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 23456 7>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?
    Posted: 24-May-2006 at 11:17
Originally posted by gok_toruk

You're also right 'qartash'; but its movements. We've got limited kind of human-like monkeys (or what? something like that). In the area we're talking about, I mean, Eastern Asia, all people have originated from the Peking Man. This is what they discuss in Anthropology.

 
Could you give any source that claiming this? I've never heard of it. BTW, east Asia and North Asia is different.
 
 


Edited by barbar - 24-May-2006 at 11:18
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-May-2006 at 11:24
Originally posted by gok_toruk

'Where have they gone? ' That's the point. If they were quite different from Turks, so why can't we trace them for the time being? Turks migrated to China, lived them for almost a hundred years. Then got back to Mongolia. There are Turkmens living in Iran, living there in a completely different society; but still resembling they're Turkmen; language and culture have remained different than Iranian. Ask Iranian people in AE about Iranian Turkmens. This also applies for Kazaks of Iran. Or Turkic people in Afghanistan. They've been living there for more than a thousand years. Still they're Turkic. Right?
Why should we think only Turks are good at keeping their ethnicity very well. Mongols, if quite different, should have remained different. But you see, they're disappeard here.
 
You can trace them, among Qipchaq Turks there are quite number of Mongolian tribes if  you try to dig out.  Nomadic people are easy to get mingled with each other, just as some Turkic tribes were intergrated into Mongols in the Mongol dominated regions. Mongols were intergrated into Turkic people where Turks dominate. 
 
 
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-May-2006 at 11:29
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Well, we know Mongols used to live far north while Turks inhabiting Central Mongolia. This does not change the fact that all skeletons, from southern Mongolia to northern Siberia are all Mongoloid. So, if any Turk (if we claim so) is caucaian, what's the reason we can't find any so called man?
 
No, main ancestors of Mongols were living in the far east, not far north.  You need to show your proof to say that ALL the skeletons found there were Mongoloid.  As I said, many skeleton found there during Hunnic period were clearly caucasian.
 
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-May-2006 at 11:35
Originally posted by gok_toruk

I told you about the relationship (in a war, it was) that Kirkiz people hleped a Slave tribe. And the descriptions found in Chinese history about Kyrkizes might be due to they fault in distinguishing these people; they were quite far from China. Especially when they say Kyrkizes used to burn their dead people. Is it common in Shamansim?
 
They were not far from China, actually China helped them to overthrow Uyghur empire. How come they should make such a mistake? They were ancient Turkic tribe according to Oghuzkhan legend, and they were living in the north of Yenisey to have less Mongolic influence. A peculier custom isn't enough to relate the peoples living so far away from each other without any other relation.
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-May-2006 at 11:39
Originally posted by gok_toruk

The fact is that Hazaras are like Central Asians, rather than Mongolians who are like Tungusic people. 
 
'Don't forget about the exagerated desctription of the historians'. This is the point I'm trying to tell you. Iranians and Russians say Turks were Mongoloid.  If you belive this statement, how come you just focus on Chinese briefings?
 
 
 
You know when Russians and Iranians started writing about Turks? At that time surely Turks were pretty much mixed. I'm talking about much more earlier periods.
 
My point about Hazara's is that they were mainly Mongols with strong Turkic influence, so it's notmal they have a central asian look rather than Tungustic. The process is that Tungustic people came to Mongolian steppe, mixed with Turkic people, and become Mongolic,  then they came to central asia and again mixed with Turks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by barbar - 24-May-2006 at 11:45
Either make a history or become a history.
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: 24-May-2006 at 11:56
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Mongols ruled in Azerbaican and a group of them in Baghdad also. 'Sulduz' tribe in Azerbaican; while 'Jalayir' took control in Baghdad. We should expect some people (let's say at least to the numbers of a hand) to have Mongoloid looks there, huh? But the answer is no.
 
