Who are the Turkish people's ancestors?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23234
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 09:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who are the Turkish people's ancestors?
Posted By: Yami Sasha
Subject: Who are the Turkish people's ancestors?
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 01:06
|
I see two types of Turks, ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them. I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish. Can anyone clarify this for me? |
Replies:
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 08:14
|
Most people in Turkey descend from Anatolian populations. Plus, many also came from population exchanges from the Balkans bringing many different people in there (Muslims were regarded as Turks even though they were not). |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 20:47
Im not sure if the OP was asking a question or stating an opinion but i'll try and answer.
Is that all? I see about over 40 different types of Turks , of the top of my head. Lets see starting from Eastern Europe and Anatolia there are Gagauz, Bulgarians Turks, Dobrujan Tatars, Turks of Greece, Cypriot Turks, Anatolian Turks, Iraqi Turkomans and the Crimean Tatars. In Western Asia and the Northern Caucasus region, Azeris, Iranian Azeris, Khalaj, Qashqai, Iranian Turkmen, Balkar and Karachay, Nogay, and the Kumuk. In Central Asia theres Afghani Uzbeks, Afghani Turkmen, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Qazaqs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Salars, Sari Yugurs. In the Volga Ural region there are Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Siberian Tatars. In Southern Siberia there are Shors, Altay Kiji, Telengit, Teleut, Tuba, Kumandi, Chalkandu, Khakas, Tyvans, Tofa, Tsengel Tuvans and the Dukha. Finally in Northern Siberia and Easter China, Sakha, Dolgans and the Fuyu Kyrgyz. I know some might think ive repeated some but the OP asked about "types". Bulgarian Turks and Anatolian Turks may speak the same or similar language but they are different types of Turks and have different modern histories as well as different identities.
Thats far too simplistic. The changing faces and languages of Anatolia is a dynamic occurrence with many factors that should be taken into consideration. When we look at genetics compared to ethnic groups anywhere in the world we see similar patterns. Many regions change ethnicities without altering the gene pool too much. Put into an Anatolian context, some argue that genetic similarites between Turks of Western Turkey and Greeks is evidence that the Turks are actually Turkish speaking Greeks, but those same genes were present in the region before Greeks got there. So the genes aren't "Greek" genes, they're localised genes, genes that are present in all groups of people no matter their ethnicity. When the Turks entered Anatolia they were far outnumbered by other peoples living there. Unless a widescale massacre occurred then you would expect localised genes to dominate and Turkic migration to have a limited affect on the gene pool as far as gene flow from central asia is concerned. This is the case. Most Turks who entered Anatolia were also the warriors and fighters of the statelets that formed so would have a higher chance of dying thus bottlenecking the dna which came from CA. I would like to see Mt DNA results from Turkey to see what picture they would reveal. All in all most studies show that CA DNA account for around 8-20% of the Y DNA of Turkey. This should be about right given the reasons i just stated. Also the Turks ruled supreme in Anatolia. Since entering they formed most the statelets and ultimately the Ottoman Empire. Its important to understand that you cant force people to change their language. UNLESS you take them away from their own cultural environment away from their own people and only teach them a different language. Otherwise so long as they have native speaking mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours their language will not change. Any change in language that took place would have happened without force as a result of Turkish cultural and political domination. This is further backed up by the fact that many languages are spoken in Turkey today, such as Laz Hemshin, Zaza, Kurdish etc. Ethnic Turks in Turkey are Turkish. One of many different "types" of Turks. ------------- Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 22:08
Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
Turks arn't Mongols, the early Turks lived in a region including Western Mongolia, Altai-Sayan region (todays Russia, Kazakistan) and the northern parts of Eastern Turkistan.
The present day Mongols were not living in that region during that period.
The early Turks inhabitted a region of the world in which to the East of them populations are more Mongoloid and to the West more Caucosoid (even though these terms are pretty archaic today). Chinese sources differentiate Turks from themselves and observed that the "looked different".
Thus the Turks being inbetween have characteristics from both, if you actually went to Turkic Central Asia historic Turkistan you would realise that Turks there are different looking Turks.
