Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 4567> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 12:00 |
|
Histoical facts STATES that turkic people were Mongoloid. Look at your ancestors sculpturs. He was WISE MAN.
Also you shouold read ancient Roman historical accounts about Huns and Attila.
The main source for information on Attila is Priscus, a historian who traveled with Maximin on an embassy from Theodosius II in 448. He describes the village the nomadic Huns had built and settled down in as the size of the great city with solid wooden walls. He described Attila himself as:
Attila's physical appearance was most likely that of an Eastern Asian or more specifically a Mongol ethnicity, or perhaps a mixture of this type and the Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Indeed, he probably exhibited the characteristic Eastern Asian facial features, which Europeans were not used to seeing, and so they often described him in harsh terms. |
||
 |
||
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke 
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:21 |
|
|
You know what? We're all tought our original one is the one who looks more Mongoloid. It's not only me. All of my people (Kazaks, Kyrkizes, Turkmens and Uzbeks) agree on such a thing. And if there was such an influence (I mean Mongolian influence on Turks to make them Mongoloid), why should we expect this effect only on Turks? Mongols ruled everywhere. How come just Turks qualify for this effect? Anyhow, I've posted my thoughts in previous pages. No need to explain again.
|
||
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 17:18 |
|
|
Turks were called Tureg/ Turuk, not Turk
|
||
|
||
|
Bulldog
Caliph 
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 19:02 |
|
|
Slight spelling differences due to them being translated from non-Turkic texts cause these variations, however, they all refer to the same people.
p.s No responses to my previous post in here
 |
||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 20:21 |
|
Where is other turkic texts except Bilge Khan, Kultegin, Tonyukuk's Orkhon inscriptions ?
from Tureg to Turkey, it took 1000 years. 1000 year is good enough time to make Mongoloid into Causasoid.
|
||
|
||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 21:30 |
|
|
Again, Turks had no concept of race, you did not become a Turk by fitting the racial description, you became a Turk by accepting Turkishness, speaking the language, becomming part of the people as you would be accepted into the society as I explained above.
Now race categorisations are not black and white, your not one or the other and when it comes to Turks as they were primarily in the region between Mongoloid and Caucosoid people its natural for them to be an admixture of the both.
I said there are many translations from non-Turkic texts regarding Turks ie Chinease records.
Infact, in the "Turks Journey of 1000 years" exhibition, it clearly states that you can determine between Turks and Chinease and other Mongoloids because the Turks are always drawn having a moustache and beard, making a "pure" Mongoloid theory not very reliable.
p.s There are many more uncovered, un-decifered inscriptions in that area. More digs are required, there's been very few projects in that vast region compared to what were used to in Europe.
Also Wiki isn't a good source for these matters, if anybody has any in-depth sources or links regarding the Orkhon monuments please provide them.
Edited by Bulldog - 12-Jun-2006 at 21:34 |
||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||
|
||
|
barbar
General 
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 22:46 |
|
I'm looking at the sculptures, they are clearly Turanid. I know the discription of Attila, he was also Turanid.
Huns, when they were in power, absorbed large number of Mongolic tribes as slaves, and they were mixed somehow. The excavations of the royal tombs of the Huns in Mongolia shows that they were mainly Caucasian.
Ashina Turks (very few in numbers) can't be the ancestors of all Turkic people. Tura tribes are the main composition of the Turkic people. Still Ashina Turks (as in the sculpture you have posted) were discribed to have blue eyes (Bi Mu) and heavy body hair, which is not a characteristics of Mongolic people.
What historical FACTs do you have?
Edited by barbar - 12-Jun-2006 at 22:50 |
||
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
||
|
||
|
Zagros
Emperor 
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 04:38 |
|
Not only that, but Mongols were a minority compared to Turks in their own armies.
|
||
|
||
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 05:10 |
|
|
No, Mongols were not minority. There were also Turkified mongols (Naiman etc) besides Mongols.
