Ethnic difference between Mongolic and Turkic?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20322
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 07:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ethnic difference between Mongolic and Turkic?
Posted By: Afsar Beghi
Subject: Ethnic difference between Mongolic and Turkic?
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 03:49
|
Can it be possible that the Mongols were a elite-turkic tribe, that named themselves mongols? And because they were elite they chose to use a slightly different language than the normal turkic people. This because I am reading a book about Genghis Kahn from Paul Ratchnevsky, in which he suggest that some tribes were Turkic but had Mongol tribe names http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-His-Life-Legacy/dp/0631189491 - |
Replies:
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2007 at 15:56
|
First of all, Mongols were not Turkic tribe.
They were elites in Central Asia only after Chengizhan.
Their language is not slightly different from Turkic. A friend of mine studied the Turkic loan words in "the Secret History of Mongols" and she could find only a few hundreds of words. I have given some time ago the comparison of basic numbers in Turkic and Mongolic, the difference is striking.
Linguistics agree that Mongol language can't be compared to Turkic in terms of advancement. So it could never be an elite language.
Those Turkic tribes with Mongolic names (maybe Naiman, Kereit) only due to the strong mongolic influence after the decrease of Turkic dominance in eastern steppe.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Afsar Beghi
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2007 at 10:33
|
But I heard the grammatic is almost the same. But cant it be that they have similar genetics? That they originated from the same place (ergenekon), but split into two people? ------------- Dadaloğlum bir gun kavga kurulur, Oter tufek davlumbazlar vurulur, Nice koç yiğitler yere serilir, Olen ölür kalan sağlar bizimdir! |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 17:50
|
It is not true, even among Turkic languages there are some grammatical differences.
Genitic studies don't give us genetic relations as we expected.
Ergenekon was the shelter only for Mongols after their defeat by Tartars. The date for this event can be traced back to only several hundred years before Chengizkhan. While the origin of Turkic peoples can be traced back to thousands of years before that.
BTW, which Turkic people believe in this Ergenekon legend, and celebrate the day of their coming out as Mongols?
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 09:42
| I think Oghuzs (Turkey Turks) believe Ergenekon Legend. I remember reading it on the school book. |
Posted By: BAWIR$AQ
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 15:35
|
Genetically, Kazak Turks and Khalkha Mongols have a lot in common and a lot of them share the same genetic haplogroup C (M130):
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf - http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue18/images/large/pq1713050001.jpeg - http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue18/images/large/pq1713050001.jpeg ------------- "Malım – janımnıñ sadağası, Janım – arımnıñ sadağası" "Sacrifice your riches for your life, Sacrifice your life for your honor" |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 17:09
|
I heard from an Russian kazakh that in the begin of the 90's many mongolians did move into Kazakhstan, couldnt be bcuz of that Bawirsaq? ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 14:29
|
Is there anybody who can proof that ancient Altaic people had Mongoloid genes? ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 00:01
|
The Mongols were definately NOT Turks. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that Genghis united all of the Mongol tribes, Tatar tribes, and even a few Turkic tribes, who would later happily consider themselves to be a proud member of the newly created Mongol Nation. ALSO, Genghis was not a Turk. And no one can prove otherwise.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 01:23
|
As I know, there is evidence that Chenhiz-khan's mother was Turkic, which was not something impossible for that region at that time. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 04:56
YES! it is very possible, but not provable. Turkic tribes did exist in the region, but every single one of them, was conquered by "Ghengis Khan", or how ever you spell it. Which in turn shows that the Turks were merely conquered by the Mongols, and Unified with the newly dubbed "Mongol Nation", under the Universal Ruler.