There are peoples in Northern Afganistan, Oz'bekistan, Turkmenistan who look similar to Turks in Azerbaijan or Turkey, then there are some Turks in Kazakistan and Kirgizistan who you will find don't look similar.
Its not a simple black and white issue.
"Forced"?, please show one historical source that can back this up.
There was no "forced" Turkification by the Seljuks just as there were no Hittites or Lydians in existance by the time the Turks had arrived.
Which we? who is we, show me one credible scholor who supports this absolutely ridiculous claim.
The Turks of Iran are Turks, what is "Iranian origin"? there are Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Baluch, Turks in Iran so what are you implying by Iranian origin.
According to your logic, Persians are of Elamite origin but were forced into speaking Persian.
Also Azeri Turks were never "forced" into speaking Turkish, in case you didn't know, the Seljuk state languages of governance were Arabic and Persian.
Now are you going to tell me that the Seljuks came and magically some people just learned Turkish? they didn't learn Turkish in schools, it wasn't the language of governance, it wasn't the language of law but somehow despite all of this millions of people just said, you know what we'll just become Turks?
They are Turks due to the Oghuz Turk clans which migrated to the region and never lost their language, identity, clan structure etc
When the Seljuk state ended, many Beyliks and Atabeyliks were found, each by various Oghuz Turk clans, this pattern could be witnessed across Iran and Turkey.
Regarding the issue of Turkification, in regions with settlements of Oghuz Turks its likely that non-Turk tribes merged into the large Turkish clans, also by mixing and living in close proximity through time a shift to Turkish could have occured.
The Turks are just as much a part of Iran as are Persians. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 22:34
There are difficulties in establishing the extent of Turkic migration as we don't know the DNA of the Turks which were involved. Most Turks in Turkey claim descent from Khorrosan and between the Aral and Caspian Seas.
The first waves of these migration occured during a period prior to the Mongolian effect on the population of Central Asia.
- The initial Oghuz Turk wave which accompanied the Seljuks and the aftermath of Malizgirt.
Constant stream of migration to the newly establishing Beyliks
- Second mass migration, fleeing the Mongols.
- Third mass migration, fleeing, being re-settled and arriving with Amir Temur.
- Fourth mass migration, fleeing the Russian advance into the Crimea and Caucusus (not just Turks, also non-Turkic muslim populations)
- Fifth mass migration, fleeing the wars in the Balkans (not just Turks, also non-Turkic muslim populations)
Now, trying to genetically work out who is and isn't a Turk is pointless, there is no Turkish genetics, Central Asia hasn't remained stagnant over a millenia and we don't know the genetics of those who migrated.
The method of working out the Turkicness of Turks in Turkey today is done by making a comparison with more Eastern Asian genetic markers.
The results of these figures range from 10-30%, which is no small number in itself, infact its a dramatic shift which shows a pattern of continuos migration.
However, the Eastern Asian genetic markers in for example people in current day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Eastern Turkistan is rarely over 40% while Kirgiz and Altay Turks have some of the highest R1a genetic marker in the world according to the studies conducted.
The Turks of Turkey are Turk if they speak Turkish as their mother tongue and claim Turkish identity, other aspects like claiming descendance of various Oghuz Turk clans like Afshar, Chepny, Bayindir, Teke, Salur, Kayi etc or Crimean Tatar can also be used to a degree. During the Ottoman era all clans, tribers, prominant families were all listed, there are huge archives showing the geneology of people in Turkey today which are more useful when trying to work out why people feel Turk, Kurd, Laz, Hemshin than genetics is. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 02:41
|
For sure Turks is not a homogeneous ethnicity.
It's just a language affinity. Most of the people who speak Turkic languages today have little or no genetic connections to the Turks of the Great Turk kaganate, due to whom this name became known in the world.
The same is with the Turks of Anatolia, culturally and linguistically they are Turks, but the percentage of the real Turkic nomades that contributed to the formation of the Turkish nation (I mean the nation of the Republic of Turkey) was minimum.
