Of course. If you use only Argyn tribe with only 6-7 sample study from what village you will get 87% G1 What about all the Argyn sample study that shows them with only 18-20% G1?
You know you are lying and spreading false information, dont you? Of course you do.
As you can see in the picture, the sample size in the "A Y-Chromosomal Comparison of the Madjars (Kazakhstan) and the Magyars (Hungary)" academic study is 45. If you do not have the proper IQ to read the values under the column with the letter of "n", i promise you i will help you to find out how to read these values.
As you can see, 39 of the tested 45 Kazakh Turks, belong to Y-DNA Haplogroup G1, this is 86,7%.
Bashkir
Turks, Karachay Turks, Balkar Turks, Kumik Turks, Kuban Nogay Turks,
Terek Cossack Turks, Karai Turks, ALL HAVE HIGH FREQUENCIES FOR Y-DNA
HAPLOGROUP G.
It really does shows their caucasian Tocharian blood line.
Don't
you know the Chinese in past claimed the Uyghurs had very slanty eyes,
short, stocky while the Tocharians ( iranian ) of East Turkistan ( a
recent name created in past 150 years) were described as White people
but they had nothing to do with Chinese
No, it does not show any kind of faked up Iranian/Indo-European proof. Do you have any kind of historical document, proving the fact that Uygurs were of Iranian origin? No, there is no such fact! You can not bend science for your badly intended purposes and goals.
It is the other way around, the people who belong to the faked up definition of "Indo European" are all of Proto Turk Ethnic origin. The Tocharians themselves are of Turk origin.
11th century medieval scholar Mahmud al-Kashgari, writes that both the Sakha's/Scythians and the Tocharians are of Turk origin.
Originally posted by MrButlerKing
GENETICS OF UYGHURS... the western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than the eastern East Asians. ... STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century AD. The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans, whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.
Translate and read the information on the following link(i have no extra time for your stupid low iq messages): http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10902
El-Birûnî, Türklerin Türkistan sahasının en eski ahalisi olduğunu
kaydetmiştir . Türk ırkının bir prototipi olan Andronovo kültürü
taşıyıcıları M.Ö. 1700'den itibaren yavaş yavaş Orta Asya'ya hâkim
olmaya başlamışlardır. Altaylara ve Tanrı Dağlarına yayılan bu ırkın
hâkimiyeti Hun ve Gök-Türk çağına kadar devam etmiştir . En geç Önceki
Han (M.Ö. 206-M.S. 25) devrinde Tanrı Dağları etekleri, Tarım Havzası ve
He-hsi koridorunda Türkler yaşamaktaydı.
Rus Türkologu Malov,
"Türkler milattan önce V. asırda büyük ölçüde şimdi yaşadıkları yerde
yaşıyorlardı" demektedir . Tolstov, Türklerin milattan önce 2500
civarında Türkistan bölgesine gelmiş olduklarını ve Arîlerin bölgeyi
istilasından sonra bölgede Türklerle karıştıklarını söylemektedir . Yine
G. Schmitt'e göre kaynaklarda Chin-man olarak geçen Beş-balık en eski
devirlerde bir Türk yurdu idi . Hattâ tarih öncesi dönemlerde bugün Çin
toprağı sayılan ve esasında da Çinli addedilen, Doğu Türkistan'ın daha
da doğusu olan Shen-hsi, Shan-hsi, Chih-li gibi yerler tamamen Türklerle
meskûndu . W. Eberhard da bugünkü Doğu Türkistan'ın asıl sâkinlerinin
Türk olduğuna Sinolojik mülahazalar neticesinde vara-bilmiştir .
Dolayısıyla Türklerin Doğu Türkistan'a çok geç devirlerde geldiği,
bölgenin asıl ahalisinin başka milletlerden olduğu yönündeki genel görüş
doğru değildir.
