PDA

View Full Version : Turks, who are they closer to: Europeans or Arabs?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Siegfried
05-02-2012, 12:23 PM
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/oh+no...not+this+shit+again+_dd44d95a00d5b5232babc aebb1be8f2f.jpg

How many threads like this are there already?

Robertt52
05-02-2012, 05:39 PM
Turks are a nigger form of European. You can tell Europeans see them as such. As if they acknowledge their removed kinship regionally yet still see them as tainted. You can't have all that Muslim and Arab dominance in the region and really expect Turks to have come out as pure Europeans.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-02-2012, 06:16 PM
http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/oh+no...not+this+shit+again+_dd44d95a00d5b5232babc aebb1be8f2f.jpg

How many threads like this are there already?

we are not starting these threads ,we are confident and very content about what we are ..
you can be sure ,me and most Turks are already fed up with all these repeatative threads .

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-02-2012, 06:34 PM
Beautiful children. I love my people. Here are some other Western Turkish Turkmen girls in similar clothing.

http://img2.blogcu.com/images/s/e/z/sezinisler/1218723397dsc02615.jpg

http://img2.blogcu.com/images/s/e/z/sezinisler/18.jpg

http://img2.blogcu.com/images/s/e/z/sezinisler/17.jpg

http://img2.blogcu.com/images/s/e/z/sezinisler/9.jpg

Thank you for cuties, i archived them in my folder;)

StonyArabia
05-02-2012, 06:36 PM
Turks are a nigger form of European. You can tell Europeans see them as such. As if they acknowledge their removed kinship regionally yet still see them as tainted. You can't have all that Muslim and Arab dominance in the region and really expect Turks to have come out as pure Europeans.

No, Sicilians on average are more Arabian admixed than Turks who have none.

Geronimo
05-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Who cares if they are genetically closer to europeans !? They've been the enemy of Europe since the very beginning.

Turks are not europeans, that's the only thing one needs to know.

StonyArabia
05-03-2012, 06:06 AM
They are Eurasian but they are closer to Europeans than any non-European this is supported by most and recent genetic studies.

Mortimer
05-03-2012, 06:21 AM
Europeans

Talvi
05-03-2012, 06:58 AM
Can anyone explain what the hell is "Eurasian"?

Eurasia = Europe + Asia. That means anyone From Asia or Europe is Eurasian???

Hello
05-03-2012, 06:59 AM
Depends on where they are from.

Azalea
05-03-2012, 08:04 AM
Can anyone explain what the hell is "Eurasian"?

Eurasia = Europe + Asia. That means anyone From Asia or Europe is Eurasian???

Euroasia basically means West Euroasian + East Euroasian.

This is Euroasia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/550px-Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

Talvi
05-03-2012, 08:08 AM
Euroasia basically means West Euroasian + East Euroasian.

This is Euroasia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/550px-Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

No. That is Eurasia. A geographical continent.

Azalea
05-03-2012, 08:09 AM
No. That is Eurasia. A geographical continent.

And what did I say?


Euroasia basically means West Euroasian + East Euroasian.

This is Euroasia:

*image*

Onur
05-03-2012, 08:37 AM
How many threads like this are there already?

we are not starting these threads ,we are confident and very content about what we are ..
you can be sure ,me and most Turks are already fed up with all these repeatative threads .
I agree to both of you.

I think there should be a forum rule to forbid trolling about Turks. Not for the Turks but for the health of the forum because it seems like some people have major problems about us and abusing Turkish identity and history as some kind of scapegoat due to their own insecurity and identity crisis.

Loki
05-03-2012, 08:55 AM
Can anyone explain what the hell is "Eurasian"?

Eurasia = Europe + Asia. That means anyone From Asia or Europe is Eurasian???

How about Europe + Asia = Eurasia. Simple math logic.

Panopticon
05-03-2012, 09:03 AM
Can anyone explain what the hell is "Eurasian"?

Eurasia = Europe + Asia. That means anyone From Asia or Europe is Eurasian???

Europe and Asia are part of the same continent. The division of Europe and Asia as two separate continents isn't based on geographical reality; it's only cultural, and a division in our minds only.

Tectonic plates.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/tectonic.gif

Padre Organtino
05-03-2012, 09:33 AM
They are far more closer to Europeans they are to Arabs, genetics and history support this.

Not really. Turks are closer to Syrians and Lebanese than to majority of Euro populations.

Leliana
05-03-2012, 09:34 AM
I think there should be a forum rule to forbid trolling about Turks. Not for the Turks but for the health of the forum because it seems like some people have major problems about us and abusing Turkish identity and history as some kind of scapegoat due to their own insecurity and identity crisis.
'Trolling about Turks' = 'Negative views about Turks and Turkish history'!?

You want censorship for upright Europeans who want to talk about your obnoxious country and people? That would be the end of free-speech!

I hope people like you never gain such influence that they can dictate forum rules. Your presence here is overbearance enough.

Loki
05-03-2012, 09:42 AM
I want to talk about Turkey ... in a positive light!

Rereg
05-03-2012, 09:53 AM
Turks are closer to Arabs and other Semites than all european nations. They are foreigners for us just like Persians, Indians, Azeris and other oriental people.

Loki
05-03-2012, 09:54 AM
Turks are closer to Arabs and other Semites than most european nations. They are foreigners for us just like Persians, Indians, Azeris and other oriental people.

What Turks? Anatolian Turks are a fusion of European and Asian elements.

Rereg
05-03-2012, 09:58 AM
What Turks? Anatolian Turks are a fusion of European and Asian elements.

Turks are native non-european anatolian population and they have nothing to do with Europeans.

Padre Organtino
05-03-2012, 10:02 AM
Well, some confused Turks believe they're Siberian nomads, which is quite comical to me:D

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-03-2012, 01:35 PM
What's your problem with that ..or it's simply none of your business
..I am not going to discuss my genetic material with total stangers.
Nokhoi khorioroi!

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-03-2012, 01:51 PM
When it comes to pointing ideas about us ,you demand free speech but forget most important element of discussion ethics which is objectivity.
Clustering Turks with Lebanese and Syrians lacks with scientific proof so its basicly trolling ..
So some Europeans here must demand free trolling ,not free speech .
We are not europeans but not Abrahamic people either .Our true origin is different ,you just let your emotions destroy scientific facts and calling this free speech ?

Rereg
05-03-2012, 02:02 PM
When it comes to pointing ideas about us ,you demand free speech but forget most important element of discussion ethics which is objectivity.
Clustering Turks with Lebanese and Syrians lacks with scientific proof so its basicly trolling ..
So some Europeans here must demand free trolling ,not free speech .
We are not europeans but not Abrahamic people either .Our true origin is different ,you just let your emotions destroy scientific facts and calling this free speech ?

I think you didn't understand question in this thread.

"Turks, who are they closer to: Europeans or Arabs?"

Sorry but you are closer to Arabs than to almost all european nations.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-03-2012, 02:04 PM
If you have read my previous comments ,you would notice ,I know what is discussion about.

Arabs know nothing about us..They are total strangers .We share no interests .Their mindset is also foreign to us.

Pallantides
05-03-2012, 02:06 PM
Sorry but you are closer to Arabs than to almost all european nations.


Genetically Turks are closer to Greeks than they are Arabs.

Rereg
05-03-2012, 02:11 PM
Genetically Turks are closer to Greeks than they are Arabs.

Greeks are small peripheral european nation, this fact nothing changes. :D btw Greeks aren't full european by blood.

Padre Organtino
05-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Genetically Turks are closer to Greeks than they are Arabs.

They are closer to Arabs than to majority of Europeans. SE Euros are an exception.

Padre Organtino
05-03-2012, 02:14 PM
When it comes to pointing ideas about us ,you demand free speech but forget most important element of discussion ethics which is objectivity.
Clustering Turks with Lebanese and Syrians lacks with scientific proof so its basicly trolling ..
So some Europeans here must demand free trolling ,not free speech .
We are not europeans but not Abrahamic people either .Our true origin is different ,you just let your emotions destroy scientific facts and calling this free speech ?

You are just a silly delusional Turkish lass. I for one think you as most other Turks know very little about Turkic and Siberian people.

Onur
05-03-2012, 02:14 PM
I think you didn't understand question in this thread.

"Turks, who are they closer to: Europeans or Arabs?"

Sorry but you are closer to Arabs than to almost all european nations.
Baghatur from Vatican, can i ask you a question?

If thats the case, then why you are using a Turkic title as a nickname to yourself? Demand a nickname change from Loki first, and then start talking about Turks.


Baghatur (Mongolian: ᠪᠠᠭᠠᠲᠦᠷ Baghatur/Ba'atur (Khalkha Mongolian: Баатар), Turkish: Batur/Bahadır, Russian: Boghatir) is a historical Turco-Mongol honorific title,[1] in origin a term for "hero" or "valiant warrior".

The term was first used by the steppe peoples to the north and west (Mongolia) of China as early as the 7th century as evidenced in Sui dynasty records.[3][4] It is attested for the Köktürk khanate in the 8th century, and among the Bulgars of the First Bulgarian Empire in the 9th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghatur

You are like Greeks badmouthing about Turks while carrying Turkish "-ouglu" surnames.

Rereg
05-03-2012, 02:16 PM
21 year old boy from Vatican, can i ask you a question?

If thats the case, then why you are using a Turkic title as a nickname to yourself? Demand a nickname change from Loki first, and then start talking about Turks.

I have non-european nickname so what? I like Central-Asian culture and history, it's all.

Queen B
05-03-2012, 02:17 PM
You are like Greeks badmouthing about Turks while carrying Turkish "-ouglu" surnames.
Another post about Greeks.
Oh well, old habits die hard :rolleyes:

Onur
05-03-2012, 02:19 PM
I like Central-asian culture and history, it's all.
Well, it`s our culture, Turkic history. If thats the case, then you should know that there was no Arabs in central Asia nor in Anatolia.

Have a bit of respect to the culture you claim to like. You are contradicting with yourself.

Pallantides
05-03-2012, 02:19 PM
Southwest Asian admixture from Dodecad v3 K=12:

O_Italian_D 6.4%
Greek_D 6.8%
S_Italian_D 8.6%
Turkish_D 8.9%
S_Italian_Sicillian_D 10%
Armenian_D 13.3%

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-03-2012, 02:20 PM
You are just a silly delusional Turkish lass. I for one think you as most other Turks know very little about Turkic and Siberian people.

Will you stop trolling ?No you won't
Go on.Post your useless and pointless comments
I had enough likes of you ../yawn

Rereg
05-03-2012, 02:23 PM
Well, it`s our culture, Turkic history. If thats the case, then should know that there was no Arabs in central Asia nor in Anatolia.

Have a bit of respect to the culture you claim to like. You are contradicting with yourself.

I never wrote that Anatolia was Arab land and Turks are half-semites or something, I just wrote that Anatolian Turks are closer to Arabs than Europeans.

Padre Organtino
05-03-2012, 02:25 PM
Will you stop trolling ?No you won't
Go on.Post your useless and pointless comments
I had enough likes of you ../yawn

I am addressing you this way simply cause it's pointless to have a discussian with the likes of you and Onur who suffer from insecurities and self-denial. It's much like communicating with people suffering from autism - no point in using rational arguments. They are unable to grasp them.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-03-2012, 02:27 PM
Want some forum drama?Enjoy yourself.
I m not going to waste my time/energy with lifeless losers..

StonyArabia
05-03-2012, 04:11 PM
I never wrote that Anatolia was Arab land and Turks are half-semites or something, I just wrote that Anatolian Turks are closer to Arabs than Europeans.

Actually based on genetic studies they are much closer to Europeans than they are to Arabs. Arabians cluster with one group of people and that's the Yemenite Jews who are pretty much Arabian converts. Turks are much closer to South Eastern Europeans than to any Arabian group.

StonyArabia
05-03-2012, 04:17 PM
They are closer to Arabs than to majority of Europeans. SE Euros are an exception.

No, maybe some Levantines but even Levantines don't cluster with them and are drifting toward Arabia such as the Samaritans and Druze who are said to be the best representative of the Levantine preserved population, the Druze are probably the closest thing to the Israelites. They are much closer to Europeans than the majority of Arabians. This based on genetic tests and the like. They would cluster with a South Eastern Euro before an any Arabian, unless they have recent Arabian ancestry.