Most of modern Turkish people of Anatolia are just indigenous population (yes those Lidians, Phrigians, Galats etc.) who by the time of when the Turks took over spoke Greek and thought they were Greek. Then they were "Turkified" the same way as before they were "Hellenized."
Armenians ang Georgians also contributed to the formation of the new Turkish nation as well as Slavs.
So it's not surprising that most of the Turks from Anatolia look more like Greeks or Armenians, but totally different from from Tuvinians or Yakuts.
------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:16
This is not a clear cut issue in itself.
The only way we can find out the genetics of the Turks of the GokTurks is by studying their burial remains, however, this doesn't give the total picture either as most of these are of royalty, members of everyday society should also be tested.
This also is a contraversial matter as we don't know the genetics of the incomming Turks making it difficult to make proper estimates.
The Turkic migration also did not Turkify the whole of Anatolia which was only a century into this new expansion renamed by Europeans "Turchia". The Greeks, Georgians, Armenians, Syriacs remained making the theory of non-Turk populations just forgetting their language and identity one unlogical to understand.
Also regarding the extent of Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Turks, historical records show there numbers were huge.
http://www.turkishculture.org/pages.php?ChildID=210&ParentID=12&ID=56&ChildID1=210 - http://www.turkishculture.org/pages.php?ChildID=210&ParentID=12&ID=56&ChildID1=210
The head of the Turkish History Institute, Prof. Dr. Halacoglu is nearing the end of a 10 year study in which he researched the Ottoman tax archives, every clan, tribe, the amount of tents and houses which belonged to them and their lifestock population was all recorded. From these findings the population of Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs etc can be worked out for the 16th century period.
There were 41 thousand tribes listed in todays Turkey.
37, 706 were Turkmen
2,287 were Kurdish
166 were Mongol
90 were Arab
280 were Kipchak
These tribes in total had 1,140,000 tents between them.
A rough estimate of each tent having 4-5 inhabitants gives a figure of 6 million.
The "Mdevver ve Kuyud-ı Kadime" which are the huge Ottoman tax archives were studied to find this information, the Ottoman known for their bureaucracy have extensive archives regarding these matters.
Also, a common occurance in Ottoman history was rebellions, most often by Turkmen tribes. Many famous Turkish folk poets of the era criticised the Ottoman authorities, they were clashing with them as the state wanted to settle them. The forced settlement policy created alot of tension. Turkmen tribes regularly were resetlled, sent into exile or split up.
As did Cherkez, Chechen, Bosnians, Albanians, even some Cossacks.
However, Central Asian Turks closest to the Turks of Anatolia like those in Turkmenistan, Uzbeksitan, Northern Afganistan, Khorrosan, Eastern Turkistan look pretty different to Tuvians and Yakuts aswell.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 22:09
 But could you please inlighten us with this Central Asian DNA you mentioned?
Turkic people could be very mixed before their migration.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 06:58
|
Today obviously Turks are Turks, Mongols are Mongols, and they are not the same. But going back to before the formation of what become "Turks" and "Mongols" today, based on physically body looks similar and from same geographical areas, we can say that they had some kind of common Altaic base groups that no longer exists today. "Turks" and "Mongols" as idenfiable group occured in AD, but what about in BC? Btw there was a recent documentary i saw about a Japanese woman who took a genetic test and they compared to genetic test of people in Central Asia.This Japanese woman was found to have identical part of mitochondrial DNA to a woman in Kazakhstan. So they had same femal ancestor.. when the tv program too the Japanese woman to there, they visited this Kazakh woman who lived in remote house in the grassland, she had surprizingly similar face to the Japanese woman, in fact we can say they looked like cousins or sisters, because they looked very similar. in color and shape of face features.
The Japanese woman stayed in Kazakh womans house for a week. It was like a family reunion.