Sonuç olarak makalemiz umûmî görüşün aksine
bilhassa Çin kaynaklarındaki kayıtlara dayanarak esasen Doğu Türkistan
coğrafyasına atfedilen "Hsi-yü" adının ilk geçtiği yerler incelenerek
Türklerden ödünç alınmış olabileceğini; Doğu Türkistan'ın Hun Devleti
için bir varlık sebebi olduğunu ve bu yüzden en eski devirlerden beri
Türklerin hayat sahası hâline geldiğini; bölgedeki ilk sâkinleri başka
milletler olarak gösteren arkeoloji ve dil çalışmalarının eksik ve bazen
de taraflı olduğunu dolayısıyla yazılı kaynaklardan da istifade etmek
gerektiğini ve Doğu Türkistan'daki en eski sâkinlerden birinin Türkler
olmasının çok büyük bir ihtimal teşkil ettiğini ortaya koymuştur.
Originally posted by MrButlerKing
You
are posting caucasian Uyghurs. Who are not Turks but was described by
the Chinese as different ethnicity to Turk, They were Iranian people
similar to Tajiks who were later conquered by Mongoloid Turks.
According to ancient Chinese historical documents, the ancestors of the Huns who lived around 2000 BCE, were the first inhabitants of East-Turkistan/Uyguristan/Xinjiang. You are so stupid not to know these simple facts.
Çin Kaynaklarında Doğu Türkistan ("Hsi-yü") Tâbiri
Çinlilerin
Doğu Türkistan için kullandıkları M â Hsi-yü yani "Batı Toprakları"
adını Han Sülalesi devrinde (M.Ö. 206-M.S. 220) daha çok Tanrı
Dağlarının güneyinden kıvrılan yol üzerindeki Yü-men yani "Yeşim taşı
kapısı"nın batısındaki topraklar için kullandığı görülmektedir. Esas
itibarı ile Doğu Türkistan toprakları söz konusu olsa da yeri geldiğinde
daha güneydeki ve batıdaki topraklar ile devletler ve halklar da
kastedilmiştir. Bu surette Çin kaynaklarının "Doğu Türkistan" hakkında
bilgi verirken aslında İpek Yolu üzerindeki yerleri belirttikleri
anlaşılmaktadır.
Çinliler eskiden bu toprakları hiç görmemişlerdi
ve buraların Hunların atalarına ait olduğunu düşünüyorlardı. Çinlilerin
ilk defa olmak üzere batılarındaki toprakları tanımasını sağlayan ve
önceleri elçi, seyyah, casus ve daha sonraları general olan Chang
Ch'ien'in (ölümü M.Ö. 114) gezip dolaştığı topraklar için yazdığı
seyahatnamesi Shih Chi (yazım tarihi M.Ö. 109-91)'nin 123. bölümünde yer
almaktadır; ancak bu raporun hiçbir yerinde Hsi-yü yani "Batı
Toprakları" ifadesi geçmemektedir. Öte yandan Shih Chi'nin yazarı Szu-ma
Ch'ien bu adı sadece üç yerde zikretmektedir: Bölüm 60, s. 2109, satır
4'de, Hsi-yü etnik bir tâbir gibi görünmektedir; "M M ft M M â ^ H ^ W".
Huo Chü-ping'in (M.Ö. 140117) biyografisinde Hsi-yü, Yüeh-chih ve
Hsiung-nu (Hun)'lar ile yan yana etnik bir tasnife tâbi tutulmaktadır.
Hsi-yü'nün Shih Chi'de görüldüğü bir diğer yer Bölüm 111, s. 2933, satır
8'dir. Burada gene Huo Chü-ping'in Hunların Batı Beyi Hun-hsieh'e
yaptığı seferden bahsetmektedir: "...S #| ^ W 5fc 6} M M â ^ W W. Burada
Hsi-yü tâbiri ile Hun devlet düzeninde bugünkü Doğu Türkistan
topraklarını idâre eden bir bey bulunduğu ve bu toprakların Hun idârî
sistemine dâhil olduğu görülmektedir. Szu-ma-ch'ien'in buradaki Hsi-yü
kaydını Hun devlet sistemindeki bir tâbirden ödünç aldığı
anlaşılmaktadır. Hsi-yü tâbirinin Shih Chi'de görüldüğü son yer Bölüm
117, s. 3044, satır 5'tir: "M Ür M â S P fi fj...". Buna göre Hsi-yü,
K'ang-chü (Sogdiana) ile beraber coğrafi-etnik bir ad olarak veya bir
devlet adı gibi kullanılmıştır .