Arrow Cross
05-03-2012, 05:21 PM
Religion hardly matters in this question. If anything, Turks had a lot more mixing in their conquered Anatolian and Balkans territories than in the Levant, acquired centuries later.

Their original gene stock is also closer to those of Europe.

ZephyrousMandaru
05-04-2012, 12:41 AM
Not really. Turks are closer to Syrians and Lebanese than to majority of Euro populations.

And Assyrians are closer to Lebanese and Syrians than Turks are. But Turks, Armenians, Assyrians and Levantines are all closer to one another genetically than any European population.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-04-2012, 08:00 PM
Well, it`s our culture, Turkic history. If thats the case, then you should know that there was no Arabs in central Asia nor in Anatolia.

Have a bit of respect to the culture you claim to like. You are contradicting with yourself.

Actually Europeans are more closer to Middleastern culture ,because of Roman Empire and Judeo Christian culture .

Their first encounter to middleast ,dates back much earlier to ours.(Theoritical first encounter ,Talas war 751-Abbasi Arabs vs Chinese )

Or perhaps Talkan ,Cürcen ....Central Asia Invasions and massacres by Umayyad Armies , under leadership of Mervan ,Haccac Kuteybe ,hanged Turkish people 24 km of road left and right side to ,force us to be Muslims more than 7O years .

We were then, equally distant from them ,both Eu and Middleast, because they are both sedantery civilisations,forming aristoctaric -religious social structures, using religions for political power .

Freeroostah
05-05-2012, 09:39 AM
I am gonna say Europeans.Modern day Turks are the descendants of the Anatolian and Greek people and therefore they are White Caucasians just like all the Europeans.Many of them have actually Alpine characteristics just like the Eastern European ethnicities.

R4ge
05-05-2012, 09:55 PM
@R4ge

Which part of Eur-asian is hard to understand ?
I only say Middleast is foreign ,you even don't know about our origins difference of Central Asian ,Eurasian or East Asian.

If we were a part of your culture you and other Arabs would not be so indifferent or ignorant about our historical roots

We are only strong and promising allies for you ,so you can accomplish your imperialistic pan semitic panislamic fictional empire .

You have no interest in our culture ,music ,language etc..how come you say we are close to you? Calling Uygurs and Hazara's some mongoloid people, you proved you are a total stranger .So are other Arabs.

What are you on about? Life isn't an anime show, I don't see why you're going on about being "allies" or whatever. I don't care about that stuff, it's nonsensical. I'm just stating facts. Facts you refuse to acknowledge for obvious reasons. You should show me some more respect. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept reality. Turks share a lot of culture with Armenians, Arabs, Greeks and Assyrians. It doesn't matter if you disagree with reality. That's completely irrelevant to everything else, because reality is reality.

I only pointed out that Turks share commonalities with neighboring populations. That's all I said, I don't see why you had to whirl yourself into a frenzy. I understand that you may be insecure about your ancestry because of your phenotype which looks very atypical for an Anatolian Turk, but there's no reason to take it out on me. Control yourself.

Your nation is Islamic, Turks choose to practice a Semitic religion over some shamanic rituals. They made a good choice so accept their decision, show some more gratitude and again...accept reality.

Su
05-05-2012, 09:59 PM
None of them :D

R4ge
05-05-2012, 10:02 PM
You are just a silly delusional Turkish lass.

That's exactly what she is. I agree with you.


And Assyrians are closer to Lebanese and Syrians than Turks are. But Turks, Armenians, Assyrians and Levantines are all closer to one another genetically than any European population.

Yep. That's just the reality of genetics.

Mordid
05-05-2012, 10:10 PM
I am gonna say Europeans.Modern day Turks are the descendants of the Anatolian and Greek people and therefore they are White Caucasians just like all the Europeans.Many of them have actually Alpine characteristics just like the Eastern European ethnicities.
Is 8 your age or your IQ ?

brunette
05-05-2012, 10:12 PM
No he's about 17 or 18. He's just basing it on me since i'm a Anatolian.

He means East Mediterranean that's what Alpines are native to geographically.

brunette
05-05-2012, 10:15 PM
What are you on about? You should show some more respect. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept reality. Turks share culture with Armenians, Arabs, Greeks and Assyrians.

I only pointed out that Turks have commonalities with neighboring peoples. I understand that you may be insecure about your ancestry because of your phenotype which looks very atypical for an Anatolian Turk, but there's no reason to take it out on me. Control yourself.

Your nation is Islamic, your people choose to practice a Semitic religion over Turkic shamanic rituals. They made a good choice so show some more gratitude and respect, accept reality.

The Ottoman Empire was based on Islam, that's the reality. The commonalities with neighboring people would be Armenian Georgian and Azerbaijanis because they're all Caucasian ethnic groups. It also makes them West Asian Near Eastern and East Mediterranean at the same time ( minus the Mongoloid and Armenoid people among them ).

R4ge
05-05-2012, 10:17 PM
The Ottoman Empire was based on Islam, that's the reality. The commonalities with neighboring people would be Armenian Georgian and Azerbaijanis because they're all Caucasian ethnic groups. It also makes them West Asian Near Eastern and East Mediterranean at the same time ( minus the Mongoloid and Armenoid people among them ).

Turks also share a good deal of culture with not only Levantines/Assyrians but also Arabs, Islam has contributed to that.

brunette
05-05-2012, 10:23 PM
Yes well the one who have ancestry from the Baltics will probably feel more West Asian or Med for arguments sake I hate using these tags anyway. Same with the Turks with Armenian ancestry for example which i've pointed out in earlier posts. I still never get these threads I never got them on anthroscape. People of the East Med coast have West Asian ancestry like 30 percent some West Asians have ancestry from the Baltics that's all people should say.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 01:34 AM
What are you on about? Life isn't an anime show, I don't see why you're going on about being "allies" or whatever. I don't care about that stuff, it's nonsensical. I'm just stating facts. Facts you refuse to acknowledge for obvious reasons. You should show me some more respect. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept reality. Turks share a lot of culture with Armenians, Arabs, Greeks and Assyrians. It doesn't matter if you disagree with reality. That's completely irrelevant to everything else, because reality is reality.

I only pointed out that Turks share commonalities with neighboring populations. That's all I said, I don't see why you had to whirl yourself into a frenzy. I understand that you may be insecure about your ancestry because of your phenotype which looks very atypical for an Anatolian Turk, but there's no reason to take it out on me. Control yourself.

Your nation is Islamic, Turks choose to practice a Semitic religion over some shamanic rituals. They made a good choice so accept their decision show some more gratitude and again...accept reality.

For some reason only you and some non Turks share same ideas with you .No Turks support you in this forum or in other forums .You keep refused but you will never understand.Most Turks even don't like Arabs.Very simple fact !! Seach you tube for yourself.Only Proislamist politicians force to hard to create a so called islamic brotherhood ,you can't make people love eachother with political agenda.

And it's true you know nothing about us.You know nothing about our culture ,preferences ,our ideals ,you are a total stranger.
Every Turk supports Uygurs ..you even don't know this! You call them some mongoloid people.

And we did not chose Islam by our free choice but we were force converted and massacred by Umayyad Butchers in Talkan ,Cürcan ,Dagıstan Buhara ,Baykent cities for 70 years.
..But Hulagu Khan took our revenge already .I ll name my son after Hulagu to honour him.You can search ,there are lots of Turks named Hulagu or Cengiz (Chinngis) .

Naming children is important in our culture.

WEB SEARCH :HÜLAGÜ -Türkiye -listed as 1671. in widely used popular names.

CENGİZ : 59. most popular name after Selcuk .Every 373 person named Cengiz by persentage 2.68.in a thousand.

I hardly think your Levantines gives these names to their children.No ,you don't even name them Berke or Baybars Turkic Warriors who saved you from Mongol invasion ,because it hurts your Semitic pride .

brunette
05-06-2012, 01:41 AM
I doubt Turks with Bosnian and Serbian ancestry do.

R4ge
05-06-2012, 03:24 AM
For some reason only you and some non Turks share same ideas with you .

You're saying that only myself and other non-Turks concede the fact that modern Turks share cultural elements with their neighbors?

Easy there. You're showing yourself to be very emotionally driven, your argument is based purely on emotion. What was wrong with me pointing out the fact that Turks do indeed share common cultural elements with Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, etc? It's a fact. You said that Turks share nothing with these people, seems to me there's a huge gap in logic in your rationale.


No Turks support you in this forum or in other forums .You keep refused but you will never understand.

On the contrary, many do. I've received a lot of words of support. I don't really care what individuals choose to identify as personally as it doesn't effect me, I only care about historical accuracy.

By the way, what do you mean by "supported" me? I didn't realize this was some kind of battle.


Most Turks even don't like Arabs.

That's irrelevant, even if it was true. I don't really care who likes who. You're spreading false propaganda though, that's not very honest.


And we did not chose Islam by our free choice but we were force converted and massacred by Umayyad Butchers in Talkan ,Cürcan ,Dagıstan Buhara ,Baykent cities for 70 years.

Then why are most Turks Muslim in this day and age? Free will.


..But Hulagu Khan took our revenge already .I ll name my son after Hulagu to honour him.You can search ,there are lots of Turks named Hulagu or Cengiz (Chinngis) .

Yeah, then the Mongol hordes were defeated and driven back by various Semitic/Middle Eastern heroes. In addition, they were owned ideologically and ended up throwing away their pagan culture and adopting a Semitic faith. What's your point?


I hardly think your Levantines gives these names to their children.No ,you don't even name them Berke or Baybars Turkic Warriors who saved you from Mongol invasion ,because it hurts your Semitic pride .

You need to calm down. You're getting way ahead of yourself.

Levantine culture is Semitic. Most Levantines are either Christian or Muslim and as such, they'll name their children after Semitic names. It's natural.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 03:40 AM
Yeah, then the Mongol hordes were defeated and driven back by various Semitic/Middle Eastern heroes. In addition, they were owned ideologically and ended up throwing away their pagan culture and adopting a Semitic faith. What's your point?




lol yes Baybars ,Aybek ,Kutuz ,Berke commanding an army of Turks, Muslim Mongols, Circassians ,Cumans etc..:rolleyes:


Then why are most Turks Muslim in this day and age? Free will.
They simple inherit but most of them don't properly follow ..

R4ge
05-06-2012, 03:47 AM
lol yes Baybars ,Aybek ,Kutuz ,Berke commanding an army of Turks Muslim Mongols Circassians ,Cumans etc..:rolleyes:

That's not really true, it's not the whole story, learn your history.

By the way, why are you bragging about what the Mongols did and taking such pride in it? All they did in battle was raid and pillage highly advanced civilizations, killing elderly men, women and children. Why do you take pride in that? I don't see what there is to be proud of. Why are you so proud of those barbaric acts?


They simple inherit but most of them don't properly follow ..

They're still Muslims, without Islam the Ottoman Empire would never have existed.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 03:48 AM
That's not really true, it's not the whole story, learn your history.

By the way, why are you bragging about what the Mongols did and taking such pride in it? They raided and pillaged advanced civilizations, killing elderly men, women and children. Why do you take pride in that? I don't see what there is to be proud of. Are you really that barbaric?


Learn my history from an Arab? hahahaa

R4ge
05-06-2012, 03:52 AM
Yeah, I could surely teach a Mongolian like you quite a few important facts in regards to history.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 03:58 AM
Yeah, I could surely teach a Mongolian like you quite a few important facts in regards to history.
obsessed ? fixed ?
you'd better stop trolling me ,find another cause for living

R4ge
05-06-2012, 04:03 AM
obsessed ? fixed ?
you'd better stop trolling me ,find another cause for living

Yeah. I'd say you're the one who needs to find a meaning for your existence, I mean other than voicing out your misinformed fantasies which result from excessive frustration.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 04:09 AM
Yeah. I'd say you're the one who needs to find a meaning for your existence, I mean other than voicing out your misinformed fantasies which result from excessive frustration.

yeah, bla bla bla

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9315/talktomyhand1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/talktomyhand1.jpg/)

R4ge
05-06-2012, 04:15 AM
Hehehehe. It's good to see you're not competent enough to have a discussion on a basic level without blowing up in anger and frustration. You confirmed what I knew all along, good job.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-06-2012, 04:27 AM
Unlike you, I only post when i need to say something ..lot's of interesting material on web ,prefer check them instead making pointless debates with you
..we both already said our points and that's all ..
no need to post 10 or 2O more

StonyArabia
05-07-2012, 03:44 AM
The fact is Turks have their own distinct culture, but saying they have more in common with Central Asiatics than their immediate neighbours like South East Euros and Caucasians as well to Levantines is delusional, but yes there are Central Asian influences no one doubts that though.

