Turkish origins in Mongolia!

Originally posted by Phallanx Today, the theory of native Americans being Central Siberian nomads once is internationally accepted, and they belong to a totally different race. They cant grow facial hair for example. Hmmm, internationally accepted? If anyone thinks that Turkish 'scholars' represent the international scientific society, then OK, but it seems like the whole topic looks quite different under the international perspective, since theories vary. Did ancient Polynesians visit California? Maybe so. Scholars revive idea using linguistic ties, Indian headdress Scientists are taking a new look at an old and controversial idea: that ancient Polynesians sailed to Southern California a millennium before Christopher Columbus landed on the East Coast. Key new evidence comes from two directions. The first involves revised carbon-dating of an ancient ceremonial headdress used by Southern California's Chumash Indians. The second involves research by two California scientists who suggest that a Chumash word for "sewn-plank canoe" is derived from a Polynesian word for the wood used to construct the same boat. LINK If you ask me, Polynesia is quite a long way from Siberia, add that to genetics and BINGO, we have their most probable origin.

 

DNA evidence backs that up as well, i posted this in another thread also.

http://cita.chattanooga.org/mtdna.html

Polynesian Links?

To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.

It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of Melanesia and Polynesia. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific.

Then some 6,000 to 12,000 years ago these ancient mariners made it to the Americas. "I don't know how they came," Dr. Wallace says. "They either came across the Pacific to Central and South America or they went up the east coast of Asia and across the northern Pacific to Alaska and Canada," he says. He already is examining mtDNA samples from natives of the Kamchatka Peninsula north of Japan to see if there is any mtDNA trace of these ancient sailors.

 

Edited by kermit_criminal

This:

and instead of caucasians and mongoloids being separate races, they are really sub-races of the proto-turk where proto-turkic tribes branched off due to isolation during the ice ages. Meaning instead of turkic peoples being a mix of whites and asian(like hispanics today in the americas), whites and east asians originated from proto-turks? East Asians branching off from proto-turks in Mongolia, with Nordics branching off from proto-turks around Kalmykia region?

Humans originated in Africa, so if non-Turkic Eurasians branched off from these Proto-Turks, then we must be able to trace this race of Proto-Turks moving out of Africa and then branching off.
Also, Turkic is but one member of the Altaic family, Tngustic and Mongolian being the other two main ones, so if anything you should be looking for a proto-Altaic race.

Personaly i think trying to understand Turkicness in terms of a Caucasoid vs Mongloid dichotomy is relativly useless, as it seems to be that Turkic peoples were born out of the genetic melting pot of Central Asia.
And of course, understanding the the spread of Turkic culture coems from just that, studying the culture and language.

If it intrests you, there is a hypothetical language super family called Nostratic, that is a theorised mother of many Eurasian languages, including the Indo-European, Uralic, Altiac (includes Turkic languages), Caucasian, Afro-Asiatic and then some. Its basicly an idea to understand the spraed of languages into much of Eurasia and how they then brole up into their seperate families. Theres still alot of skepticsm over the idea, but its an interesting one none the less.

what does africa have to do with turkic people.

the idea of proto-turkic race was just something i threw out there to see what turks think to get a feel where they believe turks originated. since some turks on this board think caucasian turks are the "purest"

Originally posted by Cywr Not all 'Asians' are mongoloid, in fact most aren't. Likewise most Caucasoids aren't 'white', your mixing Americanised popular labels with outdated anthropology ones. There are numerous ways of classifying humans into groups and subgroups. And again, your are conviently avoiding the point that Turkic/Altaic isn't a race anymore than Afro-Asatic or Sino-Tibetian is. Hell, while where at it, why don't we pretend that all Caucasian Indo-European speakers are infact part of the Germanic Race, so clearly all those people are sub races of the proto-Germanic one, naturaly modern day Germans are the most pure.

you are just arguing semantics. besides i believe more then half of asia is in fact mongoloid

 

Yes however they show that somehow all these people in Europe have some kind of ties.

I mean look at this. Picture of Turks;


Cmon Cywr!http://www.nato.int/pictures/2004/040626b/b040626n.jpg

Edited by Iskender Bey ALBO

come to think about it... native americans and malayo-polynesians share striking similarities not only with each other, but with mongoloids and caucasians. native americans would very well be these "proto-turkic peoples". If you look at native alaskans and canadians, they look similiar to east asian peoples, wheras natives of the southwest and eastern united states look more like dark caucasoids.