Dolayısıyla Çinlilerin "Hsi-yü"
yani "Batı Toprakları" tâbirini Hsiung-nu'lardan (Hun) ödünç aldıkları
ve bu yönüyle "Batı Toprakları" tanımlamasının Hsiung-nu (Hun) idarî
taksimatına has bir kavram olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. O hâlde Doğu
Türkistan toprakları Çinliler için çok "yeni" topraklardı ve esasında
"Hunlara âit" idi.
Oh great. Don't you know every portrait you posted were made 500-1000
years after Attila's death. Some of pictures you posted were only 120
years ago.
So what if it was 500 years later than Attila was living? Do they not know who the descendants of Attila are around the 11th-12th-13th century AD? Yes, they do know!
500-1000 years is nothing, look at the present day descendants of the Ottoman dynasty. Some of them have the exact same facial type as the pictures in the ancient portraits of ancient Ottoman sultan Fatih Sultan Mehmed, who lived in the 15th century. Almost 600 years are past, and still the same facial type exists among the modern descendents of Fatih Sultan Mehmed. Many European painters drawed the portraits of many ancient Ottoman sultans.
For example, the ancient painters of Attila could have easily seen the pysical facial features of some of the medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region, to know how the facial type of Attila was.
What if the medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region had genealogical trees with ancient drawn pictures of Attila? What if the medieval European painters that draw the picture of Attila, talked with these medieval Szekely Huns(direct descendants of Attila) in the Transylvania region, and drawed the picture of Attila after these meetings?
Originally posted by MrButlerKing
The only description of Attila was this.
While there is no surviving first-hand account of Attila's appearance, there is a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who cites a description given by Priscus.[2][3]
Short
of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small,
his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and
tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.[4]
Some
modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East
Asian, because it has all the combined features that fits the physical
type of people from Eastern Asia, and that Attila's ancestors may have
come from there.[5][6]
There are lots of other descriptions about the Huns of 4th-6th century AD. Ammianus Marcellinus for example has other descriptions of the Huns of Attila. For example, he mentions that "The Huns covered their Hairy Legs with goat skins". Are Hairy Legs physical feautures of East Asian Han Chinese people? No they are not!
The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan.
The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here
is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how
they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.
Kazakhs
today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were
Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and
Mongols.
It is not a fake data. It is an
analysis of the table published by Orazak Ismagulov at his study named
"Physical Anthropology of Kazakh People and their Genesis. Read the full
article of the study paper and you will see that the comments(a couple
of words) in red colour are correct.
The Iron Age is equal to the
Sycthians / Sakha's. Historical documents proof that the Sycthians /
Sakha's are the ancestors of the Huns and the later Turks. Orazak
Ismagulov is also saying that the Sycthians / Sakha's are the ancestors
of the modern Kazakh Turks. So, empty the filth in your hearth, and use
your logics, If it is historically proven that the Sycthians / Sakha's
are the ancestors of the Huns/Turks, then are the ancestors of the
Sycthians / Sakha's not the "Proto Turks", YES THEY ARE.
Originally posted by MrButlerKing
The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here
is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how
they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.
Kazakhs
today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were
Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and
Mongols.
Nowhere in the article at
http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis
is mentioned that the people of Kazakhstan were speaking the Iranian
language, you are making this up, you are being pathetic and simple to
deceipher.