Han Cholo
05-07-2012, 04:42 AM
Hehehehe. It's good to see you're not competent enough to have a discussion on a basic level without blowing up in anger and frustration. You confirmed what I knew all along, good job.

Ancestry: Siberian

Holy shit, we got Genghis Khan there.

http://www.panfletonegro.com/v/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/198020-neil-degrasse-tyson-reaction1.jpeg

Hess
05-07-2012, 04:48 AM
What was wrong with me pointing out the fact that Turks do indeed share common cultural elements with Armenians, Greeks....

If I may butt in here, the Cultural Similarities between Greeks and Turks are very much superficial. Aside from a number of vaguely similar dishes and national dresses, there really isn't much in terms of National Ethos/Mentality that unites Greeks and Turks. The former are Europeans, part of Western Civilization, while the latter are much closer to Islamic, Eastern Civilization.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 11:06 AM
He attacks me constantly here and at other forums because I am not muslim

From the begining I said this


Arabs know nothing about us..They are total strangers .We share no interests .Their mindset is also foreign to us.

and this


And it's true you know nothing about us.You know nothing about our culture ,preferences ,our ideals ,you are a total stranger.
Every Turk supports Uygurs ..you even don't know this! You call them some mongoloid people.

and this
If we were a part of your culture you and other Arabs would not be so indifferent or ignorant about our historical roots You have no interest in our culture ,music ,language etc..how come you say we are close to you?


and he says this.


Turks also share a good deal of culture with not only Levantines/Assyrians but also Arabs, Islam has contributed to that.

So according to Arabs -Turks are Muslim..and that's all they know about us.
ok ..but nothing else ..And other nations on Earth already know most Turks are Muslim..(but not all of them)

And this is one single thing we have in common....

R4ge
05-07-2012, 11:17 AM
He attacks me constantly here and at other forums because I am not muslim

Liar. That's simply not true, why would I care whether you were Muslim or not? I don't care about your religion.

I simply bring up the fact that most modern Turks practice Islam instead of Turkic Shamanism.


From the begining I said this

and this

and this

and he says this.

So according to Arabs -Turks are Muslim..and that's all they know about us.
ok ..but nothing else ..And other nations on Earth already know most Turks are Muslim..(but not all of them)

And this is one single thing we have in common....

Yeah, yeah. I understood. You're a group of Siberian nomads that have nothing in common with your immediate neighbors. You don't need to tell me again.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 11:21 AM
You really need reading comprehention skills.

Turkish culture and mindset is different,that's what I say..
our culture is unknown for you ,apart from religion.

R4ge
05-07-2012, 11:28 AM
You really need reading comprehention skills.

Turkish culture and mindset is different,that's what I say..

No, the real question is: Can you read? Can you read your own posts?

Here you claimed that Turks were "completely different" in origin and culture.


None of them.We are Eurasians.completely different in origin and culture

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Yes you are Semitic ,we are not
this is scientific fact..everybody knows this..

R4ge
05-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Nice attempt at deflecting the subject to something totally unrelated after you were caught trying to lie...

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 11:53 AM
Semitic Kid
Go and practice some ancient Shamanic rituals. Have fun. Topic is Who do you sympathize with more, the Palestinians or Israelis? I deserved this uncalled answer because I said i m more interested in Uygurs and Hazara's
Don't troll, go practice some shamanic rituals instead.that was my answer to my very logical and relative to topic comment -"it's life without women-its a result of bottled up energy obviously
on goat riding saudi arabian stunts..

so I am not a liar ..when you feel cornered you attack either to my physical appearance or religion (by the way I m deist ,not shamanist ,saying this how many times)
You distort my all comments and divert them to something i never mean to say..

so discussing with you is totally a waste of time.
you know nothing about Turkish culture

R4ge
05-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Yeah, arguing with me is a waste of time because you can't win.

Let's do this again.


You really need reading comprehention skills.

Turkish culture and mindset is different,that's what I say..
our culture is unknown for you ,apart from religion.


None of them.We are Eurasians.completely different in origin and culture

Nice contradiction.

I don't see why you think it was unreasonable of me to expose what you wrote, claiming that Turks are "completely different" in origin and culture from their neighbors when that's obviously not true. These are facts. Facts you can't change. You'll just have to deal with them.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 12:19 PM
Yeah, arguing with me is a waste of time because you can't win.

Let's do this again.


Nice contradiction.

I don't see why you think it was unreasonable of me to expose what you wrote, claiming that Turks are "completely different" in origin and culture from their neighbors when that's obviously not true. These are facts. Facts you can't change. You'll just have to deal with them.

Winning what,most effective trolling skills reward?

This is not contradicting ..We are ofcourse different in origin and culture ,You are native MENA and we are not.European culture and Middlestern culture are equally foreign but we lived in this region long time and so on..
Are we still talking about origins or not.?


In this region we created something unique that you know nothing about .All you know is "Turks are muslim"
well, rest of the world knew this already..

memobekes
05-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Turks are closer to Northern Near Easterners (Arabs) than they are to Europeans.

Most Anatolians are native and are connected to their immediate neighbors in a number of ways:

- Race: In Western Anatolia, the Mediterranean and Armenoid races are equally distributed and as one moves farther East until the former Soviet and Iranian borders, the latter becomes almost universal.
- Genetics: Most Turks are native Anatolians who merely shifted languages during the advent of Seljuk intervention in the XI Century. All autosomal charts plot the Turks closely to other West Asian groups (Armenians, Jews, Assyrians, Kurds, Lebanese, etc.)
- Religion: The overwhelming majority of Anatolians adhere to the Islamic religion as opposed to Christianity, the dominant and historical faith in Europe, which again ties the Turks closer to the Middle East.
- Geography: Save the 3% territory of Thrace (European part), most of Turkey is situated in West Asia and shares a 911km common border with Syria, 331km with Iraq and 500km with Iran.

R4ge
05-07-2012, 12:26 PM
You are native MENA and we are not.

Yeah. I suppose that's why Anatolian Turks cluster much closer genetically to Assyrians, Levantines, Armenians, Kurds and Greeks than to Siberians.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 12:58 PM
I guess our Asian origin disturbs everyone..Both MENA and European

Check Turkmenistan because Anatolian Ethnik Turks are predominantly are of Oguz Klan..This was told before ,appearantly you are not following.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 01:03 PM
I guess our Asian origin disturbs everyone..Both MENA and European

Check Turkmenistan because Anatolian Turks are predominantly are of Oguz Klan..this was told before ,appearantly you are not following.

Turkmenistan is a funny country with people who have gold teeth and statues of their dictators all over the place. They're a comical nation that fits well this whole Borat stereotype.

Anthropologique
05-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Between Euros and Arabs, but closer to Euros.

Anthropologique
05-07-2012, 01:18 PM
i'd say turks are very like spaniards. if they are integrated into european culture, they wouldn't be considered as aliens in Europe, imo

Spaniards? Integrated?

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 01:59 PM
Turks are closer to Northern Near Easterners (Arabs) than they are to Europeans.

Most Anatolians are native and are connected to their immediate neighbors in a number of ways:

- Race: In Western Anatolia, the Mediterranean and Armenoid races are equally distributed and as one moves farther East until the former Soviet and Iranian borders, the latter becomes almost universal.
- Genetics: Most Turks are native Anatolians who merely shifted languages during the advent of Seljuk intervention in the XI Century. All autosomal charts plot the Turks closely to other West Asian groups (Armenians, Jews, Assyrians, Kurds, Lebanese, etc.)
- Religion: The overwhelming majority of Anatolians adhere to the Islamic religion as opposed to Christianity, the dominant and historical faith in Europe, which again ties the Turks closer to the Middle East.
- Geography: Save the 3% territory of Thrace (European part), most of Turkey is situated in West Asia and shares a 911km common border with Syria, 331km with Iraq and 500km with Iran.

Memobekes;
are you historian?
are you linguist?
are you geneticist?

it is very popular in these days to judge the Turkish idendity. Only few years ago, there was a propaganda " filthy mongol turks, turn back to mongolian steppe".
but now, many people see that Turkic/Altaic/Mongolian culture/lifestlye is not bad as they expected. Now, they begin to claim that "Turks are turkified native anatolians".
according to many historians, at least 1,5-2 million Oghuz Turks migrated to anatolia in between 11th and 13th centuries. also some Mongol and Uighur tribes settled in anatolia during the Mongol/İlkhanid invasion. some people claims that "anatolia's population was 7-8 million during the byzantine times (11th century) ",
NO its a LIE..!
Even in the beginning of the 19th century, there were only 5 million people live in anatolia !
check this website / population of anatolia by year. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm (its also includes balkan/thrace region)
so the anatolia's population was not more than 2 million in the 11th century. (before the arrival of the Seljuk Turks)

now the question is; What did the Seljuks look like?
location of the Oghuz Turks in 9th-10th centuries
http://i45.tinypic.com/2dlln46.jpg http://i47.tinypic.com/7239kx.png

The Oghuz Turks were neigbour to Kypchaks and Khazars and even the "Seljuk beg", the founder of the Seljuk realm was general in the Khazar army. Western Turkic clans were always described as heavily caucasoids with asian influences. Such as the Kypchaks, Pechenegs, Oghuz, Khazars and the others...the Oghuz Turks
and the western Turkic people of central asia were already intermarried with the ancient Sycthians and other caucasoid nomads.
after they converted to islam, the Oghuz Turks conquered/moved to khorasan and transoxania and intermarried/socialized with local people.
"ablak yüzleri tacik'e dönüştü, lehçeleri de revanlaştı.". those words are belong to a historian -ashikpashazade-.. it means "their chubby faces turned into tajik"...it is clear that they already intermarried with caucasoids before they migrated to anatolia.
http://i47.tinypic.com/t5259g.jpg

in 11th&12th centuries, the Seljuk Turks were maximum 15-20% mongoloid and they were looking like these guys (modern Turkmens of Turkmenistan)
http://i48.tinypic.com/2u7r687.jpg

I've read many articles about Turks. The scientist always compare the North East asians and Turks and now they are claiming that there are only 15% Turkics in anatolia. Its nonsense, since we left the siberia/north east asia thousands of years ago and associated/intermarried with many different clans/peoples. Steppe peoples were not racists, they mixed with all the people on their way.

Seljuk Turks were not eskimos from the north pole!
http://i49.tinypic.com/2le5m2r.jpg

i love eskimos and also north-eastern asian but Oghuz/Seljuk Turks were came from khorasan to anatolia.
this is where the Seljuks came from.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2a0m3c0.png

Turkmens/Yoruks of anatolia always say that "we came from khorasan", not from directly siberian tundras or north pole!