Things like language speaking and cultural identity feelings can be changed easily based on political situation or social situations in history. But the physical evidence of our own bodies suggests that Japanese and Central Asians have some ancient "common Asian" biological connections the details of which have long been buried and forgotten for thousands of years. Only now its being uncovered slowly. "Nations" and "Empires" come and go in centures, but genetic traces remain for millienia
|
Posted By: osmantus
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 11:37
|
adam. All of one comes from him. İF yuo are asking the anatolia we come here from middle asia. And most of them are oguz. |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 12:20
Wow, thread re-animation
|
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 14:18
Well thats basically the gist of it. The original homeland of the Turkic peoples is from Central/Eastern Asia. Many wouldve been intermingled with Mongoloid peoples. The Huns were a Turkic people and they're really the first time these people would be known to Western History. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 16:48
 Turkish is a modern mongolian language? What a meaningless text.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 19:40
|
Three spammers balbanpasa3, osmantuus and medikurd are all banned from the forum. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 20:33
|
I saw many faces in Turkey so I would say their ancestry is very diverse, European, Middle Eastern, Asian. The Ottoman Empire pulled in ethnic groups from all over the empire and beyond. I read 10 million Turks have Greek blood in them and I saw many who looked more Greek than Turkish. Of course, the Kurds and some I saw, even though they looked caucasion, I could see Asiatic or Mongolian/Turkic features in their faces. Many of my students in Istanbul thought I looked Turkish with my olive complexion.
This is a very complicated question because of the diversity in Turkey. It is like asking an American two-three hundreds years from now. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 16:50
10 million turks with greek blood? You think that greeks were existing with the creation of the world? Anatolian greeks are mostly from anatolian stock. Greeks living at Greece also assimilated major slavonic, albanian and turkic peoples in to their soceity. There isnt any pure nation today. Our western friends love this subject especiially Turkeys demography. Turkeys population includes multiple etnicities which it is normal, but comparing with USA makes nonsense.
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 12:05
For me the debate ended with this post, excellent summary of the issue. However, the fact that Turkey and its people use the Turk-name causes a lot of confusion. Whenever I talk history with people who are largely ignorant of the history of Turkey and Central Asia, most people that is, I always feel forced to steer clear of referring to Turkic peoples altogether, for the average person will immediately draw a connection to modern Turkey. If I mention say, the Seljuks, I must refer to them simply as steppe nomads in order to avoid having them mixed up with the modern Turkish. When it does happen that I speak of Turkic peoples, my listeners are always baffled at how little they resemble the people in Turkey, as they are typical Mediterraneans in all things significant, and I end up digressing to in order to explain it. It gets quite annoying when you've been in this situation enough times, especially since most people have short attention spans and it's the challenge of the historian to say as much as possible in as short a time as possible. Once you start drifting into sub-topics you lose many. ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 12:42
Zombie Thread! ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 20:02
All the things you have mentioned I acknowledge and knew about. As for tHe USA in time our population will become more and more mixed like what has happened in other regions of the world, as we assimilate different races and ethnic groups. Even today Americans are usually quite an ethnic mix- so are the Turks today. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 20:17
Seljuks are the forefathers fo the Turkish republic as after their expansion to Asia Minor the region became known as Turchia, ruled by Turks and settled by Turks.
Also which Turkic peoples are you referring to? people from Eastern Turkistan, Ozbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaycan and Turkey actually don't look too different to each other. However, with Kazaks, Kirgiz there is a difference.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 22:03
|
10 million turks with greek blood? You think that greeks were existing with the creation of the world?
You do go too far by saying this!!! Of course I did not say this but the Roman/Greeks were there before the Turkic invasion after 1071 AD. The source I read about 10 million Turks having Greek blood is only one source and the numbers could be greater or less than this. My point was about the diversity I found in Turkey. There is no shame in having Slavic, Albanian or Turkic blood. My old history professor use to say that the modern Greeks were descended from the ancient Greeks plus everyone else who came along, same with the Turks. Even the Greeks in the classical period were mixed I think you know the Ottoman Empire drew people from all over the known world; both voluntarily and by force. America in many ways is a global empire which is also drawing people from all around the globe. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 22:43
|
There is no Greek or Turkish blood, what makes a person Greek or Turkish is not blood but identity, language and historical legacy ie Greeks claim Byzantines as their own while Turks claim Seljuks. However, genetically its more than likely that both sides have ancestors from both sides. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 22:53
Yes. I agree with this. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2008 at 09:28
You could draw a line of development from the Seljuks to the modern Turkish state, but it's quite a stretch.