Mongols mainly absorbed by Turkic (Nomadic) people because they had similar life style, and they were close due to the thousand of years of interaction. It's as simple as that.
|
||
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
||
|
||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 06:55 |
|
|
There was no concept of "race", if a genetical Mongolian became a Turk it wouldn't matter or be notified he/she would simply become a Turk, just like if a White guy joined the Turks he/she would also be accepted as a Turk.
So the whole argument is drifting to unrelated matters, the Turks painted in ancient Chinease records can be identified because they were drawn having beards and moustache while Chinease would have no facial hair.
This signifies that the ancient Turks were not "pure" Mongoloids and rather Mongoloid/Caucosoid. Remember Mongoloid does not mean Mongol, Chinease and Japanease are more Mongoloid than Mongols are.
|
||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||
|
||
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 10:51 |
|
|
Dear Bulldog, I also hold the idea that if someone thinks he is Turk, then no one has any right to deny that based on their racial point of view.
We have a member (Gok-Turk) who thinks that real Turks are Central Asians, so Azaris and Turks in Turkey are not Turks racially. This was the reason for my becoming a member of this forum several months ago.
If present Turks are racially diverse, then how come he denies a group's self identity just judging from their racial feature?
Even though it is senseless to discuss the racial topic, this leads me to dig out the so called real Turks (Ancient). Historical and archeological facts show that Turkic people's main ancestories were mainly caucasian, starting to have some Mongolic admixture after Hunnic ruling over Mongolic tribes.
Isn't it ironic if a Turkic group (Mongolic, if there is any) claim himself the real Turk racially and denies other groups who are actually more close to the original ancestors racially?
I really hope we can stop these nonesense, and admit that Turkishness (Real Turk) is not based on the race, rather on the culture and soul.
|
||
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
||
|
||
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 12:33 |
|
|
Bulldogs and ther Turks here know me very good. They don't need your explanation to see how I think. It's your own fault to get me wrong. You've told us about your points of view and I've told you all mine. Because I think our ancestors were Mongoloid, so pure ones must have remained Mongoloid. All I want to say is pure Turks (racially) are Asiatic. This way, I can classify an Azeri in Turks & Mongolian race. They ARE members of Turkic nation. But when it comes to race, in my opinion, they're not exactly what I expect.
It's your own problem you think anthropology is nonesense. Everyone's got his own way.
|
||
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
||
|
||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 14:06 |
|
|
Barbar
I really hope we can stop these nonesense, and admit that Turkishness (Real Turk) is not based on the race, rather on the culture and soul.
This should be the phrase of the day.
I totally agree, Turks have always mixed throughout history for the prime reason that they did not base themselves upon racialistic ideologies.
Now this in my opinion is beautiful.
Turks were always known for having moustache and beard
 this is shown in Chinease records, they obviously weren't as Mongoloid as the Chinease, the Turks had Mongoloid and Caucosoid features, natural when you regard their geographical position.Racial theories are nonsense, for example if a family from Africa settled among Turks a few hundred years ago, mixed with the people, adopted the language, customs, culture and identity out of free will, would it be right to tell that person today that he cannot be acceped as a Turk because because of his racial features. Edited by Bulldog - 13-Jun-2006 at 14:08 |
||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||
|
||
|
Tangriberdi
Earl 
Joined: 03-Aug-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 267 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 13:47 |
|
|
I agree. TURKISHNESS IS NOT RACIAL BUT MENTAL .
If you
speak a Turkic language as mother tongue for generations ,
have Turkic traditions customs and conventions,
think you are a Turk and ,
ready to serve the nation and to die for Turkishness.
YOU ARE A TURK.
That is it.
Although I am a Turkmen, I can never accept that A central Asian Turk is more Turk than Turks here in Turkey. They are all Turks . Just like me.
I am a Turk with my soul body ideas................ everything.
I disagree with Gok-Toruk. Edited by Tangriberdi - 22-Jun-2006 at 13:50 |
||
|
||
|
minchickie
Shogun 
Joined: 03-Jul-2005 Location: Hungary Online Status: Offline Posts: 241 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 04:05 |
|
|
"Who was the ancestor of Turkic tribes ?"