North east asia is NOT central asia.

now here is the comparison of the Turkmens and Turks

Turks/Turkmens_Y/

East_European 6.9%/7%
West_European 7%/9.7%
Mediterranean 28.5%/14%
Neo_African 0.1%/0%
West_Asian 40.5%/34%
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%
Northeast_Asian 3.9%/7.7%
Southeast_Asian 3.5%/8.6%
East African 0.2%/0.1%
Southwest_Asian 8.9%/6.9%
Northwest_African 0.4%/0.1%
Paelo_African 0%/0.1%

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens are 15-16% mongoloid

so we can easily say that Turks are genetically 40-50% Turkmenistan Turkmens.

and MEMOBEKES;
check the Ottoman archival data about the anatolia's ethnicity
there were 655.800 nomadic families in anatolia in between 15th-16th centuries. here is the names and numbers of those tribes. http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26

THESE NOMADIC TURKOMAN FAMILIES&CLANS OF THE ANATOLIA AND THEIR NUMBERS - (source=Ottoman archival data)
http://i47.tinypic.com/zurb.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/357pr3r.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/vgiem1.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/11l75nn.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/25uscqq.png
655.800 nomadic Turkoman family which means at least 3-3.5 million people...

and note that many Turks were already became settled during the Ottoman era. "Turks are native anatolians bla bla bla"...? so where are the descendants of those Turkoman nomads of anatolia?
and most Turks in anatolia came from different regions to anatolia, just like the caucasus, balkans, syria(halep Turkmens), etc...

i will not claim that Turks of anatolia are genetically 100% central asians. but i think Turkic(Turkmen) impact to anatolia is much bigger than most people think.

someone tell me why don't they compare us with Turkmens of Turkmenistan? we are both Oghuz Turks! we are both descendants of Seljuks, our languages are very similar.

IMO, present day Turks are descendants of 40% Turkic-Turkmen nomads and people like ancient native anatolians (hittites, galatians, cappadocians etc), some balkan and caucasus people. (there were huge migrations from balkans and caucasus to anatolia in the 20th century)

SOME GENETIC RESEARCHES ABOUT TURKS OF ANATOLIA;

1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601

(larger article / pdf format) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.unife.it%2Fprogetti%2Fgenetic a%2FGiorgio%2FPDFfiles%2Fajpa2001.pdf&ei=5luXT5nKOKaWiQfQksyACg&usg=AFQjCNGWW0u5iFb7MkRXzjb9ZVU5hMZMrw&sig2=M1W33uyV_f6HPOoIkPD-1Q


The contribution of Central Asian genes to the current Anatolian gene pool was quantified using three different methods, considering for comparison populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia. The most reliable estimates suggest roughly 30% Central Asian admixture for both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome loci. That (admittedly approximate) figure is compatible both with a substantial immigration accompanying the arrival of the Turkmen armies (which is not historically documented), and with continuous gene flow from Asia into Anatolia, at a rate of 1% for 40 generations. Because a military invasion is expected to more deeply affect the male gene pool, similar estimates of admixture for female- and male-transmitted traits are easier to reconcile with continuous migratory contacts between Anatolia and its Asian neighbors, perhaps facilitated by the disappearance of a linguistic barrier between them.
Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

2-) Genetic link between modern Turks and ancient Huns (xiongn-nu)
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml


DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.
The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that Turkish people originated in Mongolia.
he oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. This may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. This practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned—later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.
Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.

3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm


... paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001). Moreover, the mtDNA sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell 1996; Richards et al. 2000). These data might reflect the emergence at the end of the necropolis of a Turkish component in the Eastern Huns tribe.

4-) http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf

According to Cengiz Cinnioğlu et al. in October of 2003, although earlier studies concluded that the Central Asian Turkic migration affected gene flow in 30% of the population of Anatolia, the actual number is uncertain as the exact number of migrations by the Oghuz in the 11th century is not clear and the lack of viable source material impedes progress. However, with the use of the shared Y-chromosome in continuing research, more may soon be discovered regarding Turkic peoples

Cengiz Cinnioğlu, Roy King, Toomas Kivisild, Ersi Kalfoğlu, Sevil Atasoy, Gianpiero L. Cavalleri, Anita S. Lillie, Charles C. Roseman, Alice A. Lin, Kristina Prince, Peter J. Oefner, Peidong Shen, Ornella Semino, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Peter A. Underhill


5-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed



so IMO, present day Turks are CENTRAL ASIAN + ANATOLIAN ( anatolian= middle eastern + european).
Seljuks Turks were not NAZIS! they did not massacred the native anatolian population, but intermarried with them just like the all nomads. even genetically Turks are half Turkmenistan Turkmens

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.
Turkmens 15-16% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.

here is the some Altaic-Uralic people and their mongoloid admixture;

Hungarian 1%
Finnish 5.5%
Turks 7.3%- 8%
Gagauz 2%- 4%
Tatars 10.3%
Azeri 7.1%
Chuvash 9.1% - 12%
Bashkirs 38.3%
Kazakhs 56.4%
Mongols 86.4%

its clear that eastern Turks/ or eurasians (kazakhs, mongols etc) are more mongoloid, while western Turks/ or eurasians ( crimean tatars, turks, karachay, kumuk, gagauz) are less mongoloid.

nomadic Turkmen tribes of anatolia / maps
(where they lived)
http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=10
Check this.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ihtd7n.png


and an Avshar Turkish village in anatolia...
-) At an Afshar Turk village whose oral stories tell they come from Central Asia they found that 57% come from haplogroup L, 13% from haplogroup Q, 3% from haplogroup N thus indicating that the L haplogroups in Turkey are of Central Asian heritage rather than Indian, although these Central Asians would have gotten the L markers from the Indians from the beginning. These Asian groups add up to 73% in this village. Furthermore 10% of these Afshars were E3a and E3b.

and here are the photos of the Avshar Turks...They are typical anatolian Turks with their appearance...but their dna is almost completely central asian.
http://i49.tinypic.com/33ypc1d.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2efss8z.jpg

so, MEMOBEKES and other anti-Turkic users;
the Oghuz Turks of central asia moved to anatolia with their men, women, children, herds, horses, yurts, traditions, language, etc...Oghuz nation is now live in Turkey with their less mongoloid appearance...
today; the sons of the Seljuks & Turkoman tribal warriors are live in Turkey.

why don't you discuss the other idendities of the other nations?

for example;

today's British people: (Norman conquest of England)
The Normans sailed across the English Channel from Normandy and their total numbers were 30,000. they defeated the Harold Godwinson's army and conquered britain. so the present day english people are mostly descendants of native britain people- Britons (mainly celtic), Gaelic tribes, Picts, Angles, roman invaders, Normans etc.
so english people are not english?

today's France; (Frankish conquest of France)
Franks were a germanic tribe and their language was germanic. the name "France" comes from "Latin Francia", which literally means "land of the Franks". They gave their name to present-day France. But, today's french people are Romance-language speakers.
the French nation originated from different peoples, like Gaul-Celtic, Roman-Latins, Franks, Normans etc.
so french people are not french?
Today's Spain;
Spain is a Latin name Hispania. This name was given by the Romans to the complete Iberian Peninsula. the spanish people are descendants of Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Native iberians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Suevi(germanic), Vandals(germanic), Sarmatian Alans, Visigoths, Moors (Arab-Berbers) and even some black african people. But their language is Romance language. Their dna has both European and slight African admixture.
so spanish people are not spanish..._?

Today's Greece;
Although Greece is too small country, the northern Greeks and southern Greeks are genetically&physically very very different people. Peloponnesos (southern) Greeks have almost 50% e3b.
while northern Greeks have e3b much lower than southern Greeks.
This is the comparison of Northern and Southern Greeks;
http://i50.tinypic.com/2vuhft0.jpg

so the Greeks have descendants of different ethnic people. Northern Greeks have mainly slav&albanian admixture and also there are many greeks descended from pontic orthodox black sea people of northeastern anatolia (they were not ethnic greeks but greek-speaking northeastern anatolians).
so greeks are not greeks?

Today's Italy;
Italians have many different ethnic backgrounds. Such as the ancient peoples of pre-Roman Italy, Umbrians, Latins, Volsci, Samnites, Celts , Ligures, Etruscans from anatolia, the Elymians, Sicani, Mycenaean Greeks, Lombards (germanic), Goths(germanic), north african - moorish invaders of sicily, Romans etc... Also, Southern italians are very different than Northern italians.
so italians are not italians?


and MEMOBEKES, even your roots are not native anatolian...you are kurd/zaza of tunceli province...do you know that Zaza people came to anatolia with Khwarazmian people...they escaped from Mongol invasion...so, even you and your people are not native anatolian. most of the Turkey's citizens came from different areas to anatolia... central asia, caucasus, balkans, crimea, syria...

if the english people are english, french people are french, spanish people are spanish, italians are italians; then the Turks of Turkey are 100% Turks. no doubt!

Pallantides
05-07-2012, 02:04 PM
here is the some Altaic-Uralic people and their mongoloid admixture;

Hungarian 1%
Finnish 5.5%
Turks 7.3%- 8%
Gagauz 2%- 4%
Tatars 10.3%
Azeri 7.1%
Chuvash 9.1% - 12%
Bashkirs 38.3%
Kazakhs 56.4%
Mongols 86.4%


The Altaic-Uralic theory is bullshit, Finns have no connection to Turks...

cmd_
05-07-2012, 02:45 PM
Pseudoscience.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 03:05 PM
The Altaic-Uralic theory is bullshit, Finns have no connection to Turks...

as for me; Indo-European theory is nonsense.
I don't care is there any connection between Turkic people & Finnish people...
But it's clear that Uralic nations have some amount of Mongoloid dna (5-6%), unike the most europeans.
i was only trying to show that western eurasians "Gagauz, Turks, Turkmens, Chuvashs, Finnish, crimean Tatars etc" are less mongoloid than eastern eurasians.


Pseudoscience.
hey "cmd_"
you are fake anatolian and fake Turk. here is my message to you in Turkish language and your reply
http://i50.tinypic.com/2njbmki.png

this is your reply
"Konyali. Ben 'Pseudoscience' dedikenen mi gisiyormusun?" this is not Turkish... even you don't know Turkish...nice "google translate" translation trial...but you should knew that "google translate" cannot translate the indo-european sentences to altaic languages...

Hess
05-07-2012, 03:47 PM
I agree with Sam Huntington in that Turks are a civilization of their own, although undoubtedly closer to the Islamic World than anything else.
http://grumpywhenhungry.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/clash_of_civilizations-1024x474.png

Genetically, they are only a little less European than Cypriots :shrug:

cmd_
05-07-2012, 03:56 PM
hey "cmd_"
you are fake anatolian and fake Turk. here is my message to you in Turkish language and your reply

this is your reply
"Konyali. Ben 'Pseudoscience' dedikenen mi gisiyormusun?" this is not Turkish... even you don't know Turkish...nice "google translate" translation trial...but you should knew that "google translate" cannot translate the indo-european sentences to altaic languages...My keyboard is of English layout. I don't have time to look for different letters or try to learn the numpad codes :coffee:

Apparently you did get mad when I said this was pseudoscience, which it clearly is. Haters gonna hate. Dreamers gonna dream.

You are on the wrong board. Go back to your Turanic forum.

Nurzat
05-07-2012, 03:59 PM
music, habits, cuisine, religion, genetics, looks > arabs

Insuperable
05-07-2012, 04:00 PM
Syberian cold breeze and pecheng are bugging me.
I do not know what are they doing here anyway

Anthropologique
05-07-2012, 04:01 PM
Memobekes;
are you historian?
are you linguist?
are you geneticist?

it is very popular in these days to judge the Turkish idendity. Only few years ago, there was a propaganda " filthy mongol turks, turn back to mongolian steppe".
but now, many people see that Turkic/Altaic/Mongolian culture/lifestlye is not bad as they expected. Now, they begin to claim that "Turks are turkified native anatolians".
according to many historians, at least 1,5-2 million Oghuz Turks migrated to anatolia in between 11th and 13th centuries. also some Mongol and Uighur tribes settled in anatolia during the Mongol/İlkhanid invasion. some people claims that "anatolia's population was 7-8 million during the byzantine times (11th century) ",
NO its a LIE..!
Even in the beginning of the 19th century, there were only 5 million people live in anatolia !
check this website / population of anatolia by year. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm (its also includes balkan/thrace region)
so the anatolia's population was not more than 2 million in the 11th century. (before the arrival of the Seljuk Turks)

now the question is; What did the Seljuks look like?
location of the Oghuz Turks in 9th-10th centuries
http://i45.tinypic.com/2dlln46.jpg http://i47.tinypic.com/7239kx.png

The Oghuz Turks were neigbour to Kypchaks and Khazars and even the "Seljuk beg", the founder of the Seljuk realm was general in the Khazar army. Western Turkic clans were always described as heavily caucasoids with asian influences. Such as the Kypchaks, Pechenegs, Oghuz, Khazars and the others...the Oghuz Turks
and the western Turkic people of central asia were already intermarried with the ancient Sycthians and other caucasoid nomads.
after they converted to islam, the Oghuz Turks conquered/moved to khorasan and transoxania and intermarried/socialized with local people.
"ablak yüzleri tacik'e dönüştü, lehçeleri de revanlaştı.". those words are belong to a historian -ashikpashazade-.. it means "their chubby faces turned into tajik"...it is clear that they already intermarried with caucasoids before they migrated to anatolia.
http://i47.tinypic.com/t5259g.jpg

in 11th&12th centuries, the Seljuk Turks were maximum 15-20% mongoloid and they were looking like these guys (modern Turkmens of Turkmenistan)
http://i48.tinypic.com/2u7r687.jpg

I've read many articles about Turks. The scientist always compare the North East asians and Turks and now they are claiming that there are only 15% Turkics in anatolia. Its nonsense, since we left the siberia/north east asia thousands of years ago and associated/intermarried with many different clans/peoples. Steppe peoples were not racists, they mixed with all the people on their way.