None in particular. I'm referring to how the popular image of steppe peoples with their horses and yurts collides with the popular image of Mediterranean peoples with their olive groves and white stone housing, and how this causes confusion when you use the same word for both. I agree though, people from the five first regions you mention do share many physical traits, whereas the Kirgiz tend to look Mongoloid and the Kazaks either look Mongoloid, Europoid or like something in between. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2008 at 17:36
They actually do look different. Perhaps there are indeed some common features; especially for the people of the republic of Turkey and Azeri; but for the others there are much less. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2008 at 07:59
|
Turks of Modern Turkey, certainly, do not look like the Oğuz.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2008 at 12:53
|
The Oghuz Turkic speakers today include Turkmenistan, Azerbaycan, Turkey and the Turks in Iran, the Balkans, the Middle East and Cyprus. There is not such a huge difference among their "looks" neither is there a uniform "look".
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2008 at 17:05
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2008 at 21:53
Yeah, ancient Greeks were all blonde nordic warriors like Europeans of 19th century thought. Sarcasm off |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 06:19
The nose and eye shape is not that different at all. Especially, the people of the islands don't look that much different. -------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 06:23
The problem is that many people still believe that shit...and that Dorians came from the alps.  I remember also, that there was some South African author who had published a book, where in order to support that view he had repainted the hair of people on various art to blonde. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 10:01
|
How people look like is not a that good indicator of their genetic make-up. A better indicator of biological origin is the DNA. Research shows beyond any doubt Anatolian Turkish gene pool is mostly local.
Turkey Turks are a genetically Anatolian people. End of story. They are genetically much closer to Kurds and Armenians rather than to Kazakhs or Uzbek or other Central Asian Turkics. No amount of Turkish fascists looking at pictures of Kazakhs and saying 'this one looks like my second cousin's sister-in-law's niece' will change that. Looking at the pictures of people to determine their DNA is useless, but nevertheless favourite of all fascists on the internet: 'Look, this kid is blond, so the Ancient Greeks came from Germany'... Of course, 1. DNA has no ethnicity 2. it is only a minor component in defining an old-world ethnicity, if at all, so one should be careful when talking about this subject, in order not to write moronic crap like "'real' Turks look like Mongols, so there are no Turks in Turkey". Same with the Greeks. I don't think there is big difference between the DNA of Ancient and modern Greeks (once they are settled in Greece and the islands). As for the looks, I'd say modern Greeks are more likely to be blond than the ancient ones (even though that is not a good indicator of genetic make-up). ------------- |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 11:19
|
Beylerbeyi, i agree with you. Ethnicity as you said has no DNA, only common continuous memories and other small details that are enough to make people feel akin to each other. -------------
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2008 at 17:09
It would be more correct to say, Turkey Turks are genetically "diverse", I've even met a few Turks who look Black, I have a Turkish friend here who gets mistaken by Jamaicans who being a fellow Jamaican
 There is no "Turkic" gene or any other "national gene", people in Ozbekistan and Kazakistan are not identical neither are people anywhere else, even between towns there can be genetic differences.
The Turks of Turkey settled in the region before the expansion of the Mongols, its not certain what these Oghuz Turks "genetics" were, one study which could be done is to compare Oghuz Turkic speaking groups.
