Print Page | Close Window

Turks = Mongoloid mix DNA shows

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32731
Printed Date: 30-Mar-2020 at 02:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Turks = Mongoloid mix DNA shows
Posted By: MrButlerKing
Subject: Turks = Mongoloid mix DNA shows
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2012 at 08:37
There is no pure Turks except for some Yakuts who are pure mongoloids. Even among Anatolian Turks there is no people who is pure Caucasoid this seems to suggest Turks were most likely mongoloid or predominately mongoloid, they had to be mixed at least.


Each line represents a individual sample genetic admixture.




Replies:
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2012 at 08:49
Because they are different genetic projects.Are you genetic engineer?SmileRegards Dr.Butler King.


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2012 at 14:39
Originally posted by MrButlerKing

There is no pure Turks except for some Yakuts who are pure mongoloids.


Which colour does show the mongoloid genes? yellow or orange? it should be yellow and that means Yakut Turks are more mongoloid than Mongolians. There is a logical mistake in here. We shouldn't call mongoloid because mongolian people don't have pure genetic structure. We should use yakudoid or something elseBig smile. Mix one is mongolian people. Majority of them become Yakut and East Asia genes(yellow-high in Yakut people and orange-high in Han, Dai people)

Originally posted by MrButlerKing


Turks were most likely mongoloid or predominately mongoloid, they had to be mixed at least.


This is a false theory, beacuse there are some turkic tribes who has a little mongoloid DNA like Turkmens and Turks. you can compare blue&green level and yellow&orange level


-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2012 at 04:32
Which colour does show the mongoloid genes? yellow or orange? it should be yellow and that means Yakut Turks are more mongoloid than Mongolians. There is a logical mistake in here. We shouldn't call mongoloid because mongolian people don't have pure genetic structure. We should use yakudoid or something elseBig smile. Mix one is mongolian people. Majority of them become Yakut and East Asia genes(yellow-high in Yakut people and orange-high in Han, Dai people)

There is no mistake,  both are mongoloid

Yellow = Siberian Mongoloid
Orange = East Asian Mongoloid
Green = Central south Asian Iranic
Dark blue = European
Light blue = West Asian
Gray = Arabic


This is a false theory, beacuse there are some turkic tribes who has a little mongoloid DNA like Turkmens and Turks. you can compare blue&green level and yellow&orange level

The turks were hybrid of mongoloid and Caucasoid is currently the most accepted theory. The reconstruction of Turks from 200 BC already showed them to be predominately mongoloid with some caucasoid admixture like the Xiongnu and gokturks who were the firsts looks mongoloid. These groups later conquered Central Asia ( Indo-European Iranic lands) and intermarried with the Indo-European people which diluted their mongoloid features but still significant in many people.

Here is what Gokturks and Xiongnu look like. They were Mongoloid hybrid group with even green eyes, brown hair, red hair, blue eyes, blonde hair surprisingly.





-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2012 at 04:35
Both Turkmen and Turkish are not majority Turkic, they mixed with the original people who turks conquered. Turkmen are the result of these Iranic and half mongoloid turks who conquered them. Turkish are results of these Half mongoloid seljuk turks and Anatolians. The original people in Turkmenistan spoke Iranic languages like Tajiks long before they spoke Turkic.

Turkmen genetics

Genetic studies on  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA - mitochondrial DNA  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtDNA - mtDNA ) restriction polymorphism confirmed that Turkmen were characterized by the presence of local Iranian mtDNA lineages, similar to the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian  populations, but high male  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid - Mongoloid  genetic component observed in Turkmens and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian  populations with the frequencies of about 20%

There are 3 types of Turkmens today

The ones in Afghan, Pakistan who look predominately mongoloid 
The ones in Iraq who looks like Arabs caucasoid
The ones in Turkmenistan are like 16-18% mongoloid on average but 1/3 of them are also 26 - 33% Mongoloid.

Turkmen in Afghanistan



-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2012 at 04:45
Turkmen in Pakistan


Turkmen in Turkmenistan ( some look like these)


-------------


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2012 at 11:33
Originally posted by MrButlerKing

There is no mistake,  both are mongoloid

Yellow = Siberian Mongoloid
Orange = East Asian Mongoloid
Green = Central south Asian Iranic
Dark blue = European
Light blue = West Asian
Gray = Arabic
[quote]

I need this explanation Big smile. But the name mongoloid still means like mongolian for me. I can not stop myself. Is the term mongoloid means yellow race? 

[QUOTE=MrButlerKing]
The turks were hybrid of mongoloid and Caucasoid is currently the most accepted theory.

The term Turk means mostly Anatolian Turks. Turks of Central Asia is Turkic and according your sources, Turkmens has just nearly %20 mongoloid genes, Anatolian Turks less than this. That's why you can say without  Oghuz Turks (Azerbaijan, Turkmens, Anatolian Turks) most of Turkic people is mongoloid. however Oghuz Turks are Iranic and middle eastern

Map of Oghuz languages



-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2012 at 02:24
Actually Turkmen has 40-45% Mongoloid. That study only included the percentages of the male DNA, female DNA should also be included. Haplogroup Q is found 10% in Turmenistan but in some city and provinces it goes up to 20%.  The altay has 32% Q and some siberian tribes 60-90% Q

In autosomal DNA  Azeris and Turkish people are basically caucasoid with slight mongoloid admixture , the average is about 6.8% but some have 13 - 16% in Adyn.