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 05:41
|
infact Chengiz khan was able to unify almost all Turkic tribes under his name (by force or whatever you might call), those who where living under his name where loyal as any mongolian to him. You can see that by his army, which consisted of many Turkic tribes. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 07:17
| I would like for someone to attempt to prove to me, that the Mongols, as a WHOLE, were Turks. |
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:04
Temujin was half Turk n half Mongol. Actually, those "a few" Turkic tribes was Karluk(Uigur, Uzbek), Kipchak(Kyrgyz, Tatar) and some Oghuz(Turkmen) tribes. Their population was higher than Mongols so there were more Turkic soldiers in Temujin's army ;) ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:53
Ofcourse, there were many Turks in the Mongol Army, but that doesnt prove that they were related to Mongols. And it definately doesnt prove that Genghis was half Turk. Also, keep in mind that the Mongol people during that period, only followed legitimate Khans of pure blood. For example, when Genghis named Jöchi his heir, it created dissension, not only among Genghis' other family members, but more importantly, among the entire Mongol population, becuase of the simple fact that there was a Slight possibility that he was not a pure blood legitimate heir to the Mongol throne. Before Jöchi's death, there were huge populations of Mongols, whom were threatening to revolt and claim independance, all becuase of Jöchi's supposed "impure" blood. Not to mention emminent civil wars. So to assume that the Mongol people wouldve only followed a pure Mongol, would be a correct assumption.
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 06:13
|
Penelope,
You are completely WRONG. Mongol and Turk tiribes were the same in Temujin's times. All of our Khans(Turks' and Mongols') saw all of our tribes as their own society. Therefore when a Turkish boy married a girl from one of Mongol tribes, it was not a problem for their sons to be a Khan of Turks or Mongols. Actually when a great Khan ruled steppes, Turks and Mongols didn't think about his tribe but his POWER. If a Khan was powerful enough all Turks and Mongols followed him.
By the way, pure blood meant ALTAIC blood not only Turkic or Mongolic blood ;) ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 00:41
|
Mr. Turk, for you to state that both Mongols and Turks were of the same ethnicity, is very much a fantasy. It isnt true, or provable. And Yes, Genghis was powerful enough to conquer the few Turk tribes. They had no choice but to submit to his authority, as did most of the known world at the time. BUT, that does NOT mean that the Mongol people, wouldve willingly followed a Khan, who was clearly not a full-blood Mongol. They would not have done so. |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 03:57
Jochi arosed suspicion not because of his suspected non-Mongol descent, but because he could not have been the true son of Ghengis Khan.
Temujin's wife was captured by an enemy tribe and was raped during her captivity. 9 months after her rescue, Jochi was born.... Temujin was therefore never 100% whose child he really was.
Regarding Turkic-Mongol relations in Mongolia, it's true that there was much intermixing because both peoples practiced exogamy - marrying within one's own tribe was considered a taboo - a nomadic custom of ensuring gene exchange. Many Mongol tribes took on Turkic atributes, ands vice versa, making the ethnic boundaries between the 2 less clear.
Centuries later, Turkic and Mongol peoples living in the Volga region, like the Tatars, Kalmyks, and Bashkirs have also extensively mixed with ethnic Russians.
However, this does not imply at all that the Mongols derived from the Turks. I don't know either language, but linguistic experts uphold that the basic structures of the 2 languages belong to different families.
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 06:08
Istemi Yabgu, Bilge Kagan, Bilge Kul Tigin, Ilteris Kutluk Kagan... They were all Turks and Mongol tribes followed them.
As for "pure blood", for example a Kagan married a Chinese princess, their sons couldn't have been a Kagan. That's TÖRE but I have never heard that after a Khan married a girl from a different tribe(Mongol or Turk) their sons couldn't have been a Kagan. Can u proof ur ideas?
By the way, Temujin didn't conquer Uigurs, Qarluqs and Kipchaks. They wilingly followed him and according to science Turkic tribes were more peopled than Mongol tribes. If those Turkic tribes didn't follow the Khan, he couldn't have been that much powerful.
I can proof my ideas: think about Ilhanli Khanate, Chagatay Khanate and Altinorda Khanate. After Temujin's death those three empires were TURKIFIED. WHY? Because their population was mostly Turks, because Turks were more PEOPLED than Mongols...
