas of present day Mongolia. Maybe you heard that the oldest runic inscriptions were found there, in the valley of the Orkhon river.  
 
Who were the ancestors of Turks? Where is it stated that they were Mongolian?
 
Racially, Turks are Turanid (Pamirid and Aralid), Caucasian. How come their ancesters can be mostly Mongolian?
 
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 08:13

Guys, sorry to intrude but in my opinion some of you are looking at this from the wrong perspective ie a European racial perspective.

Have any of you read Professor Justin McCarthy, Ph.D. "Who are the Turks" book?

Let me show you an extract very relevant to this topic.

 
The simplest questions can be the most difficult to answer. The Turks are obviously a people separate from other peoples, but a people can be defined in many ways-language, religion, cultural traits, citizenship, loyalty to a ruling house, or many other feelings of kinship.
 
The nomads did not stop once Iran and Iraq were conquered. They were soon raiding into the Byzantine Empire, which lay to the west of Iran, in Anatolia. In 1071, the Byzantine defeat to the Seljuks in a great battle at Manzikert opened Anatolia to Turkish settlement. Over the next two hundred years the nomads kept moving into Anatolia in great numbers.  Anatolia had become Turkey land of the Turks. Many other peoples remained there. Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and others shared the land, and many of them adopted the Turkish language, converted to Islam (forced conversion was almost unknown), and became Turks themselves. Because the Turks had no concept of "race" that would exclude anyone, they accepted those who wished to be Turks as Turks. The Turkish people were thus made up of the descendants of the Turks of Central Asia and those who had become Turks.........
 
The most important part is highlighted in Bold.
 
Do you see how beautiful this concept is, its a primary reason why Turks have been so succesfull, simply "racism" is not a part of the Turks culture and society.
 
They had no concept of "race", so somebody could "become" a Turk and once a Turk they were accepted as simply a Turk.
 
There would be no arguments or racial theories ie Your not a real Turk your from this "race" its an inferior "race" its the wrong "race" etc etc
 
So its perfectly normal to see so many colours among the Turks and this in no way at all stops them being Turks as a Nation is determined by language, culture, historical ties, a common identity and sense of belonging, religion can also be a unifying factor.
 
The land of the original Turks has always been inhabitted by these people for thousands of years, Chinease written records going back to 1700 BC have records of Turkic words and referrences to these people.
 
There are only 1 race in the world the human race and 3 classifications among it, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid , now ofcourse the nations of the Earth do not fit into each category as a perfect match, that's totally impossible as we are all originally Negroid and have over time due to migration and environment become Caucasoid, Mongoloid.
 
Most Nations are an admixture which trace's of different groups based on the areas they lived in.
 
The further East you go ie to China-Japan-Korea... the more Mongoloid the characteristics get. The further West the more Caucosoid.
 
Turks are situated in the middle, its natural for them to have characteristics of both Caucasoid and Mongoloid, its a transition area in the middle and an area of lots of mixing.
 
 
The Azeri Turks are Turks they can be nothing else, the Turks never had a Turkification process or forced assimilation process.
 

Turkish speakers among the Iranian population who were spread through every region of Iran were not Persians who were forced to abandon their original language and forgot it and learned Turkish. No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands, as was the opinion spread throughout Iran; the Turkish speakers are nothing but the descendants of the Turks who had migrated in ancient times from Turkestan in search of safety and pasture and became conquerors of Iran and spread throughout it and settled here and there in tracts of land and mingled with the population over the course of time and intermarried with them and followed them in their customs and clothing and religion, although they have preserved their Turkish language and their descendants still speak it (although there are some of these Turks who have assimilated into the indigenous population and have forgotten their languages as well.

Proof of our claim, in addition to what has been outlined above, comes from the history books. To force a people to abandon the language into which they had been born and to forget it and to speak a foreign language against their will and to carry this to extremes–in this, the Arabs were supreme. They defeated the Iranians and captured their princes and kings and uprooted their rule and ruled over their lands and stripped them of their independence and spread among them their Islam and their Koran and governed them for centuries on end and made Arabic the language of letters and the Court and prohibited the people from writing in any other language and settled among the defeated two or three thousand poets and scholars and had them teach Arabic and spread it and habituated some hundred thousand writers with this language; but despite all this, the Arabs were never able to get the Iranians to repudiate and abandon their Persian language and exchange it for Arabic. This is in addition to the differences between the two sides in appearance and distinctions in sensibility and character, which cannot be explained except by a difference in race and ancestry with the native population. We do not claim that the people of Azerbaijan or all speakers of Turkish in Iran are pure blooded Turks/racially pure etc etc but nethertheless are Turks.

Now the Turks never outlawed Persian or forced Turkish and Turkification upon the population, this was never a policy, so you must look at the logic of these claims and realise how ridiculous they are. If the Turks could so easily brainwash everyone into speaking Turkish and thinking that they're Turks how is it humanly possible that the whole of Iran today isn't Arab as the Arabs ruled for centruries and outlawed all other languages and had a strong Arabization policy?

There were always a mixture of people's in the Azerbaijan area, Caucasians/Iranians/Turkic, however, with the monumental growth in power of the Turks they moved in huge numbers to the area, these people are Turks today just as other Turks are Turks.
 
Regards
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.055 seconds.