Orazak Ismagulov is talking about the LABELS of the 3 MAIN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPES:
So,
i am asking you the Huns and the Han Chinese are different people of
different nations/races, right? Historical documents proof this
obviously fact, right? Then, is it not stupid to call the skull type of
the Han Chinese Mongoloid? If the Han Chinese and Huns are from
different races/nations from each other, then is it not stupid to call
the Huns Caucasoid? Yes it is.
The fact is that the majority/core of the Huns and the Scythians had West Eurasian anthropological skull types,
with a minority of East Eurasian anthropological skull types. It is a
historical fact that the Huns and the Scythians spoke the Turk Language.
Then, the ancestors of the West Eurasian Huns and the Scythians were
the Proto Turks.
Example showing the fact that the core of the Huns and the Scythians/Sakha's are the same:
All my arguments are at the links i provided. It is obvious what i mean with my statement "THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN": Turks are direct descendants of ancient Central Asian Turks, Huns and Sakha's/Scythians.
This is a figure from your source
What I see with my blind eyes, is below
In Saka period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in ProtoTurks period
In Hun period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Saka period
In Gokturk period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Hun period
In Mongol period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Gokturk period
No,
you did not understand the meaning of the figure. First of all, it is
about the anthropological types found in the region of Kazakhstan. The
ancestors of present day Türkiye Turks are the Huns, Sakha and Gök Türk.
Proto Turks consisted of people with both West Eurasian and East
Eurasian skull types, but the core of the Proto Turks had a West
Eurasian origin. This core is able to be explained with an example of
the tribe system of the Huns. The Oghurs, Acatziri, Kutrigur, etc. were
the core/root of the Huns. Agathyrsi was for example also a core tribe
of the Sakha's. These tribes were all of West Eurasian origin.
You
can see that the Proto Turks in Kazakhstan were 100% of West Eurasian
origin. But not to forget the fact that these Proto Turks were the same
people with the Sumerians and the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of
Europe. For example among the ancient samples of the same
Linearbandkeramik culture is found the Y-DNA haplogroups C1(East
Eurasian) and G2a(West Eurasian) together, they are both of the same
nation and culture.
-Looking at the Sakha's in Kazakhstan, 85% of them belong to the West Eurasian craniometrical type. -The Huns in Kazakhstan, belong 75% to the West Eurasian craniometrical type. -The Turks in Kazakhstan, belong 50% to the West Eurasian craniometrical type.
If
you had knowledge of the migrations the Huns conducted during the
periods of Rua and Attila rule, you would have known the fact that the
majority of the core of the Huns migrated to the Caucasian(around the
Khazar/Caspian Sea and around the Black See) and Carpath Basin/Balkan
regions.
Do you know were the centre of the Proto Bulgarians, Uz,
Pecheneg, Kimak, Khazars, On-Ogurs was located before and after the
migrations that were conducted during the periods of Rua and Attila?
First enlighten yourself with these data. Also, do you know to which
locations the majority of the core of the Mongol and Turkmen tribes
between the 11th and 14th centuries made migrations? Enlighten yourself
with the history of the Ilkhanid Khanate between Türkiye and Iran, the
Golden Horde Khanate around the borders of the Black Sea region.
The
reason for the dropping of the West Eurasian frequency in the from 100%
to 30% is because of the major migrations the Sakha, Hun and Turk
tribes made to most West Eurasian regions. And the Proto Turks were
obviously one Turk nation with people of both West and East Eurasian
origin, but the core was of West Eurasian origin. This structure is 100%
the same as the structure in the Turks of Türkiye and the Turks of
Central Asia, Caucasia, Carpath Basin, Russian regions, Iran,
Azerbaijan, etcetera. Also, Central Asia is not restricted to only
Kazakhstan.
