who are Turks? The current people in Anatolia?

"That means non-Oghuz Turks such as Kazakhs, Uigurs, Tajiks and Kirgizs have more mongolid genes and background than the Oghuz Turks." Is there any reason that you called Tajiks as Turks?!!

What about Turks of southern Iran?

Young children of Turkashvand tribe in Khuzestan

Qashqai girl from Fars

---Hahaha...this is so ignorant it's almost funny. "Everything" is written there.   YOu also seem to not have realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can freely be changed and enhanced by ANYONE! Yes, even you could go there and spread your ignorance, and other people just like you could post a link to your crap to back up their own ignorant arguments. Does that make sense to you?

Let me just clarify for everyone else that I don't think all of Wikipedia is crap, but that it just has no scientific value if it can be changed by anyone out there regardless of his/her qualifications.

the oghus turks above you listed ,it is only lingual classification ! not ethnically!

GOD! tajik is a turkicfied persian ! nonsense you are talking about,they are real caucasian in central asia!! uyhgur is between persian and central asian ! kazak indeed look more like mogolian!

    There is a HUGE Uzbek Minority there (over 1 million people), but the Tajiks themselves are neither culturally nor linguistically Turks. . Second, we discussed SEVERAL TIMES above WHY Kazaks, Uigurs etc. have more east asian genes than Turks in Turkey.

[/QUOTE]

Mr mustafa  ! tajik in central asia are not turks in deed ,they are persian ,but culturely ,they lost everything they have ! they keep the language though! but you know ,Uzbek and uyhgur langauge has al ot of words form persian ! and they get maried with uzbek and uyhgur ! why don't just call them turks!!!!they controled by uzbek too long time !!

where do you get the concultion that uyhgur look like mongolian ,have you ever been there before?have you seen the uyhgur image in this forum!have you seen their eyes ?

At first I have to ask a few questions about you after your comments:

Are you Turkish? Are you Muslim?

If so, I am sorry but you are getting misinformation about the subject. Language reform has done in the area of literature and education to eliminate Persian and Arabic influences on Turkish. So that daily used spoken Turkish has started to be used in those areas. In fact by doing so the ordinary people in Anatolia could use easier than before its own language.

Istanbul Turkish and Turkey Turkish do not have different grammar and there is not something like �real Turkish�. This is an artificial thing. In every country there is main accent which is used as basic such as London English or Paris French. This is related with the location�s literature, cultural, demographic and scientific properties.

Well you are still resisting on despite many sources given to you. If you want an origin you can start from Africa since all scientific research have shown that homo sapiens are originated from Africa. The place that you like to decide, as �this is the origin of this human group� can only be a scientific fact (if it really is) for a limited period of time since people are moving, interacting and even genetically changing during time. 

I am again repeating that the issues on origin, homeland, urheimat or whatever you call of all language groups, or �nations� is a matter of debate in academic circles. It is still a matter of discussion that if Ural-Altai is a single group or not. Korean and Japanese are two new languages, which have been seen similarities with Altaic languages. 

According to Miller, proto-Altai language has roots in West Siberian steppes on the north, Caspian Sea on the west and Altai mountains on the east before 7000 years ego. Proto Altaic people have been moved towards east to Altai region and they split up two as west and east. Western group has formed proto-Turkish. Famous Turkolog Nemeth put the area from the east of Urals till Altais. Menges put it even west.

You know this change since it you see it, you lived it. But historically speaking it is very dubious that they are �very homogeneous society� since they are mixed with Celts, Latins, Slavs, Uralics and even may be with other Asians such as Turkics.

Your life span is beyond our scope when it is talked about thousands of years. Being sedentary doesn�t mean that they did not move anywhere and others did never get in touch with them. Our knowledge about Germans starts with when Romans get into contact with them and put their observations on paper. We do not have enough info about them before. But after this we know that they went from Africa to Crimea and at last to America. So they were moving. We know that they are racially Nordic but they have clear, now and before, non-nordic element inside their society.

I cannot understand your point. What is the difference between the two. Mixing is mixing. They are both homo sapiens at the end. Moreover you cannot assume that being caucasian is an European property since they were coming from Asia. What is the importance if there is not a difference on their gene and phenotype or not? We are talking about a different thing.

It is me who is saying that Turks are a sum of people both Caucasian and Mongoloid. The difference between us is that you are saying that Turks were Mongoloids even in 1683 at the siege of Vienna (how did you get it. It is a mistery though) but suddenly changed to caucasoid until the invention of photograph machine. And I am opposing by saying that Turks has gained caucasoid features during their long journey to Anatolia without denying the fact that they have also mixed with Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Serbians, native Anatolians. So my objection to you is not related with some nationalistic stance or opinions. Plus we can not even know if the very first Altaic speaking peoples were Mongoloids or not.

My points are:

1)      Chinese chronicles

2)      There are both Caucasoid and Mongoloid skeletons in Altai and other parts of Central Asia. They are all my ancestors. Especially Tocharians. There are lots of common words in Turkish and Tocharian. I do not care about the very very beginning first Altaic speaking people 7 or 6 thousands year ego.

3)      I am looking at western Turks which are Anatolian Turks, Azeris of Azerbaycan, Azeris of Iran, Turks of Caucasia, Crimean Tatars, Baskurts of Russia, Gagauzs of Moldova, Karaim Jews, Turks of Balkans (millions in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia etc)�� and some who stayed in Central Asia showing caucasoid features such as Uighurs were all caucasoid. There is a reality on me. I am seeing it. But you are claiming that they were Mongoloids and by mixing with native population they have changed to caucasoid. And they have adopted their languages. Well but we are talking about a huge population. How a group of warriors could achieve to convert all these population and they have started to talk Turkish?

