Yakuts (they call themselves Saka) are present day nation, so you can't link the ancestry of Turkic people to them. .

Maybe someone think they are more purer due to the isolated location, but we know that they have had close contact with Tungustic people in the far east. One thing is true, they have preserved the ancient religion of Turkic people-Shamanism, and a lot of old cultures characterised by this religion, but racially they are quite different from their anscestors.

It was not the whole turkic people, just one of the Kok Turk tribes-Ashina. They were a small group with only 500 house holds and  iron servants of the Rouruans (Juan Juan, Jurjan).  according to the myth, they were ten sons of a female wolf, and Ashina was the youngest. Chinese chronicles says that Tujue is an alternative race of Xiongnu (Hun).

Rouruan has nothing to do with Yakuts. According to the chinese chronicles, They are different from the Shi Wei tribes (Tungustic), and more related to the Hunnic stock.

Actually, Ashina Turks (Tu Jue) defeated some Tura (Tiele) tribes ( Who had continuous fight with Rouruans)and annexed more than 50,000 people. Then the head asked to get married with Rouruan princess and got rejected, then they rebelled and overthrew Rouruan, and built Kok Turk empire. 

Tiele were the descendants of Chile (Gaoche), Chile of Dingling, Dinling of Xiongnu (Hun), according to chinese chronicles. We can go further, and there were Chi Di (red Di) people. It is a very long story.

Dont stop! go farther! Find the first ancestor of Turkic tribes

But if you want to go really far, you can even find such great Turk like thisone:

did you miss Adam and Eva?

One  of these  guys

I dont think so. Actually i have answered on the question in topic :

Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?

I only went farther than anyone else here, therefore my answer is better

Sorry. I just couldnt resist but i had no bad intentions. Forgive me interrupting your discussion.

Maybe Ankarapithecus is the real ancestor of Turks:

Ankarapithecus meteai remains include a handful of mandibles and partial faces from Central Turkey, and date to around 10 million years ago (Begun and Gulic, 1998). These remains show many similarities to http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/sivapithecus/ - Sivapithecus from South Asia, and have sometimes been included in that genus. However, Ankarapithecus lacks a number of features that link Sivapithecus with living and fossil orangutans, causing some paleontologists to suggest that it may represent the earliest radiation of Asian apes. Such a position would explain the retention of many primitive similarities with European apes like http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/dryopithecus/ - Dryopithecus , and would mean that the Anatolian population survived as a relict of the early Asian radiation even as the subsequent radiation of Sivapithecus into the later Asian apes occurred in South Asia.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/ankarapithecus/ankarapithecus_overview.html - http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/apes/ankarapithecus/anka rapithecus_overview.html

Guys, be serious!

Here the ancestor:

Welcome to this section, guys. It's been so boring....

Seriously, the ancestories of many nations, as well as Turkic,  are really multi-linial, rather than single-linial.

totally agree!

Did the Turkic tribe came from the same ancestors as the Mongolic and Tungusic tribes?

No, Mongolic and Tungustic tribes were mainly from Dong Hu, while Turkic from Hun, Di and Indo european tribes. This is just a general picture. Huns had strong Dong Hu influence though.

'Mongolic and Tungustic tribes were mainly from Dong Hu, while Turkic from Hun, Di and Indo european tribes'. Could you please explain more about Indo-Europeans who are counted as our ancestors (or relatives)?

Well, before Turkic migration, even before Hunnic period, Chinese records mentioned the the nothern kingdom as " shenmu guo", means deep socked eyed country.

During early period, Di people were called Chi Di, means red Di, who were related to the Jie. Later Jie, during Hunnic period, always described to have lighter skin, and high nose bridge. Jie Hun was realted to the Ashina Turks, and records shows that the kings of the Kok Tuks had light skin, and blue eyes.

During Jin period, there were big massacar agains the remnant Huns, they were killed according to their outer physical appreance difference, which was high nose bridge, there is still a cave in Shandong province, there is discription drawing of this event, and you can see clearly that these Hun people were high nose bridged, rather than Mongoloid.

Kirgiz people (Jian kun) were one of the ancient Turkic tribes, and they were recorded as yellow hair and blue eyed, and tall physical appreace.