Turkmen in Turkmenistan has 16%  some are 27-29% and some are 31-33% mongoloid. However the I bet if the samples were in East Turkenistan the people would be even more mongoloid properbly 50% Mongoloid like the Turkmen are Afghan the most mongoloid Turkmen, they live in west Afghanistan close to east Turkmenistan,they would be at least 50% Mongoloid judging from their average looks.


Both Turkey and Turkmenistan are Oghuz speakers but is there anyone from Turkey that look like these Turkmen ?




-------------


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2012 at 15:19
I still don't agree you. I belive that calling Turkmen as Iranic more suitable than mongoloid.

*"Comparison of Turkish Genetics with Turkmen Genetics"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people

*"Genetic studies on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA - mitochondrial DNA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtDNA - mtDNA ) restriction polymorphism confirmed that Turkmen were characterized by the presence of local Iranian mtDNA lineages, similar to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian populations, but high male http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid - Mongoloid genetic component observed in Turkmens and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian populations with the frequencies of about 20%"

This sources says male has high Mongoloid genetic component, but just 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmen_people

*Maybe Turkmen people have high level mongoloid genes then Anatolian Turks, however they still have strong other genes.


"Haplogroups (Hg) 1 and 3 were common in almost all populations, but the highest frequencies of Hg1 were found in Turkmen and Armenians"

Armenians and Turkmens have very similar charts







-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2012 at 07:15
I have met a Turkmenistan girl from Russia in Los Angeles before.  You look at her, and the first impression is she is a Mexican or mixed Eurasian type. 
I have also met Azeri people from Iran (Tabriz) in Los Angeles.  Although, they look totally Middle Eastern, you sometimes see they have very soft skin and very dark black hair, makes you think there is some Central Asian genetics hidden in them as well. 


Posted By: heyamigos
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2012 at 08:40
They reconstructed Seljuks skulls in Iran too and they came out looking like these Gokturks features as well.  I think conversion to Islam made the nomadic Turk more necessary to absorb or attain Caucasoid features.  You look at Ottoman Sultans and very few of their wives or women in the harem were Turkish.  They mainly came from Christian/Europeans or Circassians/Georgians.  Is this type of ongoing mixing that explains it


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2012 at 07:42
HEY... your study is only ABOUT AUTOSOMAL DNA.  However in haplogroup frequencies Turkmen have 40-45% of haplogroup Y-DNA and mtDNA.

If you want to compare Turkmen and Turkish than the genetics of Armenians and Georgians are even much more closer to Turkish than the Turkmen are to you.

Turkmen have 8.5% more west Asian than Turkish people
Turkmen have 8 - 9% more South Asian than Turkish people.

Turkish have 6.5 - 14% more atlantic baltic than Turkmen
Turkish have 7.5 - 8% more Southern than Turkmen

If we calculate it there is 30.2 - 39% Caucasian genetic difference and that is not including the Mongoloid admixture.



Just because the average Turkmen is only 16% Mongoloid doesn't mean all are, as you can see some of the samples shows 27 - 33% Mongoloid admixture while no Turkish have more than 15% Mongoloid admixture.

Show me Turkish people who look like these Turkmen from Turkmenistan


Turkmen in Afghanistan



-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2012 at 08:41
For example of the Turkmen individual samples that were tested in Turkmenistan.

Below 25% mongoloid


28% less than 16% Mongoloid admixture ( 13-15%)
23.07% of Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture ( average number )
15.2% of Turkmen have 18% Mongoloid admixture
7.6% of Turkmen have 22.5% Mongoloid admixture

Over 25-30% mongoloid

7.6% of Turkmen have 27% Mongoloid admixture
7.6% of Turkmen have 31% Mongoloid admixture

15.2% Turkmen have over 25-30% mongoloid admixture which is enough to influence their physical appearance to some degree and some can even end looking more mongoloid and adding to the fact Siberian mongoloid gene is very much stronger than caucasoid which contributes to their mongoloid appearance.



-------------


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2012 at 10:30
Originally posted by MrButlerKing







This suits your sources. From Caucasoid to Northeast and East Asian, order is Armenian, Turk and Turkmens.

Turkmens are just one step back to the line(between-Mongoloid and Caucasoid) and when I look the Turkmen, I am seeing light blue and green colour. You told be

Yellow = Siberian Mongoloid
Orange = East Asian Mongoloid
Green = Central south Asian Iranic
Dark blue = European
Light blue = West Asian
Gray = Arabic

Not yellow and orange like other turkic nations. They are obviously different than other turkic tribes such as Uzbek, Uyghur, Kazakh and Kirgiz



Originally posted by MrButlerKing

Show me Turkish people who look like these Turkmen from Turkmenistan



a Turkish singer and a national football player

a Turkish beauty queen of the world.