------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2008 at 22:06
I am talking about medieval immigrants, not modern day people. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 00:23
Oh, i m tired of those idiots claiming Azeris who are of Iranian origin forced into speaking Turkish. At least write in Iranian Azeris, that would make sense.  If not Turkish, the second thing Azeris are is Caucasian. 'edited By leo', go and look at traditional cloths, dances etc... Even look, i look like my Dagestani neighbour, not Persian from thousound of miles away. ------------- |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 01:04
|
Watch this and u will understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sV2uXpHdHg |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 04:11
|
I am watching this thread. Emil remember the Coc before throwing names around in your post. This is an unoffical warning we cant have any of that here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 06:54
The title of this video is offensive to Armenians. Please watch the title before posting the link here. BTW, the dance is pretty good. I recommend these videos for Azeri dance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyvD2nWH0Z8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAYSCTFKYfg ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: dud
Date Posted: 16-Jan-2009 at 15:16
| The Turks were originally a pastoral nomadic people who lived in the Central Asian Steppes. The Steppes are part of a giant region stretching from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean which was mainly inhabited by pastoral nomadic groups. Among other groups of this area are the Aryan/Vedic people, Mongols, Xiongnu, etc. Very little is known of the history of these peoples before they invaded and conquered settled societies. The Turks were descendants of the Proto Indo-Europeans (but that can be said for most Afro-Eurasian peoples). |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2009 at 20:34
|
Turks are from the son of Prophet Noah's Japheth(Yafth) in Arabic. The first section of the tribe made its approach in Altai mountains and at night being under the moon with the moutain made the region named like 'Alt' 'Ay' meaning beneath the moon in Turkish. Turks used to honour and worship three things first the Sky, moon and then the Grey wolf or 'Bozkurt' in Turkish. (The crescent that has become a general symbol of Islam has actually come to that by Turks who used to carry a standard with three crescents lately one on that as a sacred symbol. Many mistook this to be an early Islamic symbol try to show early crusades as a confrontation between cross and crescent) .The Turks then spread farther and wider for the time and accessed the Orkhun valley which was for a long their centre. The strong tribes migrating towards east as well as west from the same area these migrations have been occuring time to time till in eightth and ninth century the time of Turks came to be pouring in the northern regions of western Persia and Iraq. Looking to the simplicity and social customs of Islam being favourable to their own social system these Turks got converted to Islam enmass. The valley of Orkhun was left to their brethren Mongols which are also from the same branch of race as them. It is to be noted here that the Great Khan Chengiz was made the Khaqan of all Tartars unanimously by Turks and Mongols which were not considered separated as a clan. The Uighur Turks of the east have run almost all of the official, economic and diplomatic duties of the Khaqan.
Now is the question about the mongoloid features of being or not being belonging to Turkic nationality. First one thing is to be noted that The Turks as a nation are mixed and they do not possess a certain boundary to be bound to, one can find an Uighur family in Anatolia and an Oghuz Turk or Turkoman in most eastern part of Turkistan north of China. There are only one certain clan in greater numbers than other while all are mostly mixed. Turks do not possess a certain shape of face to be marked for the righthood of breed. The Khaqan Changiz was said to be blue eyed, similarly among the Central Asian Turks like Uzbeks or Kazakh one can find difference of colour and facial appearance. In some cases change in atmosphere, converts got mixed and inter marriages like those of Asia Minor has changed the features but even then the manners and mostly body appearances preserve.
|
Posted By: MythTR
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 20:47
|
I am a Turkish and I will try to write there a summary. Thank you!
The Turkish People's ancestors are Huns( the nation who was at far east ) The Great China's Wall built by Chineese for defence theirselves from Turks(Huns) but it didn't stop Turks. After The Turks went west and took Anatolia and another pieces (Ottoman Empire time)
I think this is a summary. (:
If you want to learn near Turkish history you can read this.
The name Turk refers to two different Muslim groups of the Middle East-first the Seljuks and then the Ottomans. The Seljuks, nomads from the steppes near the Caspian Sea, converted to Islam around the tenth century. Approximately 70,000 Seljuks started as mercenaries to fill the ranks of the Islamic army of the caliph of Baghdad. These mercenaries converted to the Sunni branch of Islam. In 1055 they became the real power behind the caliph in Baghdad and began extending their rule. Their leaders took the title sultan, meaning "holders of power." By 1100 they controlled most of Anatolia (taken from the Byzantines), Palestine, the lands surrounding the Persian Gulf, the holy cities of Arabia, and as far east as Samarkand.