Well, I was just qouting what my friend said; I don't believe Turks are Indo-Europeans relative (if we suppose a part of our background goes to them). Anyhow, Uzbeks and Turkmens and a percentage o Hazaras are Turkic; but they don't look like the way you described. Thanks for your post anyhow.

Thanks for your reply 'qartash'. I should say, I've wondered these sentences in Chinese sources too. It's quite amazing to both of us, considering we're Turkic (not Turkish). Anyhow, I'm going to point out another interesting case in Russian sources when talking about Slavic people. I've seen this claim many times in their books when they talk about a specific Slavic tribe (I can't remember the name; but I'll check it up soon), they point to people who are exactly Kyrkizes. I was wondering what this might have got to do with Chinese sentences.

I think, we need more proofs; especially when talking about Chinese way of telling history which is not that much well-known.

1,Excavated Hun bodys from ice-caves in Altay mountain and from the burials in inner mongolia(north china) show that Hun people are very tall,some even reach 2 meter hight.And they have brown hair,deep eyes.

2,Historical documents of Empire of the great khan(Yuan dynasty) show that palace mongol polititions ranked people in four categories in the kingdom,and they executed somehow racist police according this idealogy,they are:

First ranked:Mongol people;

Second: other people who believe in Buddah-lama branch,like tibet and other mongolian people like Manju;

Third: Renglik kozlukler( coloured eyed people) like Uighur and other Turkish people;

Fourth:Chinese people.

Here is very clear:they(Mongol officials) regarded turkish people as colour-eyed people.

3,Sir Aurel Stein mentioned that he had seen some Uighur people with blue eyes and yellow hairs at that time,and he added if those people go to Europe,europians can not figure them out.

You may wander why present day,some turkish people are so much like Mongolian? my answer is as below:

there are two mongolian people invaded central asia even to east europe from 10th century onwards.one is Khitan ,another is Mongol.but we cannot find any mongol people who is currently living central asian countries and south part of east turkistan.And there is no any trace of Khitan people who once defeated Kharahanies,and built a kingdom mainly in present east Turkistan.So where are they,disappeared? not possible.Since they were really nomads,therefore simply were assimilated by Turkish,especially after they are forced to converted to islam.By the way,from Encyclopedia of Britannica I found that most of the Khitan people merged modern Kyrgyz(Volume 26,28).

Here as a reference,I would like to add common genetic knowldge: yellow hair gene is much weaker than brown and dark hair genes,if yellow haired one have a child with dark haired one,the childs hair is most likely dark hair.

I think by this assuption we can explain why there are blue,green,mostly brown eyed and yellow-brown haired people as well as dark eyed dark haired people among centural asian turks.If you go to East Turkistan,you can easly tell Uighurs from mongolian people.

In sum,the ancestor of Turks is different from Mongol people.It is probabely like caucasian.

Hmm... But both ancestors of Turkic and Mongolic tribes were claimed to be from the Lake Baykal region, yes? Then why were they so different in apperence?

Which people right now personifies the Turkic characteristics 1000 years ago? Do the Turks in Turkey show that? Or the Kazahks and Uygurs?

Can we assume the Turkic people must have a pure generic look back then (not mixed mongol-turkic or what have you)?

no ,its different.Turks originated from Altay region,Mongolic people from east part of Onun river(Heilong jiang)  and Ussuri river,mainly from north part of Korean peninsula.All mongolic people expand from exactly same place.

I would rather say Turks in Turky, Ozbeks and Uighurs in southern east turkistan show that characters,cause these people less got influenced.

sure.I can not figure out lot of our people from Afghan people,so I think Turkic people have IE generic look.

Thanks for your reply oghuzkb. No wonder when I see Turks in my country, they have a more "caucasian" look for lack of a better word.

Also, I suprised that the Mongols came from the Onun river area. That's where the Tungusic people like the Jurgens originated, if I'm not wrong. Maybe they are related, yes?

Yes, Chinese historical books always differenciated the people in the north.  Tungustic people were mainly forest people, and they were not the original steppe nomads.

But present day Mongols are also pretty different from their ancestral Shiwei people ( Dong Hu or Wu Huan). In the spette, they were mixed with the Turkic tribes, and in this sense they are the decendents of the people who were original to this region.