-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2012 at 12:58
Hi Mr butler, do you have the same chart for south asian populations from Pakistan/India?

I want to see all the south asian populations, I believe the Dark green is (ANI) Ancestral north indian, this component even though it;s called Indian, it really not.  It is found highest in afghan and northern pakistani populations like Pashtuns, but as you can see even central asians have a lot of it, this dark green component defiantly did not originate in south asia, maybe south/central asian region, but definatly not in what we call (India) today which is proper south asia


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Dec-2012 at 16:58
Originally posted by Ollios


The term Turk means mostly Anatolian Turks.

No, this was introduced in 1923, when Turkey decided to be national state of Turks.
I thought this forum is somehow connected to history.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2012 at 13:56
Originally posted by Vdkn67

Originally posted by Ollios


The term Turk means mostly Anatolian Turks.

No, this was introduced in 1923, when Turkey decided to be national state of Turks.
I thought this forum is somehow connected to history.

There's no need for that sort of attitude Vdkn67. Ollios is a valued member here and deserves respect. If anything he says offends you (unintentional, or deliberate), don't insult him but notify the admins:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512&PID=681123#681123 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512&PID=681123#681123


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2012 at 01:56
Originally posted by Vdkn67


this was introduced in 1923, when Turkey decided to be national state of Turks.


*Was it? Why people in Europe, use this idiom, "Mamma li Turchi". Is this idiom came from after 1923? No, people of Europe always accept Ottomans as Turk

*When you say Americans, we understand not all people of North and South Americans, just one nation. It is quite similar thing. You should use Kazaks or Kazak Turks, if you want to mean them. 

Originally posted by Vdkn67


I thought this forum is somehow connected to history.


This is not an acedemic forum. We all can have mistakes. Even you can also share your ideas.


-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2012 at 13:37
Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Vdkn67

Originally posted by Ollios


The term Turk means mostly Anatolian Turks.

No, this was introduced in 1923, when Turkey decided to be national state of Turks.
I thought this forum is somehow connected to history.

There's no need for that sort of attitude Vdkn67. Ollios is a valued member here and deserves respect. If anything he says offends you (unintentional, or deliberate), don't insult him but notify the admins:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512&PID=681123#681123 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6512&PID=681123#681123

What was insulting in my post???? What sentence showed my disrespect???
How did I insult him????
Let me be clear:
Ottoman Empire was not national state of Turks. Sultan was God`s agent on earth, his purpose was to defend and propagate religion. Theocracy. Inhabitants were differed by religion, Muslims and non-Mulsims (gyaurs, rayah).
After collapse of Ottoman Empire, on 24.July 1923. Turkey was recognized as national state of Turks.
By analogy, Arabs live all over north Africa, Middle East etc. Would it be false to say: "The term Arab means mostly Arab from United Arab Emirates".
If this attitude insults anybody, then seems this forum is not right place for me.
edited:
When you say Americans, we understand not all people of North and South Americans, just one nation.

Of course, I also spit on this sentence, as it means nothing. I can not imagine "American" nation, by any definition of nation last 100 years.


 



Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2012 at 14:05
You've broken no rules so far Vdkn67, but in my experience, threads of this type often turn into flame wars. All members are reminded to respect each other, regardless of whether they agree or not

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2012 at 23:33
It's not South Asian.

It originated from Pashtun, Burusho, Dardic ect people


-------------


Posted By: SultanHaluk
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2012 at 08:00
Very interesting. Where did these data come from? What were the sample sizes?

In Turkey I personally consider the majority of the people to be 'Turks of convenience' (no offence intended), the descendants of assimilated peoples who nowadays think they are Turks. The same point has already been made. Turkic types I notice, empirically, predominate in certain regions, which are as you would expect, centres of the Ottoman influence. Istanbul has many more "asiatic" types in evidence to my mind, than say, Izmir, and furthermore a particular "look" that says to me Ottoman. I can't quite describe it (perhaps look at Tolga Zengin, to see what I mean). I am not counting the immigrant Uzbeks and Turkmens (they are quite easy to spot), but perhaps 1 in 20/30 of the Istanbullus would not look out of place at a Tokyo street cafe, or an Almaty disco. Other types could easily pass for Native American. Other places where the type is quite evident might include Adyin, Konya, Bursa, parts of the east black sea coast. Among my own relatives are types that could be easily mistaken as Japanese (others as British!).

NB. Japanese specifically, because they are different of course to Chinese, SE Asians, etc., who look little like Turks, generally having flatter noses and rounder features.

By the same token, elsewhere I notice entire towns of fair-eyed, long-faced Balkan/Dinaric types, with not a suggestion of Asia about them.

