Attila's family shows that they are Turki

ok come on then post your pic , I bet you look turkic

this is me

you forgot azerbaycan hehehe.

Originally posted by Afsar Beghi On the first photo you look just like my nephew. I see no difference between you and a turkish turk

E.Bretschneider "Mediaeval Researches. From Eastern Asiatic Sources." v.1, 2001 edition, originally published in 1887

p.306
...The Yuan ch'ao pi shi notices that two rivers which Subutai had been ordered to cross, viz., the "Djayakh" and the "Idil".
The first of these rivers, the original Turkish name of which is "Iaik" or "Djaik" (in Kazak language - "Jayiq" - A.), is the Ural river of modern Russian maps. We find it first mentioned in the Byzantine writers. Zemarchus, sent in 569 by the Byzantine emperor to the khan of the Turks, on his way back came to the "Daich" river, and then to the "Attila" (Volga). Constantin Porphyrogenita (tenth century) calls the "Iaik" (Yule's "Cathay," clxvi.). As I have stated above, the ancient Russian annals write this name "Yaik". Pl.Carpini styles the same river (743) "Jaec"; Rubruck (274), "Jagac". In Haithon's itinerary the name reads "Jaic". On the Catalan map (1375 A.D.) it is called "Jayech". In the Mohammedan historians of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the river "Iaik" is frequently mentioned. Rashid notices it in his account of the Kipchak. This is also "the great river Yak, which has its spring in the land of Siberia, near the river Cama, and runs through the lands of "Nagay", fallen into the Mar Caspium" oin jenkinson's narrative of the journey to Bokhara in 1558.
The other river is Volga. By the name of "Idil" or "Atil", meaning "river" in Turkish", the Turks, and after them all Mohammedan geohraphers , have designated the Volga, which latter name, used by the Slavic nations, seems to be derived from the ancient city of Bolghar, situated on the Volga. In the tenth century Istakhri states (p.2) that the Khazars live on the river "Atel", which runs through their country. Ibn Khurdadbeh (also in the tenth century) speaks also of a city "Atel". This is believed to answer to the present Astrakhan. In the Byzantine writers the name appears much earlier; the river "Attilia" in Zemarchus itinerary (v.supra). Plano Carpini, 775: "Ethil quam Rusci vocant Volga". Ibidem, 743: "Flumen Volga super quod vadit Bati est valde magnum." Rubruck calls the Volga always "Ethilia". On the Catalan map the name is "Edil"...

Edited by Akskl - 09-Nov-2006 at 00:08

Not to diverge from the original topic, but since this is being discussed; what about the Sarmatians?  Were they Turkic, too?

Turkey has been a melting pot. And that trend continues. To assume that there are no commonalities in genetic or cultural affinity is falacy. Assimilation does not eradicate the mutual culture. It adds to it.   

We are Turk

Vivek
Most of the turks of turky today are themselves not the original turks    

What a load of absolute crap, there not Turks based upon what? race? wern't you the one opening posts that there are no races

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15410

Ins't this a little hypocritical.

There is no such thing as pure, original, new age, old age bla bla bla Turks.

If you speak Turkish as a mother tongue, have a Turk identity, percieve, feel and are accepted as a Turk, share Turkic heritage and culture, your a TURK plain and simple. No need for genetic tests, DNA tests or anything else, ethnically they are Turks that;s the end of the story. Turks don't denote themselves by race, it's not in their culture to, its an accepting nation and welcoms those who become Turks.

Turks in Turkey are Turks, are original Turks, are real Turks end of story.
    

Edited by Bulldog - 16-Dec-2006 at 11:35

Your taking it out of context.