Have you ever did thourough search there? Anyway, Mongols are inclined to get mixed with nomadic people, rather than settled people, as they esteem their way of life highly, usually only a small fraction will stay in the city after conquering to govern, and the rest just move on.  The case is totally different with nomadic community.  Just compare settled Turkic people with the nomadic Turkic people, you will always see obvious difference between them. Isn't it enough for you to draw correct conclution? Mongoloid Turks are mainly the result of Mongol intergration.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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: 25-May-2006 at 11:34
You need proofs, huh? Here:
 
The 2 primary prehistoric centers from which migrations of modern human populations over the continent (Asia) took place, were southwestern Asia and a region comprising the Mongolian plateaus and North China. It is believed that people from Mongolian Steppes were homogeneous and different from people of southwestern Asia.
 
From people of southwest Asia, possibly beginning as 30,000 years ago, movements continued toward Europe and also into Central Asia. Important 'Asiatic' migrations, through Central Asia toward European peninsula occured in a westward direction as early as 10,000 years ago; but continued into the early centuries AD as Turkic people moved westward, setting off aditional displacements of such people as Finns and the Magyars.
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: 25-May-2006 at 11:43
These westward 'Asiatic' movements, over a period of time, caused mixing of early European and 'Asiatic' peoples in Central Asia. So, you can say Turks have mixed up with Europeans; but they're not originally Caucaian.
 
Northern Eurasia CONTINUED to be inhabited chiefly by thinly distributed residual elements of very early eastern Asian people; although some fairly late northward movements of Turkic & Mongolian did take place.
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: 25-May-2006 at 11:47
Within the broad zone of Central Asia, recurrent movements retracing older migratory routes have created overlapping and fragmented ethnic stocks. Secondary and tertiary intermixing of many of these regionally derived groupings has resulted in still more complex patterns of ethnic identity and distribution.
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: 25-May-2006 at 11:54
You're all referring old texts. Good, but not sufficient. When you're talking about physical appearance, branches of modern science also could be a good 'help'.
 
Anyhow, if you know German, 'Tubinger Atlas des Vorbiden Orients' (Also in English, I suppose) is a perfect refrence to what we're talking about.
 
'Culture, People, Nature; An introduction to General Anthropology'.
 
'Asia, East by South'
 
'East Asia' (I suggest German Edition).
 
'East Asia; Geographical and Historical Approaches to Foreign Studies'.
 
'Urbanization in Asia; Spatial Dimensions and Policy Issues'
 
'The Extended Metropolis; Settlement Transition in Asia'
 
'Structural change and prospects for urbanization in Asian countries'
 
These are what I'll propose to see what Anthropology and modern Sciences like those I mentioned in my last post (Ethnolinguistics and Anthropological Linguistics) have said about this issue.
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:02

Oh, my mother's a Kiptchak (from Kazakstan). All my uncles and aunts from my mother's side are Kiptchaks. But I haven't seen any Mongol among them. Not even a Mongolian language. I've asked my family about your statement. Sorry, but it was just unacceptable.
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:07

the most probable early tribe that is counted as Mongols ancestor, is 'Hsien Pi'. The fact is that their language, as old texts refer to, seems to be something like 'Ket' dialects. If so, Hien Pi s are not Mongols' ancestor; or else, old texts made a mistake here; you can trace this issue in British papers, works of Prof. J.J. Sanders. Anyhow, let's get back to your topic. These tribes are believed to live in Northeastern Mongolia; not eastern. Espeially when they say they were dwellers in jungle.

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: 25-May-2006 at 12:12

Tungusic tribes and their relatives lived there many years before the time mentioned for Kyrkizes. So there WERE Tungusic (and therefore Mongolian) influence.

And it's not totally believe they're helped by China. There are documentations that show they attacked from North; then got back to where they belonged (Fazlullah- also Beyhaghghi talked about Kyrkizes).
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:15
By the way, let's say they were blondes and blue-eyed. Tough arctic climated could change humans' appearance. There are Eskimos and Yupiks with yellow beards and eyelashes; but Mongoloid. And nowhere it is said Kyrkizes have got Caucaian eyes.
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:21
Russians and Iranians pointed out Turks as early as 2000 years before christ. They knew about the people you mention.
 