So, if you could for the sake of argument, unravel the "real" Oguz-Osmanlis from the "Turks of convenience" that surround them (again, no offence intended) I believe you would find a tribe of a far more asiatic genotype than the data on the OP suggests. The point being, that at some point the Oguz that migrated to Anatolia with their pointy hats and steppe ponies, were of some asiatic predominance (with Persian mixture presumably), very close to the altaic types, and not some crazy mixture of Greek, Circassian and Albanian. They did suffer of course, from a weakness for exotic western beauties (still do!), and apparently cared little about preserving their "purity". Hence even these types are nowadays inevitably hybridised to some degree and the face of the original Oguz-Osmanlis may forever be gone.

I avoid using the word Mongoloid, because it confuses people who keep thinking Turks look mongoloid because of contact with Mongols. This surely did happen, but I am guessing that the actual Mongolian contribution to Turkey's gene pool to be rather negligible, since they were not there long, apparently did not settle in significant numbers and a great part of the "Mongol" armies were made up of Turkic vassals.


-------------
Truth is a matter of perspective.


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2012 at 12:43
Originally posted by Vdkn67


Ottoman Empire was not national state of Turks.
 
After collapse of Ottoman Empire, on 24.July 1923. Turkey was recognized as national state of Turks.


Yes, but just for ottoman goverment, most of people in Ottoman didn't know Ottoman Turkish. Even there were two different literature cultures in same empire. one for goverment (Divan/Ottoman literature), one for Turks (Turkish folk literature). Ottoman Empire didn't become Turkish state just in one night or one day (24 July 1923). It has deep roots.

Originally posted by Vdkn67


Sultan was God`s agent on earth


Is it? Ottoman Sultans didn't have a power like Pope. They needed the confirmation of Shaykh al-Islām

Originally posted by Vdkn67


If this attitude insults anybody, then seems this forum is not right place for me.


Speaking on web is different than speaking face to face. People are easily becoming rude on net. Just your word ("I thought this forum is somehow connected to history") is unnessary and sarcastic but please don't stop let us know your ideas, we need all other opinions Wink

For example I don't know the date of 24 July 1923. We don't celebrate it. With your help, I know it now. It is date of Treaty of Lausanne. Big smile


-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2012 at 11:00
Originally posted by Nick1986

You've broken no rules so far Vdkn67, but in my experience, threads of this type often turn into flame wars. All members are reminded to respect each other, regardless of whether they agree or not

Ok, this is not my first forum, so I will answer quoting your another post:
Santa was once a real person: a Turkish bishop called Nicholas of Myra.

I am quite sure that this is sentence from daily papers in Great Britain, and it is main reason why I am sarcastic about "connection of this forum with history" This sentence on internet forum seems as propaganda for daily politic use, and has nothing with history learned anywhere in the world, except among "internet warriors"
See, first Oghuz Turks appeared in that region seven centuries later. During life of St. Nicholas that region was called Λυκία (Lycia),  and was populated by Indo-European speakers. (probably Greek or Lycian speakers). Not to mention that "Turkish bishop" is oxymoron: there are no "bishops" in Turkic religion of that time (Tengrism). There are no "bishops" even later, when they adopted Islam, at least four centuries later. So I can understand "Turkish shaman", or "Turkish imam" but I can not understand what is "Turkish bishop".
Now, we came to "disrespect of other co-forumers": How can I respect anybody who posts biased posts, without any respect to history? I am really sorry that I found ignorant quoting BBC articles or wikipedia  as reliable sources.
This search results could be example how ancient Myra was "Turkish"
http://https://www.google.com/search?q=myra+coins&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gQu&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VRrbUKXRI8XNsgaa0oDgCg&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=629 - https://www.google.com/search?q=myra+coins&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gQu&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VRrbUKXRI8XNsgaa0oDgCg&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=629
Now, if I was not clear about bias, this is quote from  more recent daily news, of course British :
He denies the request is aimed at boosting tourism for the region but says it is simply a human wish.Christmas is not widely celebrated in the Muslim nation of Turkey.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252571/Give-Santa-Turkish-professor-calls-return-St-Nicholas-bones-taken-Vatican-11th-century.html#ixzz2GArT3wTN - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252571/Give-Santa-Turkish-professor-calls-return-St-Nicholas-bones-taken-Vatican-11th-century.html#ixzz2GArT3wTN


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2012 at 19:31
Originally posted by Vdkn67

Originally posted by Nick1986

You've broken no rules so far Vdkn67, but in my experience, threads of this type often turn into flame wars. All members are reminded to respect each other, regardless of whether they agree or not

Ok, this is not my first forum, so I will answer quoting your another post:
Santa was once a real person: a Turkish bishop called Nicholas of Myra.