------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 08:11
None of the turks you have mentioned, were rulers of the unified Mongol Empire. They were not pure blood descendants of Genghis, which means that they could never become the Great Khan. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that. Also, once again, just becuase the turks were numerous, does not mean that they were RELATED to Mongols. Do some more research sweety.
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 09:01
|
Don't you know Kök Türüks? or do you think that when Turks ruled the steppes Mongols were livin in the moon? No gurl, they were living and fighting under Turkish flag...
Turkic men were the most capable wariors of Chingis Khan. When the Khan wanted to conquer Europe he sent Kipchaks(Altinorda).
I mean Temujin's state and army cannot be defined as only Mongol Army -Empire. TURK-MONGOL ARMY - EMPIRE, that's true. Coz as you know Turks were more crowded than Mongols. After Temujin, Mongols were asimilated among a great Turkic population. Now how many Mongols are livin in the earth? 200 Million Turks are there...
You should learn more about ur nation's history(If ur a Mongol, I don't no)
------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 00:46
What does being capable warriors have to do with the ethnicity of Genghis? Just becuase the turks were capable warriors, does not prove that Genghis was half-turk. Nor does it prove that the Mongols themselves, are turks. By the way, i am not a Mongol, my ancestors were Pontian Greeks, who migrated from asia minor to yugoslavia. I am Greek, but that is irrelivent in this conversation. And for the record, i embrace the brotherhood of ALL races.
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 06:26
|
There is a theory that some of Temujin's ancestors were from a Turkic tribe "Shato".
I thought that u could be a Mongol coz of ur words about Nomads, u behave like an expert about their TÖRE(unwriten laws) :D . Sorry If that question disturbed u... ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 22:54
Exactly, and that "theory" is not a provable one. It was more than likely created by people who want Genghis to be a turk.
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 08:32
In fact, history consists of billions of theories  ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 14:50
|
Well, I have to say the most accepted theory is the Chighiz khan was born of Monglolian parents.
His farther Yesughei was from the noble mongolian Kyat tribe, mother Hoelun was from Olkhunut (Ungerat) tribe which is also commonly believed to be a Mongolian tribe.
The theories of Turkic origins of Chenghizkhan are recent ones and they do not have the authority of "Mongolian" theory.
Elite and best troops of Chenghizkhan always consisted of Mongols.
He never send Kypchaks to conquer the West. In fact the Mongol invasion to Europe was caused by the pursue of Kypchak tribes by Mongolian chiefs Subudai and Dzhebe-noion.
The first battle between Russians and Mongols happened, because Russian princes refused to give up their Kypchak allies to Mongols. As a result Mongols decimated the united Russian-Kypchak army at the battle of Kalka river in 1223.
Later invasion to the west of Batu-khan also officially were caused by the need to acomplish the task of " complete extermination of Kypchaks"
As a result Mongols complitely destroyed western Kypchaks (Cumans) steppe federation in the Eastern Europe and the remnants of those Kypchaks had to flee to Hungary and Poland. The descendants of these Kypchaks still live in Hungary. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: The_Turks
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 06:17
|
Sarmat12,
The word Kypchak includes Tatars, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, Nogays, Baskirts...
As you know eastern Tatars was allies of Chingis Khan and they fought for him in the west. After Temujin's death they took authority of Altinorda Khanate. Now, Tatars, Kyrgyzs and Kazakhs are living former lands of Altinorda where they came with Mongols.
Also Uigurs and other Qarluq tribes fought for Chingis!!! ------------- PROUD TO BE TURKMEN... |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 15:27
|
Word "Kypchaks" doesn't include everything you listed below. Kypchaks are some of the ancestors of those ehtnicities but they are not equal to them.
Mongol army included many people including Russians and Chinese, Persians etc. It was just common for them to use the warriors from the conquered nations.
The brought Chinese to Russia and Russians to China, it doesn't make Mongols Chinese or Russians
That's why they also used conquered tribes from the Central Asia as an vanguard during their expeditions in the West.