Seljuk Turks were not eskimos from the north pole!
http://i49.tinypic.com/2le5m2r.jpg

i love eskimos and also north-eastern asian but Oghuz/Seljuk Turks were came from khorasan to anatolia.
this is where the Seljuks came from.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2a0m3c0.png

Turkmens/Yoruks of anatolia always say that "we came from khorasan", not from directly siberian tundras or north pole!

North east asia is NOT central asia.

now here is the comparison of the Turkmens and Turks

Turks/Turkmens_Y/

East_European 6.9%/7%
West_European 7%/9.7%
Mediterranean 28.5%/14%
Neo_African 0.1%/0%
West_Asian 40.5%/34%
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%
Northeast_Asian 3.9%/7.7%
Southeast_Asian 3.5%/8.6%
East African 0.2%/0.1%
Southwest_Asian 8.9%/6.9%
Northwest_African 0.4%/0.1%
Paelo_African 0%/0.1%

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens are 15-16% mongoloid

so we can easily say that Turks are genetically 40-50% Turkmenistan Turkmens.

and MEMOBEKES;
check the Ottoman archival data about the anatolia's ethnicity
there were 655.800 nomadic families in anatolia in between 15th-16th centuries. here is the names and numbers of those tribes. http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26

THESE NOMADIC TURKOMAN FAMILIES&CLANS OF THE ANATOLIA AND THEIR NUMBERS - (source=Ottoman archival data)
http://i47.tinypic.com/zurb.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/357pr3r.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/vgiem1.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/11l75nn.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/25uscqq.png
655.800 nomadic Turkoman family which means at least 3-3.5 million people...

and note that many Turks were already became settled during the Ottoman era. "Turks are native anatolians bla bla bla"...? so where are the descendants of those Turkoman nomads of anatolia?
and most Turks in anatolia came from different regions to anatolia, just like the caucasus, balkans, syria(halep Turkmens), etc...

i will not claim that Turks of anatolia are genetically 100% central asians. but i think Turkic(Turkmen) impact to anatolia is much bigger than most people think.

someone tell me why don't they compare us with Turkmens of Turkmenistan? we are both Oghuz Turks! we are both descendants of Seljuks, our languages are very similar.

IMO, present day Turks are descendants of 40% Turkic-Turkmen nomads and people like ancient native anatolians (hittites, galatians, cappadocians etc), some balkan and caucasus people. (there were huge migrations from balkans and caucasus to anatolia in the 20th century)

SOME GENETIC RESEARCHES ABOUT TURKS OF ANATOLIA;

1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601

(larger article / pdf format) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.unife.it%2Fprogetti%2Fgenetic a%2FGiorgio%2FPDFfiles%2Fajpa2001.pdf&ei=5luXT5nKOKaWiQfQksyACg&usg=AFQjCNGWW0u5iFb7MkRXzjb9ZVU5hMZMrw&sig2=M1W33uyV_f6HPOoIkPD-1Q



2-) Genetic link between modern Turks and ancient Huns (xiongn-nu)
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml



3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm



4-) http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf


5-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed



so IMO, present day Turks are CENTRAL ASIAN + ANATOLIAN ( anatolian= middle eastern + european).
Seljuks Turks were not NAZIS! they did not massacred the native anatolian population, but intermarried with them just like the all nomads. even genetically Turks are half Turkmenistan Turkmens

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.
Turkmens 15-16% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.

here is the some Altaic-Uralic people and their mongoloid admixture;

Hungarian 1%
Finnish 5.5%
Turks 7.3%- 8%
Gagauz 2%- 4%
Tatars 10.3%
Azeri 7.1%
Chuvash 9.1% - 12%
Bashkirs 38.3%
Kazakhs 56.4%
Mongols 86.4%

its clear that eastern Turks/ or eurasians (kazakhs, mongols etc) are more mongoloid, while western Turks/ or eurasians ( crimean tatars, turks, karachay, kumuk, gagauz) are less mongoloid.

nomadic Turkmen tribes of anatolia / maps
(where they lived)
http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=10
Check this.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ihtd7n.png


and an Avshar Turkish village in anatolia...
-) At an Afshar Turk village whose oral stories tell they come from Central Asia they found that 57% come from haplogroup L, 13% from haplogroup Q, 3% from haplogroup N thus indicating that the L haplogroups in Turkey are of Central Asian heritage rather than Indian, although these Central Asians would have gotten the L markers from the Indians from the beginning. These Asian groups add up to 73% in this village. Furthermore 10% of these Afshars were E3a and E3b.

and here are the photos of the Avshar Turks...They are typical anatolian Turks with their appearance...but their dna is almost completely central asian.
http://i49.tinypic.com/33ypc1d.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2efss8z.jpg

so, MEMOBEKES and other anti-Turkic users;
the Oghuz Turks of central asia moved to anatolia with their men, women, children, herds, horses, yurts, traditions, language, etc...Oghuz nation is now live in Turkey with their less mongoloid appearance...
today; the sons of the Seljuks & Turkoman tribal warriors are live in Turkey.

why don't you discuss the other idendities of the other nations?

for example;

today's British people: (Norman conquest of England)
The Normans sailed across the English Channel from Normandy and their total numbers were 30,000. they defeated the Harold Godwinson's army and conquered britain. so the present day english people are mostly descendants of native britain people- Britons (mainly celtic), Gaelic tribes, Picts, Angles, roman invaders, Normans etc.
so english people are not english?

today's France; (Frankish conquest of France)
Franks were a germanic tribe and their language was germanic. the name "France" comes from "Latin Francia", which literally means "land of the Franks". They gave their name to present-day France. But, today's french people are Romance-language speakers.
the French nation originated from different peoples, like Gaul-Celtic, Roman-Latins, Franks, Normans etc.
so french people are not french?
Today's Spain;
Spain is a Latin name Hispania. This name was given by the Romans to the complete Iberian Peninsula. the spanish people are descendants of Lusitanians, Celtiberians, Native iberians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Suevi(germanic), Vandals(germanic), Sarmatian Alans, Visigoths, Moors (Arab-Berbers) and even some black african people. But their language is Romance language. Their dna has both European and slight African admixture.
so spanish people are not spanish..._?

Today's Greece;
Although Greece is too small country, the northern Greeks and southern Greeks are genetically&physically very very different people. Peloponnesos (southern) Greeks have almost 50% e3b.
while northern Greeks have e3b much lower than southern Greeks.
This is the comparison of Northern and Southern Greeks;
http://i50.tinypic.com/2vuhft0.jpg

so the Greeks have descendants of different ethnic people. Northern Greeks have mainly slav&albanian admixture and also there are many greeks descended from pontic orthodox black sea people of northeastern anatolia (they were not ethnic greeks but greek-speaking northeastern anatolians).
so greeks are not greeks?

Today's Italy;
Italians have many different ethnic backgrounds. Such as the ancient peoples of pre-Roman Italy, Umbrians, Latins, Volsci, Samnites, Celts , Ligures, Etruscans from anatolia, the Elymians, Sicani, Mycenaean Greeks, Lombards (germanic), Goths(germanic), north african - moorish invaders of sicily, Romans etc... Also, Southern italians are very different than Northern italians.
so italians are not italians?


and MEMOBEKES, even your roots are not native anatolian...you are kurd/zaza of tunceli province...do you know that Zaza people came to anatolia with Khwarazmian people...they escaped from Mongol invasion...so, even you and your people are not native anatolian. most of the Turkey's citizens came from different areas to anatolia... central asia, caucasus, balkans, crimea, syria...

if the english people are english, french people are french, spanish people are spanish, italians are italians; then the Turks of Turkey are 100% Turks. no doubt!

The Phoenician and Carthaginian components in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) are exceedingly trivial. There is some North-west African (most of it seriously old) that averages out to 3-4%, all major autosomal research considered. The ethnic / genetic bedrock of Spain and Portugal is Celtic and Atlantic fringe, blended with some Germanic and a small bit of North-west African and West Asian. On average, South-west Asian (Arabian) is near "noise" levels (i.e., practically insignificant). SSA markers are meaningless and ancient.

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 04:02 PM
cmd clearly you don't know Turkish .

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 04:02 PM
My keyboard is of English layout. I don't have time to look for different letters or try to learn the numpad codes :coffee:

Apparently you did get mad when I said this was pseudoscience, which it clearly is. Haters gonna hate. Dreamers gonna dream.

You are on the wrong board. Go back to your Turanic forum.


your words are not even Turkish... why do you introduce yourself as "Turk" while you are exactly not...
and my post was not pseudoscience, i ve wrote sources of my all assertions!
you fake anatolian Turk!

i know that our central asian root disturb you...but as i said before; Oghuz nation moved to anatolia with their men, women, children, traditions, musical instrumentals, herds, horses etc..
now Oghuz nation live in anatolia with less mongoloid appearance..

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 04:05 PM
My keyboard is of English layout. I don't have time to look for different letters or try to learn the numpad codes :coffee:

Apparently you did get mad when I said this was pseudoscience, which it clearly is. Haters gonna hate. Dreamers gonna dream.

You are on the wrong board. Go back to your Turanic forum.

listen me fake anatolian;
why do you introduce yourself as "Turk" while you are exactly not...?
and im not Turanist, just a regular apolitic Turkish citizen, who loves his nation.

got it? FAKE anatolian?

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 04:08 PM
Syberian cold breeze and pecheng are bugging me.
I do not know what are they doing here anyway
This topic is about Turks .
If you don't like you can move to another topic.

Insuperable
05-07-2012, 04:13 PM
This topic is about Turks .
If you don't like you can move to another topic.

This was your second post:

We clustered ourselves always with rising and promising culture ..its our historical pattern .
When we joined to Islam culture ,it was fresh and lively so it was a good path to go
but not anymore..so we have nothing to do with this foreign culture ..
And Europe is declining too ..
may be its time to salute the sun again ..Asia is rising now..It's time to seek new opportunities -both economic and cultural with Asia
Middleast =problem..only pain no gain ,no national interest ..its wise to put a safe distance with this restless region

Take a hike

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 04:15 PM
Whether cmd is Turkish or not does not make the Turanic propaganda less silly.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 04:20 PM
Whether cmd is Turkish or not does not make the Turanic propaganda less silly.
where is the turanic propaganda?
and what about your indo-euro centric aryanist propaganda?
Turks are genetically half Turkmenistan Turkmens

Turks 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens 15-16% mongoloid
so Turks are; 40-50% Turkmen and rest are from native&balkan&caucasus
the source of the Turkic migration to anatolia was Khorasan/Turkmenistan

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 04:22 PM
I don't need any foreign approval ,you can claim whatever you want but we have very deep roots ,cannot be changed with political propaganda so enjoy yourselves .
We as usual will follow our elders ,stick with our anchient culture ,whether you like or don't.

Ibericus
05-07-2012, 04:37 PM
Depends on what european. They seem closer to Greeks or Sicilians, than to arabians.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 04:41 PM
I don't need any foreign approval ,you can claim whatever you want but we have very deep roots ,cannot be changed with political propaganda so enjoy yourselves .
We as usual will follow our elders ,stick with our anchient culture ,whether you like or don't.