With all due respect, and although it makes for great discussion, the truth is noone truly knows the answer to this question. Every post on here and to come is based soley on hypothesis. The question really asks, "how far back do we KNOW".
I am Magyar (Hungarian) and there is no answer to where we came from, yes we know about Arpad and the Magyars intro into Europe but before that...? Noone knows. We too were Steppe peoples and yet our history is very vague. "Vague" as far as we know. Yet there are many clues linking us to Turks, Mongols, even Chinese. Our language for one is unlike any other although there are some very similar word structures similar with Turkic languages. Still it is very different. Where did it come from?
Theres so many missing pieces to the puzzle(s) of Steppes peoples, most notably, Turkic peoples including all those of Altaic-Uralic languages.
Its good to keep an open mind because it seems so many people here have "the answers". Atleast for the moment.
My 2 cents are up. Out of change.
Have fun.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
minchickie
Shogun
Joined: 03-Jul-2005 Location: Hungary Online Status: Offline Posts: 241 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 04:35 |
|
Presently we Hungarians refer to Turks as "trk" which sounds the same as "Turuk . Edited by minchickie - 06-Jul-2006 at 04:37 |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
MING-LOYALIST
Janissary 
Joined: 19-May-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 09:26 |
|
Ancient Uyghurs(HuiHu)
Modern Uyghur
Modern day Mongolians
see how east asian mongolians can look.
My theory is that Originally Turks and Mongols looked similar however Turks moved west and today's turks are culturally turkish but genetically closer to whatever the native populations before Turks arrived then to the original Turks(Tujue).
As for the Huns I think you meant the XiongNu, well the Xiongnu were majority mongoloid themselves and subjugated Tochorians who were not.
Another thing when Han travellers went to the western regions they immediatedly noticed how the people there looked different and commented on it but the xiongnu did not get special comment about their looks.
Remember when portuguese came to China chinese called them red haired foriegners because they immediately noticed the different colored hair and even called portuguese cannons as red barbarian cannons(hongyipao).
When Chinese travelled to southeast asia chinese wrote that they were short and dark and ugly however Chinese hardly ever commented on the looks of Turks,Mongols, Jurchen...etc mainly because there were no great noticeable physical differences.
EDITED DUE TO POSTING THE SAME PICTURES IN ANOTHER THREAD. Edited by Seko - 06-Jul-2006 at 09:48 |
||
|
||
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 11:39 |
|
|
Chinese Historians did describe Turkic people. Kyrghiz (Jigesi>jiankun) were one of the known early Turkic tribe who moved to the north of Yenisey before Hunnic period, and they were described to show clear Europoid look.
Chinese historians also described the rulers of Tujie to have Europoid look.
Remnant Huns were masecared by Jin ruler (Xianbei origin, related to Mongols) according to their physical characteristics. (this shows the clear difference between Turkic and Mongolic people). This event was depicted in the cave in Shandong, as we can see clearly Europoid Huns being killed.
Chinese archeologists and anthropologists got the conclution from the Hunnic royal tombs that the majority of the bodies shows Europoid trait.
As for this Europoid trait, I guess it is Turanid.
|
||
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
||
|
||
|
Attila2
Pretorian 
Joined: 03-Oct-2005 Location: Turkey Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 20:35 |
|
|
wait a min! Edited by Attila2 - 12-Jul-2006 at 20:36 |
||
|
||
|
Attila2
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Oct-2005 Location: Turkey Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 20:35 |
|
|
Sorry folks but what most of you wrote is full o crap!(excuse me for the offence)
TURKS came from ALTAY,a region in western MONGOLIA and southern SIBERIA(please re-read if you didnt understand!) so please tell me ! BUT PLEASE! SO how come we have CAUCASIAN/INDO EUROPEAN ancestors!??? sorry but it is just plaiiiiin crap!
If you tell this to a historian or an anthropologist,he would definately laughs till he dies...
And secondly ,to the guy who "can find no difference between the Turks and Afghans"...
Well I cant say you anything.I am just crying in hysteria and anger :)
(no I am NOT CALM!)
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 4567> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.032 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.032 seconds.