If to name people with whom I've spent most of my life, they are Turkmens, Kazaks and Hazaras. I've been in their society. I know about their tribal classification and a lot more. It's so difficult to call them Mongols. It's not my word. They believe their ancestors were Turkic.
 
You might be right, anyhow.
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:28

Well, I've been in Iran for 2 years, you know. There live lots of Iraqi migrants especially in Northeastern Iran, in Golestan and Khorasan Province (where I lived there for 2 years). Asking them about the situations was not that much difficult.

And it's normal of wars. Winners would take some girls and woman from the sociey. Not only taking, meantime; I mean when they're attacking. Now, let's say these are radical. You've heard about Iranian wifes of Ilkhanids 'Qaans'. There must be the same case in Iraq; at least for their pleasure.
 
So, we should expect such cases. It's impossible to say 'no'. 
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: 25-May-2006 at 12:33

I've noticed you talk about the differences in looks you observe among Mongols and Turks. That's probably why you think they were quite different throughout the history. But the thing is that you see different looks even among peoples of the same tribe; varying degrees of Mongoloid looks.

But, studying anthropology, it helps me to recognize them as different members of the same family 'Asiatic'. They were living together a very long time ago; sometime between 40,000 B.C. to 14,000 B.C. This was the time they left each other to be distinct people. Different factos would affect man's looks, such as geographical place, feeding, even the job and a lot more.
 
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: 28-May-2006 at 23:32
Well, your points are very confusing. Let me put it this way:
 
We can't trace any group of people's ancestory to the period as you mentioned as 10,000 BC or earlier.  That's why it's rediculous to say that Peking man was the ancestor of some present nations.
 
The problem with archeology in this region is that the steppe people are always migrating, it's difficult to define the original region that these people were inhabitating. However, if we can define the time period, and refering to historical documents, somehow we can get some conclutions.
 
Genetics is one solution though, but the sampling should be reasonable to take the result seriosly. 
 
That's why the historical documents for the moment is still pretty important.  
 
You talked about Russian and Iranic documents dates back to 2000BC. I'm amazed,  as I know Russians didn't have any script even 1000AD. Iranians wrote about Turan as a legend form in Shahname which was finished in 957 AD. If you have any other original source which is about the physical discription of the Turkic people as early as 2000 BC, then I'd be very happy to check, if you can provide.
 
Even if you are a member of Qipchaq family,  you acted very naively to ask them about all Qipchaqs. How come your family members can tell you about all Qipchaqs? Please read some papers about Qipchaqs.
 
Now for Altaic family question, I'm going to open a new thread, which questions the relationship of the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungustic languages. You are very welcome to give your comments there.
 
 
 
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: 29-May-2006 at 11:45
Well, that's what anthropologits talk about it, I mean about Peking Man.
Iranians have talked about people who are exactly Turks & Mongols in their historical books. It's not only Shahname. There are older books than what you've mentioned. And Shahname is legend only when talking about battles. A lot of places have been recorded by Perdowsi. And I told you about Slavs knew Kyrkizes. I'll give you the name of the most famous book on these issues in Russia.
 
I think you didn't get what I mean. I'm saying THERE'S NOT A CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR US (bot you and me) TO PROVE TURKS WERE CAUCAID OR MONGOLOID. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO REACH SOME CONCLUSIONS; EACH OF US ON HIS OWN EXPERINCE. You know you can't see the name 'Turk' before christ. But this does not mean they didn't exist that time. People like Iranians or Russians have pointed some tribes in their vicinity (probably neighbor) to be Mongoloid. We knew these cannto be Mongols since they didn't live there.
 
