Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?

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). 

When do you guys ever stop kidding?

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.

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.

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.