Originally posted by Aeoli
If you want to talk about Y-DNA,
just check wiki to see how different Turks in Anatolia from Central
Asian Brothers Kazaks (66,7% haplogroup C), Kırghız (63,5% R1a)
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrklerin_genetik_tarihi (Turkish source, but you will just check the table)
An advise, do an autosomal dna test and learn who much Central Asian you are? Mine is 6%
First
of all, i want to ask friendly a simple question, which Y-DNA
haplogroups found among the Turks in Türkiye, do you think are not of
Turk and Central Asian origin?
Do you know that among the Argyn
tribe of the Kazakhs, haplogroup G1 was found with 87%? Did you know
that there was found R1b among the Kyrgyz with a frequency of higher
than 50%?
Seriously tell me, which haplogroups found among the
restricted studies about the Turks of Türkiye are not of ancient Turk
origin and are not found among the Central Asian and other region Turks?
Of course. If you use only Argyn tribe with only 6-7 sample study from what village you will get 87% G1 What about all the Argyn sample study that shows them with only 18-20% G1?
& isn't the renowned Kemal Ataturk, shown in colour portraits as
having blue eyes..
So that even the "Father of the Turks" surely cannot be of 100% Central Asian origin, genetically..
You have a low IQ. I will share pictures of Uyghur Turks with coloured eyes. You will change your thinking mechanism when you look at these photos, and see that you were wrong.
East Turkistan:
East Turkistan
East Turkistan
East Turkistan
East Turkistan
Doğu Türkistan
VERY NICE PICTURES.
It really does shows their caucasian Tocharian blood line.
Don't you know the Chinese in past claimed the Uyghurs had very slanty eyes, short, stocky while the Tocharians ( iranian ) of East Turkistan ( a recent name created in past 150 years) were described as White people but they had nothing to do with Chinese
GENETICS OF UYGHURS
... the western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than the eastern East Asians. ... STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century AD. The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans, whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.
Here are original pictures of Uyghurs dated from 8th century Mongolia ( before they migrated to Xinjiang, aka East Turkistan ) which are reliable sources. Not like your pictures of Atilla made 500-1000 years later.
Uyghur prince and princess
You are posting caucasian Uyghurs. Who are not Turks but was described by the Chinese as different ethnicity to Turk, They were Iranian people similar to Tajiks who were later conquered by Mongoloid Turks.
LOOK AT THE PORTRAITS PAINTED BY ANCIENT ARTISTS, OF OUR ANCESTOR ATTILA. IT IS OBVIOUSLY OF WEST EURASIAN TURK ORIGIN.
Oh great. Don't you know every portrait you posted were made 500-1000 years after Attila's death. Some of pictures you posted were only 120 years ago.
The only description of Attila was this.
While there is no surviving first-hand account of Attila's appearance, there is a possible second-hand source, provided by Jordanes, who cites a description given by Priscus.[2][3]
Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin.[4]
Some modern scholars have suggested that this description is typically East Asian, because it has all the combined features that fits the physical type of people from Eastern Asia, and that Attila's ancestors may have come from there.[5][6]
Seriously. How gullible can you get to think that some painting/picture made in last 100 years as reliable source of appearance?
All my arguments are at the links i provided. It is obvious what i mean with my statement "THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN": Turks are direct descendants of ancient Central Asian Turks, Huns and Sakha's/Scythians.
This is a figure from your source
What I see with my blind eyes, is below
In Saka period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in ProtoTurks period
In Hun period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Saka period
In Gokturk period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Hun period
In Mongol period, people who lived in Kazakhstan, were not 100% same with people in Gokturk period
Originally posted by kuzzar
And i am asking you, based on which Y-DNA haplogroups, do you think that the modern Turks of Türkiye, are not of Central Asian Turk origin?
If you want to talk about Y-DNA, just check wiki to see how different Turks in Anatolia from Central Asian Brothers Kazaks (66,7% haplogroup C), Kırghız (63,5% R1a)
(Turkish source, but you will just check the table)
An advise, do an autosomal dna test and learn who much Central Asian you are? Mine is 6%
Who the hell added these fake data on the graph?
The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan.