A sad case of cultural schizophrenia, really:rolleyes:

Siberian Cold Breeze
05-07-2012, 05:00 PM
A sad case of cultural schizophrenia, really:rolleyes:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3425/trollfood.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/443/trollfood.png/)

help yourself ..

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 05:01 PM
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3425/trollfood.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/443/trollfood.png/)


You're pretty self-critical, I must say.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 05:11 PM
where is the turanic propaganda?
and what about your indo-euro centric aryanist propaganda?
Turks are genetically half Turkmenistan Turkmens

Turks 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens 15-16% mongoloid
so Turks are; 40-50% Turkmen and rest are from native&balkan&caucasus
the source of the Turkic migration to anatolia was Khorasan/Turkmenistan

Turkmens have also non-negligeable South-Asian ancestry that you decided to ommit. It's virtually non-existent in modern Turks who therefore can not be 40-50 percent Turkmen.
Additionally on genetic maps you don't cluster in between West and Central Asians but right among West Asian groups with drift towards Mediterranean Europe. So fail once again.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 05:31 PM
Turkmens have also non-negligeable South-Asian ancestry that you decided to ommit. It's virtually non-existent in modern Turks who therefore can not be 40-50 percent Turkmen.
Additionally on genetic maps you don't cluster in between West and Central Asians but right among West Asian groups with drift towards Mediterranean Europe. So fail once again.

comparison again
Turks/Turkmens_Y/

East_European 6.9%/7%
West_European 7%/9.7%
Mediterranean 28.5%/14%
Neo_African 0.1%/0%
West_Asian 40.5%/34%
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%
Northeast_Asian 3.9%/7.7%
Southeast_Asian 3.5%/8.6%
East African 0.2%/0.1%
Southwest_Asian 8.9%/6.9%
Northwest_African 0.4%/0.1%
Paelo_African 0%/0.1%

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens are 15-16% mongoloid

and mongoloid admixtures...
http://i45.tinypic.com/2ihtd7n.png

Seljuk Turks were from today's Turkmenistan and Khorasan, and they were called "Turkmens/Turkomans" which means "Muslim Turk".
Turkmen/Seljuk impact to anatolia is 40%.

and genetic&dna proof ??? ok, once again...


1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601

(larger article / pdf format) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.unife.it%2Fprogetti%2Fgenetic a%2FGiorgio%2FPDFfiles%2Fajpa2001.pdf&ei=5luXT5nKOKaWiQfQksyACg&usg=AFQjCNGWW0u5iFb7MkRXzjb9ZVU5hMZMrw&sig2=M1W33uyV_f6HPOoIkPD-1Q


The contribution of Central Asian genes to the current Anatolian gene pool was quantified using three different methods, considering for comparison populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia. The most reliable estimates suggest roughly 30% Central Asian admixture for both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome loci. That (admittedly approximate) figure is compatible both with a substantial immigration accompanying the arrival of the Turkmen armies (which is not historically documented), and with continuous gene flow from Asia into Anatolia, at a rate of 1% for 40 generations. Because a military invasion is expected to more deeply affect the male gene pool, similar estimates of admixture for female- and male-transmitted traits are easier to reconcile with continuous migratory contacts between Anatolia and its Asian neighbors, perhaps facilitated by the disappearance of a linguistic barrier between them.
Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

2-) Genetic link between modern Turks and ancient Huns (xiongn-nu)
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml


DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.
The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that Turkish people originated in Mongolia.
he oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. This may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. This practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned—later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.
Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.

3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm


... paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001). Moreover, the mtDNA sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell 1996; Richards et al. 2000). These data might reflect the emergence at the end of the necropolis of a Turkish component in the Eastern Huns tribe.

4-) http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf

According to Cengiz Cinnioğlu et al. in October of 2003, although earlier studies concluded that the Central Asian Turkic migration affected gene flow in 30% of the population of Anatolia, the actual number is uncertain as the exact number of migrations by the Oghuz in the 11th century is not clear and the lack of viable source material impedes progress. However, with the use of the shared Y-chromosome in continuing research, more may soon be discovered regarding Turkic peoples

Cengiz Cinnioğlu, Roy King, Toomas Kivisild, Ersi Kalfoğlu, Sevil Atasoy, Gianpiero L. Cavalleri, Anita S. Lillie, Charles C. Roseman, Alice A. Lin, Kristina Prince, Peter J. Oefner, Peidong Shen, Ornella Semino, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Peter A. Underhill


5-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed


say "bye" to your euro-centric "native anatolian" theory about Turks...

and in 15th&16th centuries...there were 655.800 Turkoman nomadic families in anatolia..and note that many Turks were already settled in that time.

here is the names and numbers of those Turkoman tribes. http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26
(Ottoman archival data)

this is not Turanist propaganda, these are facts...
when the Seljuk Turks crushed byzantines and conquered anatolia, they didn't massacred the settled people, but intermarried with them.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 06:01 PM
No need to quote all your garbage links. Let's just focus on this. How are Turks supposedly half-Trukmen when your South Asian is not even one-third of theirs and other Anatolian folks already score non-zero South Asian?
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%

Reality is a bitch, my wog mate:(

StonyArabia
05-07-2012, 06:06 PM
No need to quote all your garbage links. Let's just focus on this. How are Turks supposedly half-Trukmen when your South Asian is not even one-third of theirs and other Anatolian folks already score non-zero South Asian?
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%

Reality is a bitch, my wog mate:(

Well it shows that the Turkmen tribes intermixed with the locals and hence the dilution of the South Asian admix it actually makes sense. Though some of the South Asian could be recent in Turkmenistan via the conquests of India for example. I don't see how the less South Asian would shatter the notion of Turkmen ancestry in Anatolia, it rather supports it to be honest.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 06:10 PM
No need to quote all your garbage links. Let's just focus on this. How are Turks supposedly half-Trukmen when your South Asian is not even one-third of theirs and other Anatolian folks already score non-zero South Asian?
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%

Reality is a bitch, my wog mate:(

"garbage links"???
these are scientific researches..
and the most important thing is; 100-200 dna samples from anatolia cannot represent the whole Turkish nation. some parts of anatolia have same mongoloid admixture with Turkmenistan (southwestern anatolia aydın-muğla).

and why do you trying to minimize the Turkic impact? what's your goal? weren't we "barbarian nomadic uncivilized hordes from the steppes" ??? what happened? it's interesting...

Loki
05-07-2012, 06:11 PM
No need to quote all your garbage links.

Knowledge is garbage? Or just too lazy to deconstruct it? Well, you can't.

Pallantides
05-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Turks cluster with other West Asian populations, but they also have some East Eurasian admixture, it's an undisputable fact.


According to Dodecad v3: K=12 averages the East Eurasian(Northeast Asian+Southeast Asian) average for Turkish_D is 5,2% and for the Turks sample is 6.9%

Dodecad v3: K=12 averages
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyN nc&authkey=COCa89AJ&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0)

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 06:19 PM
Knowledge is garbage? Or just too lazy to deconstruct it? Well, you can't.

There's no need to argue against genetic studies of 2003 and the like. He gave the links to paper with Y-DNA and MTDNA. They mean zero in this context.
BTW ARyans had the same habit of posting the stuff related to Y-DNA studies and ignoring autosomal DNA.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 06:22 PM
Turks cluster with other West Asian populations, but they also have some East Eurasian admixture, it's an undisputable fact.


According to Dodecad v3: K=12 averages the East Eurasian(Northeast Asian+Southeast Asian) average for Turkish_D is 5,2%(from what I have seen from individual Turks it range from 3% to 9%)

Dodecad v3: K=12 averages
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDUyeEtjNnBmY09EbnowN3M3UWRyN nc&authkey=COCa89AJ&hl=en_US&authkey=COCa89AJ#gid=0)


Aye, this guy's also a falsifier as he claims their admix is 7 on average.
Noone including me denies that this is what sets them apart from the rest of West Asians but fact is that modern Turks are predominantely Anatolian with something like 1/7-1/8 of Seldjuk input.

Pallantides
05-07-2012, 06:26 PM
Well the average for the Turkish behar sample is 6.9%.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 06:29 PM
Aye, this guy's also a falsifier as he claims their admix is 7 on average.
Noone including me denies that what sets them apart from the rest of West Asians but fact is that modern Turks are predominantely Anatolian with something like 1/7-1/8 of Seldjuk input.
and how can you know the Seljuk genetics? how do you know that Seljuks were 80-90% mongoloids?
most of your sources are from "dienekes".
dienekes is probably greek nationalist and unreliable geneticist.
he has many researches about Turks and has secret agenda against us.
even his genetic results about greeks are very different than average greek results...
Seljuks were not eskimos from noth pole. They were Turkmens with 16-17% mongoloid admixture...
Turkic clans in central asia had very different looking people. Kypchaks were always described as "blonde", Kyrgyz & Göktürks described "red-haired"...
and Oghuz Turks (Seljuks) were also western Turkic clan and neigbour to other western Turkic clans such as the Khazars and Kypchaks. Western Turkic clans were heavily caucasoids with some mongoloid admixtures.

Pallantides
05-07-2012, 06:31 PM
First you use one of his genetic graphs to prove a point and now you're bashing him...:rolleyes:

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 06:34 PM
First you use one of his genetic graphs to prove a point and now you're bashing him...:rolleyes:

i had no choice. the only graphic about Turk&Turkmen comparison was belong to him.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 06:44 PM
and how can you know the Seljuk genetics? how do you know that Seljuks were 80-90% mongoloids?
most of your sources are from "dienekes".
dienekes is probably greek nationalist and unreliable geneticist.
he has many researches about Turks and has secret agenda against us.
even his genetic results about greeks are very different than average greek results...
Seljuks were not eskimos from noth pole. They were Turkmens with 16-17% mongoloid admixture...
Turkic clans in central asia had very different looking people. Kypchaks were always described as "blonde", Kyrgyz & Göktürks described "red-haired"...
and Oghuz Turks (Seljuks) were also western Turkic clan and neigbour to other western Turkic clans such as the Khazars and Kypchaks. Western Turkic clans were heavily caucasoids with some mongoloid admixtures.


Kypchaks and the like were basically Turkified Indo-Europeans. They don't count.
And modern Turkmens also have 11% South Asian amdixture. SO why not embrace your Andaman heritage?:D

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 06:45 PM
i had no choice. the only graphic about Turk&Turkmen comparison was belong to him.

You can not refer to him if you bash him at the same time.

Turks cluster with Iranians and Georgians on all genetic maps: McDonald, Eurogenes, Dienekes - all give the same consistent result.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 06:54 PM
Kypchaks and the like were basically Turkified Indo-Europeans. They don't count.
And modern Turkmens also have 11% South Asian amdixture. SO why not embrace your Andaman heritage?:D

LoL, now Kypchaks become Turkified indo-europeans? Kypchaks were Turkic people, no doubt! and do you know that your georgian king hired 40.000 Kypchak mercenary. They were fierce steppe warriors, their language was Kypchak Turkic, they were nomads...what makes them indo-european, "blonde hair" ?
and why do you interest so much to Turkish genetic?
Turkmens are x2 times more mongoloid than us, that's all...
Turks are basically "Turkmen+Anatolian"
and its very normal, since Turks are surrounded by non-altaic peoples for 1000 years.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 07:01 PM
LoL, now Kypchaks become Turkified indo-europeans? Kypchaks were Turkic people, no doubt! and do you know that your georgian king hired 40.000 Kypchak mercenary. They were fierce steppe warriors, their language was Kypchak Turkic, they were nomads...what makes them indo-european, "blonde hair" ?
and why do you interest so much to Turkish genetic?
Turkmens are x2 times more mongoloid than us, that's all...
Turks are basically "Turkmen+Anatolian"
and its very normal, since Turks are surrounded by non-altaic peoples for 1000 years.

Turkmen are 3 times more South Asian than you. Does this strike a bell in your empty head?
Kypchaks were one of those mixed people of predominantely European descent like the modern Kazan Tatars.

Rereg
05-07-2012, 07:03 PM
LoL, now Kypchaks become Turkified indo-europeans?