I am quite sure that this is sentence from daily papers in Great Britain, and it is main reason why I am sarcastic about "connection of this forum with history" This sentence on internet forum seems as propaganda for daily politic use, and has nothing with history learned anywhere in the world, except among "internet warriors"
See, first Oghuz Turks appeared in that region seven centuries later. During life of St. Nicholas that region was called Λυκία (Lycia),  and was populated by Indo-European speakers. (probably Greek or Lycian speakers). Not to mention that "Turkish bishop" is oxymoron: there are no "bishops" in Turkic religion of that time (Tengrism). There are no "bishops" even later, when they adopted Islam, at least four centuries later. So I can understand "Turkish shaman", or "Turkish imam" but I can not understand what is "Turkish bishop".
Now, we came to "disrespect of other co-forumers": How can I respect anybody who posts biased posts, without any respect to history? I am really sorry that I found ignorant quoting BBC articles or wikipedia  as reliable sources.
This search results could be example how ancient Myra was "Turkish"
http://https://www.google.com/search?q=myra+coins&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gQu&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VRrbUKXRI8XNsgaa0oDgCg&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=629 - https://www.google.com/search?q=myra+coins&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gQu&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VRrbUKXRI8XNsgaa0oDgCg&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=629
Now, if I was not clear about bias, this is quote from  more recent daily news, of course British :
He denies the request is aimed at boosting tourism for the region but says it is simply a human wish.Christmas is not widely celebrated in the Muslim nation of Turkey.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252571/Give-Santa-Turkish-professor-calls-return-St-Nicholas-bones-taken-Vatican-11th-century.html#ixzz2GArT3wTN - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252571/Give-Santa-Turkish-professor-calls-return-St-Nicholas-bones-taken-Vatican-11th-century.html#ixzz2GArT3wTN

Even moderators make mistakes. Regarding the other topic on Santa Claus, i would change "Turkish" to "Roman" if it was possible, but the forum's software is designed to prevent members editing such old topics as this has been abused in the past


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2012 at 12:27
Originally posted by Vdkn67


Santa was once a real person: a Turkish bishop called Nicholas of Myra.


In this sample term Turkish is just for emphasizing his place origin, not ethnic identity. However as Nick said before term Roman chould be more proper.

Christmas is not widely celebrated in the Muslim nation of Turkey.



How can you be sure that you don't have any bias? We don't need to celebrate Christmas/Noel for Santa. Urban Turks celebrate new year as Christians celebrate Noel 24-25th December.

*The most turkey sells happen in December, because it is common new year dishes in cities.
*New year raffles are very common between classmates. They give presents each other.
*Lighting of streets are very popular in this time of year.
*I wish, I can able to send you a dwarf models pictures in one of the shopping centre in my city.
*A goverment advert in my city
"New year is the time of planting trees, not time of cutting". This is for prevent the illegal tree cuts
*I am not talking about my aunt plastic pine tree which was near 2 meters.
http://statics.magazinkolik.com/Images/news/e/v/emir_berke_noelbaba.jpg A turkish boy with Santa

http://i.ekolay.net/g/2012/5/6/Noel-Baba--taksim--beyo%C4%9Flu--y%C4%B1lba%C5%9F%C4%B1--polis_f39b3058-21ae-4757-83bd-a7affbe6e9fa_4_B4013E6D-1957-4112-BA6E-31B3B72E2F0F.jpg civil polices are making sample operation. They wil be Santa and catch the pickpockets

http://i.ensonhaber.com/resimler/diger/esh8119_6.jpg
but of course there are some protests agaist these acts




-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2013 at 15:44
Again your assuming Turks were Mongoloid to start with. 

Being from the Eurasian steppe a Caucasoid/Mongoloid mix is to be expected, it's where the shift happens. 

If you look at descriptions of Gokturks they don't look like Chinese folk, in fact Chinese clearly said they have beards, coloured eyes and were different colours. 

The reason for this confusion IMO is mistaking the descendants of the Mongol Empire with the Turks which preceded them. 

The theory that people in Anatolia stopped speaking their native tongues one day and became fully fledged Turks the next is a preposterous theory which has just been accepted but rarely scrutinised. 

How could a few semi/nomadic Turks from Central Asia ride into Anatolia and have city folk at the drop of a hat become Turks. Especially considering there were no mass assimilation attempts, I mean Turks weren't even too bothered teaching Turkish and like to learn languages like Arabic and Persian themselves. 

Consider most city folk consider non city folk especially nomads especially in that era to be uncivilised savages why on Earth would there be such a mass identity change? and to mass convert religion! did the clergy go on holiday for a few centuries or something.

By the 1300's Europeans were describing Anatolia as Turchia - land of the Turks.  

It's much more plausible that Turks prior to the Mongols looked more like todays Turkmenistan/Oghuz Turks then Mongols. And that there were mass migrations into Anatolia of Turks fleeing. War especially that kind result in mass exoduses of people, it also explains why Turks would uproot and move West. 

Consider there are more Turks in Turkey/Azerbaijan/Iran then all of central asia put together.

 


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: JuMong
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2013 at 15:36
Development of human race is an interesting subject matter. 

There has been a great deal of research done in recent years because of our development of genetic science. Hopefully, we will be able to sort it out. One thing for sure... We all came out of Africa. 

PBS had an interesting 3 part series recently about the deveopment of human race. Search YouTube. You would find a lot of interesting series between History Channel, Nat Geo and PBS.