Tatars is in fact a name of Mongol tribe, which later by confusion became a name for different Turkic ethnicities. Even now many of modern "Tatars" are not happy with this name. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 17:55
|
Dear Honorable Penelope, watching BBC Documentary movie about Chingiz, and learning his wifes name doesnt really make you historian, and especially if you are trying to prove 5 Turkish guys who have been swimming in the Lake of History, who they are and who they are not. In every topic, related to Turkish/c identity, I see u pup up and post a message that does not consist of any fact, but simly of ignorance. Chingizs parents were not of Turkish tribes, it is clear more or less, but when he attacked Tatars, he actually married 2 Tatar girls - doughters of the tribesman?
Dont u know that when he attacked Kharasmshahs, 75% his army was of Turkish Tribes?
Do u know that having a Turkish army, and being a mongol, living together for centuries will actually make you mixed and soon, in 20th century, when Azerbaijan Turk goes to Ulan-Bator, he understands, writes and talks the language full grammatically after 1 minmum and 3 maximum months???
Are you aware of the fact that regardles what US girl will claim about the etnicity of 2 nations that have been living along in Great Steppes of Asiam, they are both altaic, and we are more closer to each other than with any other nation?
Please and Please, I do not have any kind of radicalism towards you, naither otehr Turks here, keep calm, and if u have an argument, put it into MEYDAN and lets discuss! ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 23:17
First of all, i have never even watched a BBC doucmentary, or any other documentarys, as a matter of fact, i dont even have access to BBC, so i am a bit confused as to why you would say that to me. Now, you have taken the time to type a WHOLE lot, of which i already know about. Can you please add something new to this conversation? And none of what you have typed, has anything to do with the ethnicity of Genghis, or the Mongols for that matter.
Finally, what does me being currently in the US, have to do with this discussion? lol
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 08:47
 , If you already know the facts I counted, then I am really sorry, but it seems you have some mental problems becouse u deny Mongolic - Turkic close relationship throughout the history. In order to watch BBC documentary movies you do not need to have the access to BBC, even commentaries are enough from the Internet, and in fact If u really was interested, that movie should have been one of the important sources on Ghengis.
There are Mongols and Turks here with facts in their hands, both official and non official, and you from US try to deny them. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 03:56
Mental problems? lol, so you have now resorted to Name Calling, which in my honest opinion, is extremely immature, and shows a lack of respect for fellow chatters. What does me being in the US, have to do with anything? Please elaborate.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 08:29
|
Kerimoglu, resorting to ad hominem attacks towards another forumer is poor taste. It shows lack of respect and lack of material to argue your point of view. This is an informal warning. ------------- |
Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 04:12
|
Pene, Why are you bent upon divorcing ethnic Turks from ethnic Mongols????
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 16:36
|
I think that the Mongols and Turkics were originally classified as belonging to two different racial groups and spoke different languages.They had physical and cultural differences. The Turkics were Caucasoids, the Mongols were Mongoloid. The original Turkic homeland was the area of Turkestan (where Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,Kazakhstan and Kyrghyzstan are). The Mongol homeland was in present-day Mongolia. Both peoples have spread out into adjoining areas over the centuries. There has been a great deal of intermarriage and cultural intermixture. Nowadays the term Tatar is applied to many of the peoples with a mixed Turkic/Mongol heritage (though the original term 'Tatar' came from one tribe). The historic Mongol Empire was originally created when Ghengis Khan unified the individual Mongol tribes, then it later grew to include many Turkic tribes. Modern Mongolians claim a heritage from Genghis Khan's Empire, as do many modern Turkics. One remaining difference however is that most present-day Turkics are Islamic, while most present-day Mongols are Buddhist. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 02:05
|
Welcome to AllEmpires A. Windemere.
Catagorizing Turks and Mongols has surfaced from diverse strategies of classification. Linguistic, cultural, historical, etc... It is not necessary to overgeneralize since both groupings did and do have overlapping distinctions.