Most western Kypchaks were turkified lokal iranian people with mongoloid (turkic) admixture.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 07:13 PM
Turkmen are 3 times more South Asian than you. Does this strike a bell in your empty head?
like the modern Kazan Tatars.

beware of your words...or i'll send you a nice pm.


Kypchaks were one of those mixed people of predominantely European descent
you wish...
Kypchaks were Turkic people and they smashed many indo-europeans in eastern europe... their names were nightmare for the eastern europeans...
"Turk=Mongoloid" this is not right...even Mongol are not 100% mongoloids but 80%...
the word "TÜRK" was first used for confederation of the horse-archer tribes of asia. Some of them were heavily caucasoids, some of them were more mongoloids. there was no single-Turk appearance...even chinese&byzantine&other resources supporting me...


Most western Kypchaks were turkified lokar iranian people with mongoloid (turkic) admixture.
hahaha iranian??? bullshit! i've heard many euro-centric claims but this one was hilarious indeed! Kypchaks are iranians hah?
you guys know that Kypchaks were cool people, that's why you are trying to show them "european, iranian, turkified bla bla bla"...
they were nightmares of the so-called indo-europeans.
also your name "baghatur" is Turkic/Altaic word. why do you use Altaic word instead of your superior indo-euroepan words?

Rereg
05-07-2012, 07:22 PM
Sorry Pecheng but your words are only turkish, nationalist, pan-turanian propaganda and not scientist, historican discussion.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 07:27 PM
Sorry Pecheng but your words are only turkish, nationalist, pan-turanian propaganda and not scientist, historican discussion.

its "Pecheneg"
actually, your words&assertions are euro-centric aryanist. this topic is about Turks, not about your superior indo-european Aryan people.
why do you interest us so much?
i'm not pan-turanian, but you are exactly anti-Turkist.
btw, it seems most people begin to see that Turkic culture/lifestyle/language is not bad as they expected...

Onur
05-07-2012, 07:30 PM
Kypchaks were Turkic people and they smashed many indo-europeans in eastern europe... their names were nightmare for the eastern europeans...
I might add this to you;

Calling Kypchaks as converted indo-europeans is the most absurd thing ever because one of the earliest Turkic dictionaries, a linguistic manual has been written by using Cuman/Kypchak Turkic language in 12th century;

Cuman Turkic to Latin and German dictionary with sample sentences;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Cumanicus


Here is an example from a 12th century Kypchak Turkic. Compare it with today`s Turkish and see for yourself;


For example, the Codex's Pater Noster reads:

Atamız kim köktesiñ. Alğışlı bolsun seniñ atıñ, kelsin seniñ xanlığıñ, bolsun seniñ tilemekiñ – neçik kim kökte, alay [da] yerde. Kündeki ötmegimizni bizge bugün bergil. Dağı yazuqlarımıznı bizge boşatqıl – neçik biz boşatırbız bizge yaman etkenlerge. Dağı yekniñ sınamaqına bizni quurmağıl. Basa barça yamandan bizni qutxarğıl. Amen!

In English, the text is:

Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have done us evil. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Amen.

In Turkish, the text is:
Atamız ki göktesin. Alkışlı olsun senin adın, gelsin senin hanlığın, olsun senin dilemeğin – nice ki gökte, ve yerde. Gündeki ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver. Dahi, yazıklarımızı (suçlarımızı) bize boşat – nice biz boşatırız bize yaman (kötülük) edenleri. Dahi, şeytanın sınamağına bizi koyurma. Tüm yamandan (kötülükten) bizi kurtar. Amin!

Azalea
05-07-2012, 07:32 PM
Summary of this discussion:

'Turkic peoples were all Mongoloids. Every source and evidence claiming the contrary do not count because they do not agree that all Turks were Mongoloids.'

Awesome reasoning.

Rereg
05-07-2012, 07:34 PM
Kypchaks people were turkish speakers with strong iranian/alan influence so they were less mongoloid than pure Turkic people from western mongolia.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 07:35 PM
Kypchaks people were turkish speakers with strong iranian/alan influence so they were less mongoloid than pure Turkic people from western mongolia.

Because they were not Mongoloids, right?

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 07:37 PM
Kypchaks people were turkish speakers with strong iranian/alan influence so they were less mongoloid than pure Turkic people from western mongolia.
yea, all the Turkic nations are actually Turkified by army of the nomadic ghosts. there was no single Turk in history, all of them were Turkified iranians, europeans, chinese, etc.... ok, u relaxed?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baghatur
Kypchaks people were turkish speakers with strong iranian/alan influence so they were less mongoloid than pure Turkic people from western mongolia.

Originally Posted by Türkü
Because they were not Mongoloids, right?
well according to them, even Mongols are not Mongol/Altaic because they are only 80-85% mongoloid...

Dacul
05-07-2012, 07:40 PM
Original turks came from Altai,so they can not be closed to either arabs or europeans,but to mongols.
They were an altaian population,but they were only a tribe of warriors,which gave the language and the leading people in Otoman Empire.
They were looking mongolian I guess,with slanted eyes and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks#Origins
"The homeland of the Turkic peoples is assumed to have been somewhere in the vicinity of Altai in Central Asia. The first nomadic empire founded in present day Mongolia was Xiongnu, sometimes identified as a candidate for the locus of proto-Turkic.The Turkic languages spread from its homeland over much of Central Asia and the Eurasian steppe during the Turkic migrations of the 6th to 11th centuries.".

The population of today Turkey is caucasian mostly,I do not see any mongolian ancestry in them.
Besides,I think original language changed also,it got more europenised.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 07:48 PM
Original turks came from Altai,so they can not be closed to either arabs or europeans,but to mongols.
They were an altaian population,but they were only a tribe of warriors,which gave the language and the leading people in Otoman Empire.
They were looking mongolian I guess,with slanted eyes and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks#Origins
"The homeland of the Turkic peoples is assumed to have been somewhere in the vicinity of Altai in Central Asia. The first nomadic empire founded in present day Mongolia was Xiongnu, sometimes identified as a candidate for the locus of proto-Turkic.The Turkic languages spread from its homeland over much of Central Asia and the Eurasian steppe during the Turkic migrations of the 6th to 11th centuries.".

The population of today Turkey is caucasian mostly,I do not see any mongolian ancestry in them.
Besides,I think original language changed also,it got more europenised.

LoL, even Turkmens of Turkmenistan are 84% caucasoid! what did you expected from Turks of anatolia!?


I do not see any mongolian ancestry in them.
Turks are one of the most mongoloid people in western eurasia along with russians, kumuks(Turkic), crimean Tatars(Turkic) etc...

and about your people; romanians..
romanians are actually romanicized local populations and have nothing to do with original latin/romans. real roman input to romania is 0%.

Anthropologique
05-07-2012, 07:48 PM
There's no need to argue against genetic studies of 2003 and the like. He gave the links to paper with Y-DNA and MTDNA. They mean zero in this context.
BTW ARyans had the same habit of posting the stuff related to Y-DNA studies and ignoring autosomal DNA.

Indeed, autosomal DNA (full heredity) is really what counts. Haplogroups are useful only in identifying your earliest ancestors but they are just a VERY tiny portion of your genome.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 07:49 PM
Original turks came from Altai,so they can not be closed to either arabs or europeans,but to mongols.
They were an altaian population,but they were only a tribe of warriors,which gave the language and the leading people in Otoman Empire.
They were looking mongolian I guess,with slanted eyes and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks#Origins
"The homeland of the Turkic peoples is assumed to have been somewhere in the vicinity of Altai in Central Asia. The first nomadic empire founded in present day Mongolia was Xiongnu, sometimes identified as a candidate for the locus of proto-Turkic.The Turkic languages spread from its homeland over much of Central Asia and the Eurasian steppe during the Turkic migrations of the 6th to 11th centuries.".

The population of today Turkey is caucasian mostly,I do not see any mongolian ancestry in them.
Besides,I think original language changed also,it got more europenised.

There is your answer.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 07:54 PM
Summary of this discussion:

'Turkic peoples were all Mongoloids. Every source and evidence claiming the contrary do not count because they do not agree that all Turks were Mongoloids.'

Awesome reasoning.

They were mestizos to say more correctly. And certainly modern Turkmen donating 50% of their genome to Anatolian Turks is rubbish - I've shown that it's impossible given their South Asian score.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 07:57 PM
beware of your words...or i'll send you a nice pm.


you wish...
Kypchaks were Turkic people and they smashed many indo-europeans in eastern europe... their names were nightmare for the eastern europeans...
hahaha iranian??? bullshit! i've heard many euro-centric claims but this one was hilarious indeed! Kypchaks are iranians hah?
you guys know that Kypchaks were cool people, that's why you are trying to show them "european, iranian, turkified bla bla bla"...


Kypchaks were just some steppe nomad that in the end got obliterated by Russians and Mongols. Noone really cares much about their "great" heritage, sorry.

As for Steppe people having great Indo-Euro admix - that is a common knowledge, sorry. IE people have marched into those lands and mixed with local Siberians - hence Northern European admix found almost universally among Central Asians.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:00 PM
They were mestizos to say more correctly.
And certainly modern Turkmen donating 50% of their genome to Anatolian Turks is rubbish - I've shown that it's impossible given their South Asian score.
Maybe, maybe not. Have you seen any genetic data from the ancient Turkic peoples? I haven't. I only know that todays Turkic people are a mixture of Asian and Mongoloid genes, that the predominantly Caucasoid Turkic peoples are by far the majority and that Turks in history were described from fair skinned, blond haired to dark haired and Mongoloid looking. It's obvious that not all Turkic peoples were equally mixed. But you nor me know what the majority was like exactly. So saying that they were 'mestizos' seems like a safe guess, but that's it, a guess.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:04 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Have you seen any genetic data from the ancient Turkic peoples? I haven't. I only know that todays Turkic people are a mixture of Asian and Mongoloid genes, that the predominantly Caucasoid Turkic peoples are by far the majority and that Turks in history were described from fair skinned, blond haired to dark haired and Mongoloid looking. It's obvious that not all Turkic peoples were equally mixed. But you nor me know what the majority was like exactly. So saying that they were 'mestizos' seems like a safe guess, but that's it, a guess.

We always go by a safe guess whenever we don't know something exactly. What seems to be an universal tendency is that wherever we see Turkic admixed people we get elevated Northern European and Siberian blood compared to non-Turkic admixed neighbours. So I believe it's a correct guess. Uralic languages show strong toes IE and Finnic despite being neither which further hints strong ties with those in the past.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:04 PM
Kypchaks were just some steppe nomad that in the end got obliterated by Russians and Mongols. Noone really cares much about their "great" heritage, sorry.

Because they were not Mongoloids right? That's the only prove you have. They were Turkified because they were not Mongoloids.


As for Steppe people having great Indo-Euro admix - that is a common knowledge, sorry. IE people have marched into those lands and mixed with local Siberians - hence Northern European admix found almost universally among Central Asians.

Ascribing all the Northern Euro admixture in CA and Siberia to IE speakers is not right. How do you even back a claim like that up? Besides, the IE speakers were not the first civilization in CA. God knows how many people passed CA and how much of their genes is left.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/ancient-towns-excavated-turkmenistan

All your arguments are based on assumptions but you bring them as facts.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:09 PM
Because they were not Mongoloids right? That's the only prove you have. They were Turkified because they were not Mongoloids.



Ascribing all the Northern Euro admixture in CA and Siberia to IE speakers is not right. How do you even back a claim like that up? Besides, the IE speakers were not the first civilization in CA. God knows how many people passed CA and how much of their genes is left.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/ancient-towns-excavated-turkmenistan

All your arguments are based on assumptions but you bring them as facts.