Research. :-) 


There was an interesting show on Nat Geo recently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkexKLCak5M -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkexKLCak5M




Posted By: balisong5
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2014 at 18:12
Were the ottoman turks the same as seljuk turks?  Seems to me both are half mongoloid when they first entered turkey
Mr Butler king maybe you can answer my question as you seem to be an authority on all things turk


-------------


Posted By: Dazzarkel
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2014 at 09:31
lol, does it matter who were turks mongoloid or european?)))) they proved themselves to be conquerors many times within history, other than that created bright civilisations many times, moreover their ancestors like hunnenreich etc, also proved themselves to be conquerors and as you know the proverb - "Civilisations never create war, but wars create civilisations", meaning their so much waged wars made world to look better as hunnenreich created what is now europe,nations got rid of rome lordship,JenguizHan and Tamerlane created continental unity,scythe and other nomads preserved eurasia from sinification, you see what is now north korea the sinicized country, even mongolia looks far independant and free from china))))
several times i observe europeans envy for nomads brilliant military past, this proves their narrowmindness


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2014 at 14:49


-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Attis of Anatolia
Date Posted: 20-May-2014 at 07:00
who are we? islamized Anatolians i believe :D


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 20-May-2014 at 12:18
Originally posted by Attis of Anatolia

who are we? islamized Anatolians i believe :D


and Who is Anatolian? Big smile

Even Phyrgians or Hittites were foreign
http://www.karabakh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/map_phrygian_invasion.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg/800px-Mass_migration_of_Greece_and_Turkey_in_1900BCE.svg.png




-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Attis of Anatolia
Date Posted: 21-May-2014 at 07:24
We have lot of ancestor :D Every our ancestor came from europe to india:))  we are mixed race people :D


people who live Anatolia, they become our ancestor like cimmerians, cimmerians stayed anatolia, we can have their gene...:D



Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 31-May-2014 at 03:40
Originally posted by Ollios


Originally posted by Attis of Anatolia

who are we? islamized Anatolians i believe :D
and Who is Anatolian? Big smileEven Phyrgians or Hittites were foreign

And what exactly "foreign" means? If you go enough far back in time, we all came from Africa, so we are all foreign. We have to set time parameters and agree on how back in time we are willing to go for the needs of this thread.

However, with Turkish DNA being like
"... E1b1b1 = 10.7% (common in the Mediterranean region)
G = 10.9% (common in the Caucasus, also found in the Middle East)
I = 5.3% (common in Central Europe, the Western Caucasus, and the Balkans)
J1 = 9% (common in Arabia and Daghestan)
J2 = 24% (common in Western Asia and Southeastern Europe and also found in Central and South Asia)
K = 4.5% (common in Asia and the Caucasus)
L = 4.2% (common in India and Khorasan)
N = 3.8% (common in Eastern Europe and North Asia, including Siberia [e.g. Turkic-speaking Yakuts], the Altai Mountains region, and the Ural Mountains region - the article however did not consider N to come to Turkey's Turks from North Asia)
Q = 1.9% (common in North Asia including Northern Altaic peoples)
R1a = 6.9% (common in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and among Indo-Aryans)
R1b = 14.7% (common in Western Europe)
T = 2.5% (common in the Mediterranean, South Asia, and Northeastern Africa..." http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/anatolian-turks.html

I would opt for the vague phrase "Anatolian" as a not-bad-choice word choice for a meaning of the sort of "common Mediterranean genetic substrata dating from the Paleolithic".

-------------


Posted By: Karlaswagnaz
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2014 at 13:55
The Turks are a great people, with more in common with Iranian and Mediterranean people than the Altaic people. They have a Turkish language and some Turkish lore, but nothing more. They cannot deny the Iranian and European influence.

-------------
Stars die and reborn...


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 21-May-2015 at 12:28
TURKS FROM TÜRKİYE ARE 100% OF TURK ETHNIC ORIGIN! I AM READY FOR A INTENSIVE DISCUSSION BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Turk Nation: Anthropology-Archaeology-Genetic-Haplogroups
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267

Antik DNA
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewforum.php?f=229 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewforum.php?f=229

Tarihi Mezarlarda Bulunan Haplogrupların Ülkeler Listesi
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12209 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12209

Tarihi Mezarlarda Bulunan Y-DNA'lerin, MT-DNA Kombinasyonu
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12210 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12210


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 24-May-2015 at 02:50
What % Neanderthal genome presents in Turk/Turkic analysis?

Isn't a significant % of central Asian male line DNA traceable to the mighty Khan, Ghengis? 


Posted By: Mertegin
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2015 at 09:22
A heap of bullshits.. First of all everyone has to know there is no such a thing "Pureblood" for any nation/race since all the people in the world are not horses or dogs . Afterall The Turks have Turk(Turkic) genes for sure. Maybe some have less some have more.. moreover as the science world says , geography affects the type.. Although The khagans had no Mongoloid eyes... Here is Yabgu(general-brother of Bilge Khagan)Kultegin 


Posted By: Mertegin
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2015 at 09:26
Originally posted by MrButlerKing

Both Turkmen and Turkish are not majority Turkic, they mixed with the original people who turks conquered. Turkmen are the result of these Iranic and half mongoloid turks who conquered them. Turkish are results of these Half mongoloid seljuk turks and Anatolians. The original people in Turkmenistan spoke Iranic languages like Tajiks long before they spoke Turkic.

