Oghuz appearance

Dear friends

Where did you hear this Hoja Effendi story? I've heard so many of his stories but never this one.

About kipchak Turks being blond and colored eyes (Nordic appearance) I don't know if it is true or not, but why do you think having Nordic appearance makes them the most beautiful ones? I personally like the Uzbek appearance and in second place the Azari appearance.

Originally posted by feiying There is one story from Hoja Effendi stories.  He mentioned that he gave a mirror to the sultan one day and he looked himself in the mirror and cried because he looked 'savage and ugly.'  I interpret this to mean that the rulers looked racially different from the subject people.  The sultan probably looked more Mongoloid and realized he looked different from the subjects around him.

This story could be interpretted in many ways I think

Suren About kipchak Turks being blond and colored eyes (Nordic appearance) I don't know if it is true or not, but why do you think having Nordic appearance makes them the most beautiful ones? I personally like the Uzbek appearance and in second place the Azari appearance.

In history Turks were considered beautiful for having white, round faces and black hair known as "ay yuzlu".

The blonde look being popular has elements with history and due to modern American Hollywood media were blonde = beautiful.

Due to Blonde hair being more rare, it had appeal, there are songs in folklore about blonde haired blue eye girls. However, there are also folklore songs about black haired dark eyed girls, brown eyed girls, Turkmen girls, Cherkez girls practically every type of girl

Regarding Oghuz Turks look when entering Anatolia this is can also be confusing.

The first Oghuz Turk tribes which entered had previously lived in the Iran/Azerbaijan region for a few generations first, so they mixed with the local population and settled there first.

The next waves came direct from Central Asia during the Mongol expansion however, also some more tribes from Iran were displaced aswell in addition to Iranic tribes who probobly came along aswell.

The next waves were after Amir Timurs expansion.

Temujin, Kirgiz is part of the Kipchak branch of Turkic.

Temujin no, they speak a related language but they are not otherwise related. i mean Khyrgyz are older than the Qypchaq and they retained their identity throughout.

Kirgiz have a Kipchak element, Kipchak tribes and speak Kipchak branch of Turkic, however, the historic Kirgiz have a very old recorded history especially in Chinese sources. The Chinese described them as having red hair and coloured eyes, the Tamgas of these ancient Kirgiz tribes and existing tribes today are identical. Also there was an influx of "Yenisey Kirgiz" later in history who were part of the "Tiele" (Dingling/Turkic speakers). Later in history nomadic Kipchaks dominated the region, as did various other Turkic peoples.

They are all inter-realted and have mixed.

While I was in Istanbul I noticed that the vast majority of people in advertisement on billboards or even on TV commercial were fair skinned. I noticed this whenever I walked to the school I taught at, about three miles.   Are fair skinned people by the media considered more beautiful? I do not recall seeing any Kurds in these adds but it has been a few years.

This is a good question though and I wonder if Byzantine sources give any indication of this?

I should ask Byzantine Emp

I do not recall any indication of racial difference in "The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor" by Spero Vyronis. Sadly, after the Byzantines lost the Battle of Manzikert the Turkic tribes began their migration into Anatolia or invasion- depends on whose side one's ancestors were on at the time.
I will pm this to Byz and see what he thinks.

Edited by eaglecap - 11-Mar-2009 at 18:44

so i take it that the Kyrgyz themselves don't actually have any Qypchaq tribes but they just happen to live within Kyrgyz territory. anyways, what calvo said is:

Originally posted by calvo his following nationalities today are descendants (or partial descendants) of Kipchaks:

as i demonstarted above, Kyrgyz were around much earlier than any Qypchaq, so what he said is factually wrong. obviously, Kyrgyz have no relation to Qypchaqs whatsoever except that they are grouped in the same linguistic branch of turkic, which just happens to be called Qpchaq but that doesn't mean it IS Qypchaq.

I don't understand why the topic was changed!