I don't think there is such a  Turkic group. Turks in Turkey mixed with the local Anatolians and other groups, as Uyghur (Uzbek) mixed with the local Toharians and Saka, Soghdians. Qazaq, Qirghiz, Qipchaq Uzbek, Tuva etc mixed with Saka, Uysun, Mongols and Qitans, While Tatar with Mongols and Slavians, Azaris with Caucasians and other groups. Turkman (Oghuz) might be more pure during the past 1000 years, but still we can't ignore some mixed ratio with the locals and Mongols.  

As I stated earlier,  even during Hunnic period the intermixing went on. Huns had strong Tungustic influence, considering the region were ruled by Huns. So when the Oghuz people started to migrate, they had already mixed with the Tungnustic people pretty much. I think this is what is called Turanoid. My opinion is that the main stream ancestors of Turkic people were Caucasian.  As it was clear from the records that they were different from Toharians (Rouzhi, Yuechi who were Indo European) and also from Tungustic people (who were Mongolian). 

The one and only ancestor of Turkic tribes:

When do you guys ever stop kidding?

Well, most of Mongol Army was consisted of Turks. Even if all of them were really Mongolian, they couldn't have been able to change the physical characteristics widely in Central Asia, as it's seen today. You might be right if you point to a small percentage of people here. But you see most of us Mongoloid.

I'm sure you're correct when talking about Hunnic Skeletons. But all Russian excavations in the places where were original Turks dwelling show that these people were Asiatic, I mean Mongoloid and not Caucaid.

I guess (just guess; can't explain exactly) that this must be of fault. You know how Kyrkizes are descried in Chinese sources? Blonde who have got blue eyes. And it is said they are the only Turks who burnt their deads. But all these sentences make me think of Slavs; Blonde, Blue eyes and they burnt their deads.

considering Turks were a great percentage in Mongol horde and supposing they were physically different, we should expect some of the old horde and its descendants to be rather caucaian. But just take a look at Hazara people in Afghanistan and Iran. All of them quite Mongoloid; with no yellow hair or green or brown eyes. I told you most of them believe their fathers spoke Turkic and not Mongolian.

What's more, all Iranian and most of Russian books give Turks picture as Asiatic and not Caucaid.

Besides, eyes and hair are not the only matters which are taken into account. There are very narrow points more important than eyes. You've got to be first Mongoloid and then to live among these people to see what I mean.

Anyhow, Sources for both views could be supported. But really, for a man who have been brought up in Central Asia, I can't believe our ancestors were Caucaid. Could you?

Sorry qardash, you are totally wrong. Human movement took different routes in the history.  Just check some DNA results. You will find Turkic and Chinese are completely different. Anyway, if you want to go further, all humans came from one man.

As I stated earlier, this intermixing had been going on even before Hunnic period. Almost all Mongols after Chengiz in the central Asia became Turkic except Kalmyq. Where have they gone?

Are you sure these graves belonged to the Turkic people, even if they lived there some time in the history? You know Mongol tribes also lived there.

Kyrgyz people were living in the upper Yenisey. How come they have any relation with Slav who were living even on the other side of the Ural mountains? Kyrgyz is one of the ancient Turkic tribes.

If they call themselves Turkic, then they are Turkic. There should be thourough research on them.  Still it's sure they had very strong Mongol influence. 

I was not saying Turkic people were Caucasian when they had contact with the Iranians and Russians. At this time, they had been mixed up pretty much. Don't forget about the exagerated desctription of the historians. Anyway, Turanoid is different from these people.

Sorry, I drew my conclutions according to the facts, as we are talking about the origin. Believing in something is your personal thing.  Acutally race isn't that important. It's the culture which is most important. 

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.

In 'Mongol History', there goes a part to talk about a group of people who are Turks. It says they were Mongols first; but left Mongolia a long time ago.

The 'Whorfian hypothesis' is the thesis that one's thought and even perception are determined by the language one happens to speak. Anthropologists continue to draw upon linguistics for the help it can give them in the analysis of such topic as the structure of kinship. A more recent development is the application of nations derived from generative grammer to the analysis of ritual and other kinds of cultural behaviors.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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

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