Turkmen genetics

Genetic studies on  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA - mitochondrial DNA  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtDNA - mtDNA ) restriction polymorphism confirmed that Turkmen were characterized by the presence of local Iranian mtDNA lineages, similar to the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian  populations, but high male  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid - Mongoloid  genetic component observed in Turkmens and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Iranian - Eastern Iranian  populations with the frequencies of about 20%

There are 3 types of Turkmens today

The ones in Afghan, Pakistan who look predominately mongoloid 
The ones in Iraq who looks like Arabs caucasoid
The ones in Turkmenistan are like 16-18% mongoloid on average but 1/3 of them are also 26 - 33% Mongoloid.

Turkmen in Afghanistan


If you think that these children look like Arabs you must be blind when you look at any Arabs


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2015 at 10:46
Mertegin, go easy my friend.

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 08:12
I want to rephrase my request. I am ready to proof the fact that Turks from Türkiye are 100% of CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN.

If the obvious trolls like MrButlerKing has nothing to say, it means that they are wrong, the thesis that i am defending is the fact: "Turks from Türkiye are 100% of CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN". If someone does not agree, come with your counter arguments using historical, archaeological, anthropological and genetic sources.

If i see no reply, it means that the creators of this kind of topics are obviously trolls. If you search "MrButlerKing" on google you will see the history of messages related to this troll on several forums, you will see what kind of bad intended non scientific approach he has. I am warning everyone reading the messages of these kind of trolls: "USE YOUR LOGICS, INVESTIGATE THE SCIENTIFIC SOURCES, CREATE YOUR OWN DATABASE, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN".


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 08:35
LOOK AT THE PORTRAITS PAINTED BY ANCIENT ARTISTS, OF OUR ANCESTOR ATTILA. IT IS OBVIOUSLY OF WEST EURASIAN TURK ORIGIN.





















Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 10:10
Originally posted by kuzzar

If someone does not agree, come with your counter arguments using historical, archaeological, anthropological and genetic sources. 

You also need it too, I am waiting your sources 

Originally posted by kuzzar


If i see no reply, it means that the creators of this kind of topics are obviously trolls.

You can get nothing with this language.


Originally posted by kuzzar

If you search "MrButlerKing" on google you will see the history of messages related to this troll on several forums, you will see what kind of bad intended non scientific approach he has. I am warning everyone reading the messages of these kind of trolls: 

Avoid personal attacks, focus on arguments, theories, sources

Originally posted by kuzzar

"USE YOUR LOGICS, INVESTIGATE THE SCIENTIFIC SOURCES, CREATE YOUR OWN DATABASE, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN".

Sorry but I am using my logic, investigate the scientific sources, create my own database and still I can't see your point. Maybe you should explain "THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN" before start to proof it.

Who are the Turks of Turkey? 

all 75 million or 55-60 million(-kurds from all population )???

What do you mean by 100% Central Asian Turk Origin?

Autosomal DNA, YDNA or Mt-DNA???









Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 17:56
Originally posted by Aeoli

You also need it too, I am waiting your sources


Forgive me for asking, are you blind?

Turk Nation: Anthropology-Archaeology-Genetic-Haplogroups
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12267

Antik DNA
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewforum.php?f=229 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewforum.php?f=229

Tarihi Mezarlarda Bulunan Haplogrupların Ülkeler Listesi
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12209 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12209

Tarihi Mezarlarda Bulunan Y-DNA'lerin, MT-DNA Kombinasyonu
http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12210 - http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=12210

Originally posted by Aeoli

You can get nothing with this language.
Avoid personal attacks, focus on arguments, theories, sources


All arguments are at those links. My statement is clear: "TURKS FROM TÜRKİYE ARE 100% OF TURK ETHNIC ORIGIN!". I just want to see a counter reaction to my statement, in which he/she(or someone else) explains why they think Turks of Türkiye are not of Turk origin. Then i will provide all my arguments one by one, show you how wrong you are.

Look at the messages of "ButlerKing", at the following link: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/37808-Crimean-Tatars-are-not-Turkic-but-an-mixture-of-many-settlement-from-Europe-to-Asia?s=a77c43faad64182258c73b2f7e7705ff - http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/37808-Crimean-Tatars-are-not-Turkic-but-an-mixture-of-many-settlement-from-Europe-to-Asia?s=a77c43faad64182258c73b2f7e7705ff .

Look how irrational and non logical his statements are. It is obvious he is a troll.

Originally posted by Aeoli

Sorry but I am using my logic, investigate the scientific sources, create my own database and still I can't see your point. Maybe you should explain "THE TURKS OF TÜRKİYE ARE OF 100% CENTRAL ASIAN TURK ORIGIN" before start to proof it.