Let's throw out the terms Caucasian and Mongoloid and even Turanian for a moment. The Turks share(d) qualities from each distinction. The Mongols may have as well. Mongol ancestry is to thought to have come from the Xianbe tribes of Manchuria. The Turks from the possibly the Ting Ling and most likely the Khun. Regarding a homeland, this also varies. Both are thought to have shared a Siberian homeland. In following centuries the name 'Turk' came to the fold. The leading nobility was from the Ashina clan. They lived in the Altai mountain range. A noble and religiously sanctified locale. All members of that Steppe community was called Kok Turuk or Blue Turks. Aside from the dominant Ashina their were numerous Oguz and some Tiele people. They all took the moniker Turk in due time.
Meanwhile the name Mongol had not been invented yet. However, scholars believe that the tribe overthrown by the Blue Turks, the Juan Juan (Ruruan), were proto Mongols. Much later, it is also believed that Genghis Khan came from the Borjgin clan of the Menwu Shiwei. The Shiwei were similar to the Khitans. They shared the same language as the ancestors of the Jurchens and Manchus. They were known as Malgals.
Both the Turks and Mongols had some ancestry as the 'Hu' too. This was another classification. They were basically called so as a generic term by the Chinese for those barbarian tribes north of the border. There were five Hu peoples mentioned as noteworthy in having their own designation. They were the XiongNu, Xianbe Jie, Di, and Qiang. It is believed that the Xiongnu's main branch of clans were proto Turks and the Xianbe were proto Mongols. This was around the time of the 16 kingdoms of China. The 5 Hu were known as the Wu Hu. So next time you drink a Mountain Dew and you get the urge to shout' Woo Hoo', remember thsoe Steppe tribes you honor!  ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 03:42
|
I'd also like to add that according to some scholars Ashina clan had Mongolian (Xianbi) origins.
Regarding the Mongoloid features of ancient Turks, the head of Kultegin Kagan's statue (the Kagan-king of the Blue Turks Kaganat) luckily survived until our days. It clearly has Mongoloid features, as well as some other ancient turk statues and obelisks. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 01:58
|
Sarmatian12 maybe you could shine some light on this question. I ran across some literature that mentions the Kok Turuk inscriptions were carved by Chinese artisans. Do you know much about that? ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 19:33
Yeah, I happen to be familiar with that  .
In fact Kultegin monument is just a small remaining part of the huge, memorial complex built by Chinese artisans.
Chinese emperor sent a special deligation after Kultegin passed away which included diplomats, many gifts, slaves and artisans, which built a beautiful Chinese-style temple surrounded by the wall in the place where Kultegin was buried.
Since Gok-Turk Kaganate had very close relations with China, it's not surpising that such event become possible. Moreover, as we know Gok-Turks before creating their own independent state lived in China and were the subjects of Tang dinasty emperor, so when they moved back to the steppe they were influenced greatly by Chinese civilization especially in the realm of art.
So, it's kind of natural that Chinese artisants were invited to build that complex.
Besides the temple, there was the famous Kultegin monument which luckily sirvived and statue of Kultegin and his wife (if I am correct), later the statues were destroyed by the Uigurs, though the head of Kultegin statue also survived.
The monument itself has inscriptions both in Turk language written in Runes and in Chinese.
Interestingly, the contents of Chinese and Turk inscriptions differ significantly. While Turk inscriptions emphasize the animosity between Chinese and Nomadic civilization, Chinese inscription seems to interpret the event in a Chinese way and trying to create a view of Kultegin as almost a trusted vassal of China and say that the creation of Gok-Turk Kaganate was nothing but the will of Heaven, although in fact it was geopolitical catastrophy for Tang dinasty.
Turk inscription on the contrary writes that Turk people literally were "suffocating" in China and they freed themselves by escaping to the steppe and recreating the great Kaganate.
Turk and Chinese inscriptions also give some different details of the same events and in some parts complement each other.
Apparently the monument was also created by the Chinese artisants.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 19:46
|
Thanks for your detailed and informative answer! I've been on a Steppe kick again lately (3 books ordered form Amazon over the last week proves that I am turning into a geek). ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 19:54
|
You are welcome ! ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: khutulun
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 06:42
Not sure if you are still around, and I understand I am picking up an old thread (my prerogative) but your question or challenge confused me. Was anyone claiming Mongols, in whole or part, were Turks? You are the first person I've come across whose thrown a challenge against...a non existent argument.