Well, I know at least 100 to  150 Kiptchaks face by face. Each of them should know at least to the number I mentioned, Kiptchak people. So, this gives me a great mastery of the situation. I haden't see any of them to call himself a Mongol or to speak such a language. To tell you the truth, it was just funny for my mother's family to hear about such a claim. Such radical situations are easy to find; we say ;qara manglay sighir or qara manglay inek.
 
See, I can't say Italians do not belong to European famiy; cause original and most of Europeans are blondes; but most (virtually all) Italians have got dark hair and brown or black eyes.
 
And I can't believe people who have originated form different races have got similar languages. Now, you might say Tungusic people have nothing to do with Turks, but there is cases which are equal in both language, like possession suffixes in Tungusic and Turkic languages.
 
Anyhow, I will take you up on that. I really appreciate this new forum you're going to start. Thanks in advance.
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 04:32
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Well, that's what anthropologits talk about it, I mean about Peking Man.
Iranians have talked about people who are exactly Turks & Mongols in their historical books. It's not only Shahname. There are older books than what you've mentioned. And Shahname is legend only when talking about battles. A lot of places have been recorded by Perdowsi. And I told you about Slavs knew Kyrkizes. I'll give you the name of the most famous book on these issues in Russia.
 
I think you didn't get what I mean. I'm saying THERE'S NOT A CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR US (bot you and me) TO PROVE TURKS WERE CAUCAID OR MONGOLOID. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO REACH SOME CONCLUSIONS; EACH OF US ON HIS OWN EXPERINCE. You know you can't see the name 'Turk' before christ. But this does not mean they didn't exist that time. People like Iranians or Russians have pointed some tribes in their vicinity (probably neighbor) to be Mongoloid. We knew these cannto be Mongols since they didn't live there.
 
Primary source please. When? In which book?
 
 
Well, I know at least 100 to  150 Kiptchaks face by face. Each of them should know at least to the number I mentioned, Kiptchak people. So, this gives me a great mastery of the situation. I haden't see any of them to call himself a Mongol or to speak such a language. To tell you the truth, it was just funny for my mother's family to hear about such a claim. Such radical situations are easy to find; we say ;qara manglay sighir or qara manglay inek.
 
 
Just answer my question, can you find original mongol tribes among Qipchaq people (I mean Qazaq, Qyrghiz, Tatar, Qipchaq Uzbek)? Please learn more about these group of people. Then you will see plenty of Mongols assimilated into Turkic stock. Surely they all think they are Turk. And yes, now they are Turk. Originally........
 
 
See, I can't say Italians do not belong to European famiy; cause original and most of Europeans are blondes; but most (virtually all) Italians have got dark hair and brown or black eyes.
 
 
That's why I mensioned Deep Socket eye and High Bridge Nose, Which is not easy to change according to the climate or geographical location, more specific identification for Caucasian and Mongoloid.  
 
 
And I can't believe people who have originated form different races have got similar languages. Now, you might say Tungusic people have nothing to do with Turks, but there is cases which are equal in both language, like possession suffixes in Tungusic and Turkic languages.
 
 
 
Remember, closely contacted groups could have typological language similarities, although they were genetically different.  It seems you forget about your claim that Azari's are racially different from Central Asian Turks even if they speak Turkic. Now you are saying that " I can't believe people from different races have got similar languages. " Isn't it contradictory?
 
Still  relations between any Turkic and Azari can never be compared to the Turkic and Mongol relation. Basic numbers are very important identifier for the language comparison, please check the following out:
 
English     Uyghur Turkish                  Azari Turkish                      Mongolian
 
one                   bir                                  bir                                   nigen
            
two                   ikki                                 iki                                    qoyar
 
three                                                                                       ghurban
 
four                   Trt                                drd                                drben
 
five                    beş                                beş                                  tabun
 
six                     alte                                aldi                                  jirghughan
 
seven                yette                              yeddi                               dolughan
 
eight                  sekkiz                            sekkiz                              naiman
 
nine                   toqquz                           doqquz                            yisn
 
ten                     on                                  on                                    arban
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

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 0.096 seconds.