In 1071 the Seljuks achieved a stunning victory over a Byzantine army at Malazgirt in modern Turkey, which led to Turkish occupation of most of Anatolia. At nearly the same time, they successfully captured Jerusalem from its Egyptian Muslim rulers. These two events shocked the Byzantines, the papacy, and the Christian Europeans. The result was the Crusades, which carried on for the next 200 years. The Seljuk Turks were worn down by the recurring wars with the Crusaders, even though they were successful ultimately in regaining control of Palestine. They were threatened simultaneously by the activities of the Assassins, a heretical sect of Islam. Internally, Islam entered a period of introspection because of the popularity of Sufi mysticism. During this period of exhaustion and weakness, they were attacked suddenly by the Mongols and collapsed. Baghdad fell to the invaders in 1258 and the Seljuk Empire disappeared. Islamic peoples from Anatolia (modern Turkey in Asia Minor) were unified in the early fourteenth century under Sultan Osman I and took the name Osmanli, or Ottomans, in his honor. The Ottomans swore a jihad against the crumbling Byzantine Empire and took their campaign around Constantinople into the Balkans. In 1389 the Serbs were defeated. In 1396 a "crusader" army from Hungary was defeated. Ottoman successes were temporarily halted by the Mongols under Tamerlane, but he moved on with his army and the Ottomans recovered. Sultan Mehmed II ("the Conqueror") at last captured Constantinople on May 29, 1453. The great walls of Constantinople were battered by 70 guns for eight weeks and then 15,000 Janissaries led the successful assault. The Ottomans pushed on into Europe following the capture of Constantinople and threatened a sort of reverse Crusade. They were stopped by a Hungarian army at Belgrade in 1456, however. Attacks on Vienna were repulsed in 1529 and again in 1683. At its peak in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire reached up into Europe to Budapest and Odessa and included all of Greece and the Balkans, the lands surrounding the Black Sea, Asia Minor, the Levant, Arabia, Egypt, and most of North Africa. The Ottoman Empire remained a significant world power until World War I in the twentieth century. ------------- We Turks are a people who throughout our history have been the very embodiment of freedom&independence Mustafa Kemal ATATURK 
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:01
MythTR, please do not say that you will write a summary if you are only going to cut and paste something from a website. If you do this, you must provide the source, which is:
http://www.ageofempires.co.nz/cgi-bin/aoe2-civilizations.cgi?turks - http://www.ageofempires.co.nz/cgi-bin/aoe2-civilizations.cgi?turks
You must also provide your own commentary if you mention an outside source. Also, since this came from an introduction to a popular video game, I would suggest referencing more reputable sources in the future.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: MythTR
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 16:04
|
I didn't copy-paste the summary part. It is really writen by me. Only other part which didn't I call summary is from Age Of Empires game. I try to create the shortest part. If I write wrong comment it , thank you. ------------- We Turks are a people who throughout our history have been the very embodiment of freedom&independence Mustafa Kemal ATATURK
|
Posted By: Afsar Beghi
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 13:38
|
To determine the ancestors of the Turkish people the genetics of the Oghuz clan has to be researched. That's a tough job because they all mixed on the way to Anatolia. Of course its a fact that all neighbour populations have contributed to the Turkish gene pool. Turks have always been "good neighbours". And different ethnicities in the same region will always look like each other. Their roots are Turkic, its something like the corn from the field that goes to the bakery and becomes bread. It is bread now, but it will always remember what it was before. ------------- Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur, Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur, Nice ko yiğitler yere serilir, Olen lr kalan sağlar bizimdir! |
Posted By: HungryWolf
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2009 at 13:13
I am agreeing with that but what you mean by "azeri" word? If u mean the people who live in North and South Azerbaijan you have a mistake.
Azeris are nation living in south Iran and they do not speak turkic language. They completly have nothing with Azerbaijanians. As a Azerbaijanian i must say you that majority (90%) of Azerbaijan people are Oguz turks.