Who are the Turks of Turkey? 

all 75 million or 55-60 million(-kurds from all population )???

What do you mean by 100% Central Asian Turk Origin?

Autosomal DNA, YDNA or Mt-DNA???


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.

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?


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 19:56
Seems extremely unlikely - given the extent & longevity of the Ottoman empire..

With Constantinople being the ancient capital/hub of Eastern European/Western Asian civilisation, & for so long a melting-pot
of the ethnicities, a situation carried on by the Ottomans..

The over-riding Islamic dogma subsumed ethnic distinctions like-wise..

& do not forget the progress of Tamerlane & his minions through Asia minor, spreading their Mongoloid DNA through raping Turkic women..


-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 20:11
Originally posted by J.A.W.

Seems extremely unlikely - given the extent & longevity of the Ottoman empire..

With Constantinople being the ancient capital/hub of Eastern European/Western Asian civilisation, & for so long a melting-pot
of the ethnicities, a situation carried on by the Ottomans..

The over-riding Islamic dogma subsumed ethnic distinctions like-wise..


At the Ottoman Archives, a complete database with the ethnic origin of all families(Turk or not Turk, Muslim or not Muslim) who were living in the region of present day Türkiye is available. Every Turk in Türkiye can trace his family line with these archive documents. The same methods counts for other country archives. We must realize that if we dont value historical documents, it means we are not seeking for the truth, and it also means that there is no such thing as history at all. There is no such thing as a melting-pot, everyone knows their roots, and the Selcukids and Ottomans did not even assimilate one population, in stead an important part of the Turks have been assimilated. All of this could easily be seen from historical documents. And please stop with the obvious tactic of calling Türkiye a meltingpot. Why do people like yourself not even mention the fact that many present day Jews are of Turk origin, descended from the Khazars? Who are the most ancient people of Anatolia and Mezopotamia? What was the origin of the language the Sumerians did talk? Why never question these fundamental points? You people always have the same strategy, same keywords, i personally find this very pathetic. Why, is Türkiye a meltingpot? What are historical or genetic arguments for this?


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 22:28
So then, what about those Ottoman Sultans who were descended
on their mother's side from European Christian slaves?

If such breeding was fit for the Sultan, why not for any of his subjects?

& the presence in the modern Turkish population of light-coloured eyes, blue, grey & green - clearly originates with genes from Northern Europe, not Asia..

Only those rare empires which were institutionally restricted to ethnic or 'racial' castes - were not melting-pots.. & Islam AFAIK, forbade such distinctions..




-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 01:31
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 - 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%


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 03:52
& 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..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 07:10
Originally posted by Aeoli


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?


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 07:35
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


East Turkistan


East Turkistan


Doğu Türkistan



Posted By: Aeoli
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 12:04
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.



Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 15:16
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...


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 16:38
Kuzzar, your rude, abusive responses - do your views no credit..

But - thanks for the pix of the people with light-coloured eyes,
& thereby giving a clear example of a 'melting-pot' genetic admixture..

Just as some others show Semetic, or East Asian - complexion/facial features..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 16:43
Originally posted by J.A.W.

Kuzzar, your rude, abusive responses - do your views no credit..

But - thanks for the pix of the people with light-coloured eyes,
& thereby giving a clear example of a 'melting-pot' genetic admixture..

Just as some others show Semetic, or East Asian - complexion/facial features..


I could not follow you. I dont understand your text.... Very vague, sorry, please rephrase yourself, i really dont understand it.


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 16:58
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..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 17:19
Originally posted by J.A.W.


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.


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 17:34
& 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..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 17:40
Originally posted by J.A.W.

& 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?"


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date 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..


Posted By: kuzzar
Date 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?"


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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'



Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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.

-------------
"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'



Posted By: J.A.W.
Date 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..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date 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 - 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 TurkicHere 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.





-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date 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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes - Jordanes , who cites a description given by  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus - Priscus . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Bakker-2 - [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Wolfram-3 - [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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Jordanes-4 - [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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-5 - [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-6 - [6]



Seriously. How gullible can you get to think that some painting/picture made in last 100 years as reliable source of appearance?



-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date 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


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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians - 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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroran - 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.


-------------


Posted By: MrButlerKing
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2015 at 07:56
Originally posted by kuzzar

Originally posted by Aeoli


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?



-------------


Posted By: kuzzar
Date 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. 

The 100% ProtoEuropoid are the Scythian, Iranic who were Indo-European as mentioined from the source  not TurkicHere 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.



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 TurkicHere 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.


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 - 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



Posted By: kuzzar
Date 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  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes - Jordanes , who cites a description given by  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus - Priscus . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Bakker-2 - [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Wolfram-3 - [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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-Jordanes-4 - [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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-5 - [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila#cite_note-6 - [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!


Posted By: kuzzar
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2015 at 06:40
Originally posted by MrButlerKing


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.


Posted By: kuzzar
Date 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 - 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 - 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.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date 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.

-------------
"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'




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com