Is it possible that the European theories of racial orgin could be wrong, and instead of caucasians and mongoloids being separate races, they are really sub-races of the proto-turk where proto-turkic tribes branched off due to isolation during the ice ages. Meaning instead of turkic peoples being a mix of whites and asian(like hispanics today in the americas), whites and east asians originated from proto-turks? East Asians branching off from proto-turks in Mongolia, with Nordics branching off from proto-turks around Kalmykia region? 

Edited by kermit_criminal

Originally posted by kermit_criminal were the earliest turks mongoloid, or caucasian? if they were originally mongoloid from mongolia you would think the migration westward would have whitewashed their genes so to speak. Most Turkic people on this board are of the caucas-centric point of view, but that likely is due to gradual admixture with other peoples. The purest living Turkic peoples today are probably the Yakuts of Siberia and they look nothing like Europeanized Turkey Turks. This is why i dont understand how Uzbeks like Perdon for example, can be so racist against East Asian types

Kermit,

There is no obvious thing such as original Turks. We cant be sure that even their original homeland was Altay mountains, western Mongolia. That was just the origin of G�kt�rk dynasty, and they were blacksmiths, they possibly immigrated there from another region.

Turks, Turkic people were nomads. That is why it is so hard to describe a specific homeland, a specific ethnicity, or a specific civilization for them. They immigrated to Mongolia, they mixed with Mongoloids. They immigrated to Russian steppes, they mixed with Slavic blondes. They immigrated to India, they mixed with Indians, and they immigrated to middle East and Europe, intermixed with the locals. Today, the theory of native Americans being Central Siberian nomads once is internationally accepted, and they belong to a totally different race. They cant grow facial hair for example.

Being Turk, or inheriting Turkic culture is not about your look, or your race. If you know the exact versions of Turkic myths of creation or common ancestry, you would realize that it is all about a common ancestry from a common father. And that makes you a Turk, your common ancestry, your common cultural elements and your self identity. Turks dont have a defiate original race, we, most of the nations in the world didnt care about such things before the nationalism age.

Being racist is disgusting. Today, the last person in the world who would be racist is a Turk. Turks didnt care about such nonsense, racial purity etc. Today, all people from a common Turkic ancestry who could keep his cultural values alive are Turks, no matter their race or looks.

And btw, today, if we are to show a pure prototype for Turkic racial structure, that would be Turkmens. They are the purest Turks on earth in terms of intermixing. Yakut (Sakha) Turks arent such original Turks at all, they are mostly consisted of Tunguzic tribes, and their admixture with Turks. Their language is assimilated in Turkic culture.

Edited by Oguzoglu

were the earliest turks mongoloid, or caucasian? if they were originally mongoloid from mongolia you would think the migration westward would have whitewashed their genes so to speak. Most Turkic people on this board are of the caucas-centric point of view, but that likely is due to gradual admixture with other peoples. The purest living Turkic peoples today are probably the Yakuts of Siberia and they look nothing like Europeanized Turkey Turks. This is why i dont understand how Uzbeks like Perdon for example, can be so racist against East Asian types

Edited by kermit_criminal

Yes, I did it, but not only to support my idea. I did it because I didnt want to copy paste the whole article and find the statements about possible Siberian origins.

Keyword here is 'NOT ONLY''.
Anyway, here is some real info.

This theory was introduced by Brits during their occupation of India for one and only reason. So that the local population wouldn't see them as foreigners and so they could remain in power.

If we look at the dates presented we literally find chaos. From originally supporting a date around 1800BC the continuous archeologic finds have made the supporters of the theory raise this date to the 5th millenium, but once again that doesn't seem to be enough thanks to the finds of the Lascaux cave.

Do a search and you'll find that there are horses painted on the walls of the cave and are dated to the 15th millenium, but how can this be possible, when one of the arguments these wanna-be's present, is that the 'Aryans' brought the horse, previously unknown to the world??

We could continue by pointing out the finds in the Vedic valley that demolish this joke of a theory or the liguistic elements but I'm sure, you do get the point.


Edited by Phallanx