4)      I am looking at Turcoman yoruks in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. They were not Mongoloids moreover there are many blonds. 

5)      I am looking at Alevis in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. Especially Alevi dedes have a long family track showing their roots in Khorasan. They were not Mongoloids but some of them have Turanian features.

6)      Language is a very important aspect in identifying one�s identity. Even if from Iran to Russia and to Anatolia Mongoloid Turks have mixed with locals and changed their languages it means that todays� Turks are this and they are not the same as 2000 years ego. So what? We are still Turks and we are still carrying something from Mongoloid Turks.

7)      There is social theory of �assimilation of conquerors�. If a group of people who conquered another country by only warriors or without a mass migration they are assimilated inside the main group. Since the language is learnt from mother. A small group of nomad warriors can not convert a huge geography. This is beyond the scope of logic, science and this has never seen during history.  

How do you know it? I want to remind you that some Turco/Mongol tribes had also ruled China and entered inside of it.

You are seeing Asians as a different race. It must be a result of living in Germany. Indo-Europeans were Asians too�� I am not seeing differences between humans they are both homo sapiens. From that perspective we can say that there is no mixed society.  

Oh! No!!!!!!!!  This was terrible. You have educated in Europe I think.

Turks who came to Anatolia and to west was a group of people composing from those people. This is very simple. 

Ok. If you really think that this site is only related to the decisions of some european that are trying to show Turks as "Caucasian", it won't dissappoint me since your ideas about the assimilation of all anatolian nations by a group of wariors of a tribe. But to remind you about something is my mission:

Where did the women, children of Oghuz from "Oghuz Steppes"-between Aralsea and Caspian Sea- go??? Did they dissappear after the conquest of modern Turkey and the Mongol invasion??? Absolutely NO... Even in the Ottoman period until the war of Ankara with Timur ( also to remind you- Timur was Turkic and he wasn't totally mongoloid, he looked much Caucasian! ) the REAL OGHUZ migrated from these steppes to Anatolia and most, about %90, of Oghuz population remained in Ottoman terrattorries, mostly Anatolia since the Manzikert war- EVEN BEFORE IT with the huge migrations of Oghuz tribe and other Turkic tribes- Pecheneks,...- to Anatolia.

And do you really believe was Anatolia had a worthy number of "NATIVES"? No man... These lands were not like Wild West, the conquerers killing the "poor" natives. The population of the nations living "around" anatolia can't be even compared to the Turkish migrated... And after the migration a part of them left Anatolia and migrated to middle east and northern caucasia... And you know what? Even for a very non-nationalist Anatolian "native" wouldn't make intermarriage with a mongoloid easily! Also there were some cultural issues. For example the "y�r�ks" and Alevis didn't accept mixing with these people, and most of the central Anatolia was even without a worthy populatio- except some villages in eastern anatolia...

Also about the origins and migration of nomad Turks... I offer you to read my "linked site" once, and then search more about this topic. Because as everyone knows, the Origins of Turks can only really be seen in ancient chinese writings...

"The original homeland of the Oguz, like other Turks, was the general Ural-Altay region of Central Asia known as Turkistan or Turan, which has been the domain of Turkic peoples since antiquity. Although their mass-migrations from Central Asia occurred from the 9th century onwards, they were present in areas west of the Caspian Sea centuries prior, although smaller in numbers and perhaps living with other Turks. For example, the Book of Dede Korkut which is the historic epic of the Oguz Turks was written in Azerbaijan in the 6th and 7th century.

According to many historians, the usage of the word "Oguz" is dated back to the advent of the Huns (220 BC). The title of "Oguz" (Oguz Khan) was given to Mete, the founder of the Hun empire, which is often considered the first Turkic political entity in Central Asia.

Also in the 2nd century BC, a Turkic tribe called "O-kut" who were described as Huns (referred to as Hsiung-Nu or "colored-eyed people" in Chinese sources) were mentioned in the area of Tarbogatain, in present-day southern Kazakstan. It must be noted that the Greek sources used the name Oufi (or Ouvvi) to describe the Oguz Turks, a name they had also used to describe the Huns centuries earlier."

There is a different problem now. The historians... Do you think they are pure as the spoon exitted from milk?( You know this term better ) NO!

They also have some missions like the people always trying to show Turks as "central asians uncivilisized barbarians"! Yeah, maybe they know some truth about us and dont want to share it! I don't want to get in this topic very much but I only want to inform you about that. Please, please dont read everything the Western historicians write as truth! Because we gave them the chance to write our history according to their will, we made a Huge MISTAKE! - propoganda

Maybe because of your American Westerisized lifestyle, you are unable to see the truth... But the history of mankind is up to the hands of the enemies sons of the people who occupy history. If you really want to know the truth, dont take the son of enemy like a brother, and believe him...

Hi Murph,

Glad you're enjoying the show.   But remember, it always takes at least two to run the program. If people here were not coming up with the most ridiculous arguments to behin with there would be no arguments to rip apart. So, you have to be partly thankful to the people that have been frustrating the heck out of me with their baseless nonsense statements.

You knowing nothing about central asia is probably much better than some people here spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Mustafa