Turks and Mongols are different peoples, though they share a kinship, due to proximity, similarities in language, culture, and religion and of course, intermarriage. (Turks as in Turkic peoples)
|
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 28-May-2008 at 14:09
|
Before Islam, there was very little difference between Turk and Mongol. Two different people yes, but we are Altai, and any Altai educated in their own history know this as a fact. There is no such policy as only a "pure" Turk or a "pure" Mongol. There's not even such a term as "pure" Altai. We do not have "racial" thinking on the steppes.
Turk is a complicated word, united Altai consider Turkic and Turkish two completely different things. However, not to doubt the Turkish have Altai roots, though, their hearts have changed over many centuries due to Islam, intermixing and cultural assimilation.
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-May-2008 at 15:41
|
^go back to AF subotai
Islam has changed the Turks but not that much as the change in geography did. Cultural exchange & living to gether with Non-altaic people ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 29-May-2008 at 04:18
|
When I mention Islam, I'm not mentioning Sufism tujue, no need to get all worked up. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 29-May-2008 at 20:12
|
still I stand by my point
------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 06:42
Such an attempt is politically motivated by Pan-Turkic or Pan-Altaic enthusiasts in cyberspace and underground movement.
This small group of individuals try to form a phantom alliance or an united front against the Chinese,more specifically confront PRC's rule over Turkic peoples within its borders.
|
Posted By: oceanstar
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:03
|
http://tak-alliance.blogspot.ca/
------------- Star |
Posted By: oceanstar
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:06
|
I beg to differ if you google me april yildiz ilkin or read tak blog you will see the damages done of our hidden history ------------- Star |
Posted By: oceanstar
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:08
|
love it ------------- Star |
Posted By: oceanstar
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:19
|
google me april yildiz ilkin for the whole story Its a technique called associating. Meaning associate an ugly bird with a group of people to distant them from others. Furthermore it creates separation of people, for example I rather be Kurdi, Armenian, Tatar etc. any day, than an ugly bird that sits at the dinner table waiting to be eaten. Same with the Mongol People they associated sick down syndrome children with one of the largest empires in history. Want another more recent examples, Compton (L.A) in the US was so proned to gang violence that some street names were changed. Meet me at Boyle street became meet me at pink fairy lane. Just like I want to talk about Mongol History, (I am the average person), but as I imagine sick kids I close the topic. Do you see the damages to our history? P.S dont laugh Armenians, the Mongol Empire included you as well....(with the mongoloid nickname). Sorry I covered that region with the red tracker in error but you can google the location of the Mongol Empire as evidence. ------------- Star |
Posted By: oceanstar
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:21
|
all I am saying is I cut and paste a piece of my blog. Turkic nomads were the kings of central asia they roamed for thousands of years. Please do not make comments like the mongols were not turkic descent really silly ------------- Star |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 09:55
|
Whoa, who you calling an ugly bird. The American Turkey is a regal, and attractive bird, if Ben Franklin had had his way, the Turkey would be today the Symbol of the US.
We get visited regularly, by a group of Wild Turkeys that are without a doubt, the biggest, fattest Turkeys That anyone has seen, ever. The males run 20-30 lbs.for a wild turkey that's huge. These are wild birds, the Domestic Turkey is the ugly, stupid version of the wild bird, it didn't exist at the times that the bird could have been named.
There are very old refs. to the expression "Turk" and Turkey in the "New World. Turks and Cacos Islands near Florida, for example. No one knows how the Islands got that name, but it was right around first contact. Another unknown are the Genetic markers that have been found in some of the indigenous folks in the South East US. that seem to indicate an early presence of peoples from the Mediteranean basin. In my family it runs back as far as 900 AD. approx.