------------- http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nnna.gif"> 
Turks can be killed but can't be beaten. (Napoleon Bonaparte) |
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 13:32
| And I say you are wrong cause today people of Azerbaijan republic are descendants of intermarriages amongst local very ancient Caucasians later Indo-Europeans and then later Turkic and Altaics. And you cannot deny all these ancestors. |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2009 at 16:14
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2009 at 04:48
|
ancestors of turks are who pastured the horse and started the hors-nomadic lifestyle. |
Posted By: Arcturus Mengsk
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2010 at 01:19
|
Cheeta is right if we will look for an ancestor. Turkish people is a mixture of other races(turanid,mongoloid,mediterranean,dinaric whatever..) Speaking turkish or a turkic language will label me as "turk", I dont know.But I'd rather like to know my genetic history. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2010 at 01:53
|
Turkish Y-DNA:
G 28% common in different regions, the Turkish one is found in Greece, Turkey and Iran, as well as Caucasus region
R1b 21% very strong in europe espcially western europe
J 16% very high in Arabia and the orient
F 11% South and west Asian
K 11% in Eurasia
R1a 9% found much among eastern europeans
I2a 4% very strong on the balkans
Conclusion:
G seems to be very old in Turkey, perhaps a neolithic population.
R1b/R1a seem to be even very old
J can perhaps be connected with early neolithic population from south as well with the Arabian conquest
F is very old to
K is found in Eurasia and perhaps a relict of Turkish invasion
I2a is as well connected with early invasions of europe long time ago
So, DNA test don't really help
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2010 at 17:37
|
There are two types of Turkic peoples: 1) Those who are linguistically Turkic 2) Those who are ethnically Turkic (the ones who migrated Westward and left their linguistic trace, but can be found today in Central Asia and Siberia) The Turkic armies that invaded Western Asia were small in number compared to the local inhabitants. As they intermarried their genetics became part of that Western Asia pool. Turks from Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan are descendants of the people who lived in those regions prior to Turkic invasion, this is evident in their genetics as well as their physical appearance. The Turks that stayed in Central Asia and Siberia and did not intermarry in a region where they were out numbered, maintained their genetic and physical appearance. Thus, linguistically, anyone speaking a Turkic language as their only tongue is considered Turkic, however, ethnically, not all Turks are Turkic. |
Posted By: ancalimon
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2012 at 23:01
|
1-) The biggest problem is assuming that Turks as a people did not exist in Anatolia and Europe before Christ. 2-) The second biggest problem is to assume that Turks living before Christ spoke and wrote in a language very similar to today's Turkic languages. 3-) The third biggest problem to see Turks like how we today see different nations as. Turks were not genetically homogeneous people. There were Turks who looked totally different from each other. The name Turk (probably the word Tur itself with the added suffix uk - ük (it means "we belong to") was given to all of the people living in Central Asia; more precisely the land known as Turan (which means "belonging to Tur" in Turkic). There are many possibilities to what the word Tur - Turk means. There are many theories. For example it could be related with Töreli ~ Toralı meaning one or all of the following "with laws, bound by laws, having a culture, knows how to plow the land, knows how to drive ( seriously :) )" etc. For example it could be related with the verb Otur (from Proto-Turkic *ol(u)-tur- (which itself meaning (become tur) ; meaning to become a dweller, to become sit, to become a settler. For example it could be related with the verb "türe" meaning "to reproduce", "to become erect (as in walk on two legs)", "to spring up", "to come into existence"... From what we know today, the lands from which Turks spread to rest of the world is here:  The most numerous of Turks were probably the Oq~Oğ~Ow Turks who most probably got divided into two during ancient times. Most of those Turks called themselves as Ogur (we are the Oq), while the minority called themselves Oghuz (we are the Oq). (Oghuz were probably the Turks who had the least population) As you can see there is a dialect difference among them. Among Oghuz, "uz" means "we are, us" Among Ogur, "ur" means "we are, us" There were also the Kipchak Turks who were blonde and had blue eyes. They were not as numerous as Ogurs. For example we know that Ogurs were living west of Cimmerian Bosphorus when the Greeks established a colony in Phanagoria in BC 543. |