Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

Main Page

Ebooks Main Page

Old Articles

Forum Home > Regional History or Period History > Steppe Nomads and Central Asia

New Posts

FAQ

Turks = Mongoloid mix DNA shows

Post Reply

Page <1 2 34

Author

Share Topic

Topic Search

Topic Options

J.A.W.

Consul

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320

Topic: Turks = Mongoloid mix DNA shows
Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 17:56

Irrelevant..

For true DNA analysis, all genetic inputs must be considered..

What % of Neanderthal genome - is present in you?

Be Modest In Thyself..

kuzzar

Housecarl

Joined: 21-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30

Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 18:13

Originally posted by J.A.W.

Irrelevant..

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:

-History + Linguistics
-Anthropology
-Genetics
-Archaeology

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?"

Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down

Emperor

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.

Be mature and get over something.

Then we can discuss the issue again.

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'

Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down

Emperor

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392

Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 19:05

For all concerned... tone down the rhetoric...reign in the personalities.... or this thread will be locked. Period.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 14-Jun-2015 at 19:06

"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'

J.A.W.

Consul

Joined: 07-Apr-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 320

Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 19:06

Agreed CV..

Since stating the obvious - on demand, serves no useful purpose..

& Neanderthal DNA lives on in a certain % - of many current Eurasians..

You cannot deny the genetic inputs from many centuries of inter-breeding - as a natural fact..

Edited by J.A.W. - 14-Jun-2015 at 19:07

Be Modest In Thyself..

MrButlerKing View Drop Down

Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100

Posted: 12-Aug-2015 at 07:24

Originally posted by Aeoli

Originally posted by kuzzar

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)

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%

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.

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

Kazakhs today are 70% Mongoloid and 30% Caucasian. People of Kazakhstan were Caucasian and spoke Iranic language until the invasion of Huns and Mongols.

Edited by MrButlerKing - 12-Aug-2015 at 07:29

MrButlerKing View Drop Down

Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100

Posted: 12-Aug-2015 at 07:31

Originally posted by kuzzar

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?

Edited by MrButlerKing - 12-Aug-2015 at 07:35

MrButlerKing View Drop Down

Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100

Posted: 12-Aug-2015 at 07:41

Originally posted by kuzzar

Originally posted by J.A.W.

& 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

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.

Edited by MrButlerKing - 12-Aug-2015 at 07:44

MrButlerKing View Drop Down

Samurai

Banned

Joined: 15-Nov-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 100

Posted: 12-Aug-2015 at 07:56

Originally posted by kuzzar

Originally posted by Aeoli

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?

kuzzar

Housecarl

Joined: 21-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30

Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 05:46

Originally posted by MrButlerKing

Who the hell added these fake data on the graph?

The original data is from here is about the ancient anthropology of Kazakhstan.

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

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

http://www.scientificfund.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:physical-anthropology-of-kazakh-people-and-their-genesis

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:

-Caucasoid
-Mongoloid
-African

Like mentioned at the analysis at the following link: http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267#p15193, the correct definition of these labels, which are only words being used, are not equal to modern populations are:

-West Eurasian
-East Eurasian
-African

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:

Acatziri: Hunnic Tribe
Agathyrsi: Scythian Tribe

kuzzar

Housecarl

Joined: 21-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30

Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 06:21

Originally posted by MrButlerKing

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]

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!

kuzzar

Housecarl

Joined: 21-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30

Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 06:40

Originally posted by MrButlerKing

It really does shows their caucasian Tocharian blood line.

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

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.

kuzzar

Housecarl

Joined: 21-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 30

Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 06:42

Originally posted by MrButlerKing

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.

Look at the following page for the detailed analysis of the following picture http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267#p15199:

Kazak Haplogroup G

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%.

Also, Haplogroup G results are not only restricted to the Kazakh tribe of Turks. As you can read from the data at the following page http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12288:

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.

Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down

Emperor

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392

Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 12:47

Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 17:05 -
For all concerned... tone down the rhetoric...reign in the personalities.... or this thread will be locked. Period.

************************************************************
''You know you are lying and spreading false information, dont you? Of course you do.''

Accusatory diatribe doesn't work here Kuzzar. You were warned once before. Now it's official. Either heed it or go elsewhere.

MBK you are also perilously close to following into the same predicament.

This thread is locked.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 08-Sep-2015 at 12:49

"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'

Post Reply

Page <1 2 34

Forum Jump

Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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