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 10:13
|
A little off topic but relevant, the Wild Turkey used to be a reclusive animal, requiring a skilled "caller" to hunt them. [Experts have cataloged over 150 separate and distinct sounds that they make.] However, they, like many other wild creatures, have adapted. They have discovered the many bird feeders that exist in Suburban areas. They also have discovered that they are a "novelty" to the locals, and quite often come to the front door for handouts. They have lost all fear of us.
BTW- Some of these birds stand 3 ft. at the shoulders, these are not scrawny, scruffy birds.
|
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 12:08
|
I'm not sure that Mongols were Turkic; the inclusion of the Mongolian language in the Altaic group, AFAIK, is controversial. Genetically the Mongols are closer to the Siberian populations, and started out from Mongolia, not from Central Asia: ""..."[...] Archaeological and anthropological data reveal that modern Mongolians are the descendants of ancient nomads whose remains have been found throughout the territories of Mongolia dating to at least the end of the Neolithic period (TUMEN 1992). [...] To investigate mtDNA diversity within Mongolia and identify possible New World founding populations, we studied two Mongolian indigenous populations: the Khalkha and the Dariganga, representing 80 and 1.5% of the Mongolian populace, respectively. The Khalkha are the largest cultural group in Mongolia and number - 1.6 million individuals (1989 population census). They are distributed throughout the territory of Mongolia and, like all Mongol-speakers, speak a language assigned to the Mongolian branch of the Altaic linguistic family (BADAMKHATAN 1987).."" http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/mongols.html - http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/mongols.html ------------- |
Posted By: sumtingwong
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2012 at 03:53
|
ANCHORFREE_VERSION="633161526"var _AF2$={'SN':'HSSHIELD00US','IP':'212.118.232.132','CH':'HSSCNL000232','CT':'XX','HST':'&toAdltIntr=1&FBWCNT=10&NO_FBW=1&SFLAG=1&FBWCNT_FIREFOX=9&NO_FBW_FIREFOX=1','AFH':'hss196','RN':Math.floor(Math.random()*999),'TOP':(parent.location!=document.location||top.location!=document.location)?0:1,'AFVER':'2.25','fbw':false,'FBWCNT_FIREFOX':0};if(/^(.*,)?(11C)(,.*)?$/g.exec(_AF2$.CT)!=null&&_AF2$.CH!='HSSCNL000242'){document.write(" if(_AF2$.TOP==1){if(_AF2$.CH=='HSSCNL000242'){document.write(" if(_AF2$.TOP==1){if(_AF2$.CH=='HSSCNL000242'){document.write(" I saw a lot of resistance from the Turkish people from Turkey to the FACT that Turkic people and Mongolian people are related. In a sense, these people might be right. Remember, when the Turkic people arrived at what is now Turkey, there was already a huge population of a people related to the Greek living there. These Greek-related people have absolutely no relation to the Mongolian people. As this small group of newly arrival Turkic people dominated over the existing, more populous, Greek-related people and formed what is now Turkey, these Greek-related people gradually adopted the Turkish identity and call themselves Turkish. There sure was inter-marriage between this group of Turkic people & Greek-related people, but genetically speaking, the population of Turkey is more Greek-related than Turkic. They generally look more European than their ancient overlords, who forced upon them the now-Turkish identity. So if you are a Turkish guy and you don't feel any kinship with a Mongolian, you might be more Greek than Turkic, genetically, without you knowing it. But the fact that you are more Greek than Turkic and don't see any relationship between you and a Mongolian does not mean that Turkic people and Mongolian people are not related. The FACT is that they are. |
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2014 at 00:47
You're on the wrong track. The Mongols are phenotypically Oriental.
Where I think you're getting a bit confused, is that during the establishment, if that's the correct word, of the Mongol Empire, anyone who wished, basically, could join the Mongols. Also, when some countries were conquered by the Mongols, troops could opt to join the Mongols or be executed. Some countries even surrendered without a shot fired, so to speak. They also had to pay a tribute to the Mongols, which in some cases included providing troops.
So, bottom line, not every single member of the Mongol Hordes was genetically, a Mongol. ------------- |