The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source not Turkic. Here is the link: It's about the physical anthropology Kazakhstan and how they changed from 100% Caucasian indo-European to 70% Mongoloid Turkic.
Kazakhs today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and Mongols.
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 19:03
Originally posted by kuzzar
Originally posted by Aeoli
kuzzar
Sorry, but I don't see a light inside you to make a rational conversation.
You are still continue with a sarcastic teenage language.
<span style="line-height: 1.4;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Be mature and get over something.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Then we can discuss the issue again.</span>
You are pathetic, are you afraid to give a reaction to my arguments and questions? I answered your questions. Obviously, you know how the discussion is going to end, then why even bother to participate to my request? I just want to see a reaction to my first statement, then based on that i will proof that Turks are 100% the same as the present and ancient Turks in Central Asia. Why are you so sensible to what i write? Did you read the contents of the links i provided, obviously not. You are the one that is a teenager, you are changing the subject to off topic meaningless directions. If you are not a teenager, and are a grown up man, then answer my questions, else dont bother to do anything...
Be wary of how you comport yourself and address others here. Or you will not be here long. Opinions vary..refutations and counter opinions welcome..BUT only as noted; when they do not involve cyber verbal abuse. Consider yourself warned.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
For true DNA analysis, all genetic inputs must be considered..
What % of Neanderthal genome - is present in you?
No, science is science. You can not bend science for your bad intended goals. Y-Chromosome is father side, MT-DNA is mother side, it is that easy. Why are you so afraid to answer my question, why wont you answer?
And also:
There is MODERN DNA SAMPLES, and there is ANCIENT DNA SAMPLES. ANCIENT DNA SAMPLES is performed on the skeletal remains of ancient persons in graves. Archaeology is also a science mechanism, with Archaeology you can determine to which Historical(also a scientific mechanism) group the ancient grave belongs to. And with the Anthropological scientific mechanism, you can determine to which of the three(1: West Eurasian, 2: East Eurasian, 3: African) craniometric skull/facial type a person belongs to. In the scientific papers you see that the geneticians always combine these three root anthropological types with Y-DNA haplogroups. Each anthropological type is equal to more than one Y-DNA haplogroup.
To summarize, there are 4 scientific branches to be used to determine an ethnical origin:
You need to compare the Y-DNA haplogroup results of the ancient dna samples with the modern dna samples, and then make an analysis using the other scientific branches. This is how scientific research is performed.
I still request an answer to my original question: "Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Turks of Türkiye do you not consider to be of ancient Central Asian Turk origin?"
& I am still awaiting your response to the fact of the well known
preference of wealthy & powerful Ottoman Turkish men for attractive
European wives, such as for example, Suleiman & Roxelana..
Off topic, this has nothing to do with anything. Y-Chromosome is Father side, has nothing to do with the marrying with foreign women. You still did not answer my question, it is really a very simple question: "Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Turks of Türkiye do you not consider to be of ancient Central Asian Turk origin?"
& I am still awaiting your response to the fact of the well known
preference of wealthy & powerful Ottoman Turkish men for attractive
European wives, such as for example, Suleiman & Roxelana..
The genetics of the 'melting-pot' - of Ottoman Turkey - is just as plain - as the variations that show - in the facial features of the people, including skin tone/eye colour & etc..
You have two points:
1- Genetics 2- Facial/Craniometric
I have two questions:
1- Which Y-DNA haplogroups found among the Turks of Türkiye do you not consider to be of ancient Central Asian Turk origin?
2- Which cramiometric skull types were found among the ancient Sakha and Huns? Read my previous reply to user "Aeoli", because i have already answered this point 2. As for point 1, i am waiting for your reaction.
It is quite plain English Kuzzar..
Is your comprehension difficulty an issue of poor education, or low IQ?
The genetics of the 'melting-pot' - of Ottoman Turkey - is just as plain - as the variations that show - in the facial features of the people, including skin tone/eye colour & etc..
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