They were Turkified because they were pred. Euro like Volga Bulgars (Tatars) who had a language shift.
Oh my, yeah - I am incorrect there might be something from our Finnic friends - actually it is in people like Khanty.
That link you posted goes well in line with Kurgan theory and ancient IE settlements:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Indo-Iranian_origins.png/300px-Indo-Iranian_origins.png

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:10 PM
They were mestizos to say more correctly. And certainly modern Turkmen donating 50% of their genome to Anatolian Turks is rubbish - I've shown that it's impossible given their South Asian score.
it's not rubbish. even Ottoman archival data about the nomadicTurkoman family numbers of anatolia supporting me...
http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26

655.800 nomadic Turkoman family in 15th&16th centuries...which means at least 3,5 million people. and many Turkomans in anatolia were already settled...and notice that there were only 7 million Turk in anatolia in the beginning of the 20th century...(before caucasus&balkan migration)
Turkmen/Turkic impact to anatolia is much more bigger than your assertions.;
i can understand your butthurt.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:17 PM
They were Turkified because they were pred. Euro like Volga Bulgars (Tatars) who had a language shift.

They shifted language because they were not Mongoloids, right?

....Do you see where I am getting at?



Oh my, yeah - I am incorrect there might be something from our Finnic friends - actually it is in people like Khanty.
That link you posted goes well in line with Kurgan theory and ancient IE settlements:

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Indo-Iranian_origins.png/300px-Indo-Iranian_origins.png[IMG]

Have you read a bit of the article? This ancient civilization is not linked to any IE of FU culture. Nothing has been proven yet. Similar to the Xionghu theory.

Dacul
05-07-2012, 08:17 PM
Original turks were a great warriors population,they were elite mongolians.
Actual turks are a mix of caucasian population in first place with balkanic nations in 2nd place,because that was the population of Byzantine Empire when they conquered that area.
I think now turkish music is influenced by arabic music,because they converted to Islam.
Same with dressing and so on.
The fact that turkish language is altaian shows clearly from where the original turks came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
Here a map where turkic languages are spoken:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:19 PM
it's not rubbish. even Ottoman archival data about nomadicTurkoman family numbers of anatolia supporting me...
http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26

655.800 nomadic Turkoman family in 15th&16th centuries...which means at least 3,5 million people. and many Turkomans in anatolia were already settled...and notice that there were only 7 million Turk in anatolia in the beginning of the 20th century...(before caucasus&balkan migration)
Turkmen/Turkic impact to anatolia is much more bigger than your assertions.;
i can understand your butthurt.

Butthurt? You got badly owned. And I frankly don't care if modern Turks are predominantely Anatolian (which is the case) or not. I simply find it both funny and somewhat pathetic when people invent those imaginary world where they live in (like ARmenians:D)

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:21 PM
They shifted language because they were not Mongoloids, right?

....Do you see where I am getting at?
Have you read a bit of the article? This ancient civilization is not linked to any IE of FU culture.

Yeah, I see what you are implying. It makes perfect sense to assume that you need to be heavily Mongoloid to be pure Turkic - all the core nations of Turkic sphere that have not expanded to teh other places are strongly Mongoloid. What to argue about here?
The fact that it is not yet linked to any IE or FU yet does not meant it will not be. The only viable alternative is some sort of West Asian civilizational offshoot.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:26 PM
http://i48.tinypic.com/28bbcqo.png
here are the romance languages...
These romance/latin languages spread with the Roman invasions. But Romanians, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. people are not true Romans...Roman genetic input to these countries is very little.
Romanians are just local people and have nothing to do with original Romans of etruscan origin.


Butthurt? You got badly owned. And I frankly don't care if modern Turks are predominantely Anatolian (which is the case) or not. I simply find it both funny and somewhat pathetic when people invent those imaginary world where they live in (like ARmenians)
oh yes, you care... that's why you spend your hours to this topic.
Turkmen input to anatolia is 30%-50%. Mongoloid admixtures of Turkey and Turkmenistan proves this.
i can guess your phsycology "ohh..no..Turks can't be Turkmens from central asia, oh noooo!" ...
the only thing you know about Turks is; genetic research by dienekes... same arguments, same assertions...nothing else.
Most of the Oghuz nation moved to anatolia between 11th&14th centuries and their grandsons now live in Turkey. it's hard to accept for you, i know.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:27 PM
http://i48.tinypic.com/28bbcqo.png
here are the romance languages...
These romance/latin languages spread with the Roman invasions. But Romanians, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. people are not true Romans...Roman genetic input to these countries is very little.
Romanians are just local people and have nothing to do with original Romans of etruscan origin.

"Roman" as ethnicity never existed.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:28 PM
http://i48.tinypic.com/28bbcqo.png
here are the romance languages...
These romance/latin languages spread with the Roman invasions. But Romanians, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. people are not true Romans...Roman genetic input to these countries is very little.
Romanians are just local people and have nothing to do with original Romans of etruscan origin.

They're still more related to them and to any Euro groups being almost the same deal racially while Anatolian and majority of Central Asian Turks are almost on the opposite genetically.
Why you even posted this map I not quite understand though.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:29 PM
Yeah, I see what you are implying. It makes perfect sense to assume that you need to be heavily Mongoloid to be pure Turkic - all the core nations of Turkic sphere that have not expanded to teh other places are strongly Mongoloid. What to argue about here?

No, it doesn't because:
1. You can not use modern populations as a proxy for ancient populations.
2. The most Siberian/Mongoloid Turkic nation are the Yakuts. They are recent immigrants in Siberia. So they did expand.
3. The most Mongoloid CA Turkic peoples are ironically also the ones who were described as Europoid looking centuries ago. The Kyrgyz and the Kazakhs have clearly mixed with East Asian populations when you look at their ancient descriptions.


The fact that it is not yet linked to any IE or FU yet does not meant it will not be. The only viable alternative is some sort of West Asian civilizational offshoot.

They are linked but nothing is proven. And untill nothing is proven, everything you say is hot air.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:32 PM
How many anatolian turk looks like Nazarbayev or Saparmurat? Very few i think....many of your countrymen could easy pass as darker exotic sicilians/calabreses.

http://www.nododigordio.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nursultan-nazarbayev.jpg

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061221/061221_niyazov_vlrg_3a.grid-4x2.jpg

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:33 PM
How many anatolian turk looks like Nazarbayev or Saparmurat? Very few i think....many of your countrymen could easy pass as darker exotic sicilians/calabreses.


It doesn't matter how many of us look like Nazarbayev. We are not Kazakhs and not Central Asian. We are Turkish and from West Asia. :)

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:34 PM
They're still more related to them and to any Euro groups being almost the same deal racially while Anatolian and majority of Central Asian Turks are almost on the opposite genetically.
Why you even posted this map I not quite understand though.
no...roman(etruscan) input to these countries is 0%.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:35 PM
No, it doesn't because:
1. You can not use modern populations as a proxy for ancient populations.
2. The most Siberian/Mongoloid Turkic nation are the Yakuts. They are recent immigrants in Siberia. So they did expand.
3. The most Mongoloid CA Turkic peoples are ironically also the ones who were described as Europoid looking centuries ago. The Kyrgyz and the Kazakhs have clearly mixed with East Asian populations when you look at their ancient descriptions.

They are linked but nothing is proven. And untill nothing is proven, everything you say is hot air.

1.Sure, why is your mentally handicapped pal using Turkmens then?
2.I wasn't even talking about Yakuts. Uyghurs are a much better case.
3.They were not described as European looking but have fair eyes and hair which makes sense as they were born out of mix with Northern Euros. And they migrated to Central Asia fromplaces where they had contacts with IE (Yenisei basin). These people have pred. IE Y-DNA (kyrgyzs are liek more than 60% R1A1 and mostly Asian MTDNa). Makes a lot of sense to consider them mestizos that gor more Asianised after contacts with Mongols and the like.

Until a better evidence appears what I claim is pretty solid, sorry.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:38 PM
no...roman(etruscan) input to these countries is 0%.

Romans don't equal to Etruscans. Etruscans contributed to their gene pool but that's about all - the descendants of Romans are Euros and cluster with such and not West Asians like Etruscans.
BTW Ironically when they tested ancient Etruscan DNA is has shown great similarity to modern Turkish which again proves that I am correct with regards to your genetics.

Transhumanist
05-07-2012, 08:38 PM
Deleted.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:38 PM
1.Sure, why is your mentally handicapped pal using Turkmens then?
2.I wasn't even talking about Yakuts. Uyghurs are a much better case.
3.They were not described as European looking but have fair eyes and hair which makes sense as they were born out of mix with Northern Euros. And they migrated to Central Asia fromplaces where they had contacts with IE (Yenisei basin). These people have pred. IE Y-DNA (kyrgyzs are liek more than 60% R1A1 and mostly Asian MTDNa). Makes a lot of sense to consider them mestizos that gor more Asianised after contacts with Mongols and the like.

Until a better evidence appears what I claim is pretty solid, sorry.

i wonder how many georgians have the same appearance with the georgians of the 2000 years ago, since caucasus is invaded/settled by many different peoples...

Han Cholo
05-07-2012, 08:39 PM
Turkish girls are hot.

StonyArabia
05-07-2012, 08:40 PM
Turkish girls are hot.

Indeed and so are Caucasian girls like Adyghe, Avar and Chechens the best of the best.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:42 PM
no...roman(etruscan) input to these countries is 0%.

Etrurian genetic (and cultural) heritage is very strong in all central Italy.
Some etrurian dialects survived in some isolated zones of Tuscany until 900-1000 A.D.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:43 PM
Romans don't equal to Etruscans. Etruscans contributed to their gene pool but that's about all - the descendants of Romans are Euros and cluster with such and not West Asians like Etruscans.


Romans were etruscans. descendants of Romans are not europeans. Romans called them "barbarians", celtic, germanic, gaulic, slavic etc people have nothing to do with romans. Roman input to romance-speaking countries is 0%. all of them are linguistically romanicized people.



BTW Ironically when they tested ancient Etruscan DNA is has shown great similarity to modern Turkish which again proves that I am correct with regards to your genetics.
its very normal, since we didn't denied our anatolian origin. but we don't deny our Turkmen origin too. (Turks=Anatolians+Turkmens)

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:44 PM
First etruscans lived in the area between modern Bursa and Balikesir.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:46 PM
i wonder how many georgians have the same appearance with the georgians of the 2000 years ago, since caucasus is invaded/settled by many different peoples...

Georgians are pretty much the same people as used to be. We are rather homogenous genetically and lack foreign inputs (there are some admixes of course).
BTW notice how after getting badly owned you resort to:

a)Saying genes don't matter and culture does - i.e. refuting your own previous claims

b)Starting indirect attacks upon other ethnicity.

Azalea
05-07-2012, 08:47 PM
1.Sure, why is your mentally handicapped pal using Turkmens then?

Are you discussing with me or with someone else? I did not mention anything about Turkmens and I haven't used Turkmens as a proxy for the first Oghuz Turks. Don't drag other things into this discussion.

2.I wasn't even talking about Yakuts. Uyghurs are a much better case.

There was no need to. You said that the most Mongoloid Turkic people are the ones that didn't expand. I gave the Yakuts as an example to prove you wrong since they are the most Mongoloid Turkic people and they did recently expand.

The Uyghurs are probably one of the worst examples since it's known about them that they mixed and assimilated non-Turkic peoples like the Tocharians. Besides, they are anything but the most Mongoloid CA Turkic people.


3.They were not described as European looking but have fair eyes and hair which makes sense as they were born out of mix with Northern Euros.


I said Europoid, not European. And they were born out mix with Northern Euro's? Can you be more specific?

And they migrated to Central Asia fromplaces where they had contacts with IE (Yenisei basin). These people have pred. IE Y-DNA (kyrgyzs are liek more than 60% R1A1 and mostly Asian MTDNa). Makes a lot of sense to consider them mestizos that gor more Asianised after contacts with Mongols and the like.

Until a better evidence appears what I claim is pretty solid, sorry.
Their Y- and mtDNA doesn't prove anything. R1a is not 'non-Turkic' by definition. Just like 'non-mongoloid' is also not 'not-Turkic' by definition. You keep comming up with the same reasoning. 'They were not Mongoloid, so they were not-Turkic'.

Also, modern Kyrgyzes, despite their high R1a, are about 80% Mongoloid.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:48 PM
Romans were etruscans. descendants of Romans are not europeans. Romans called them "barbarians", celtic, germanic, gaulic, slavic etc people have nothing to do with romans. Roman input to romance-speaking countries is 0%. all of them are linguistically romanicized people.


its very normal, since we didn't denied our anatolian origin. but we don't deny our Turkmen origin too. (Turks=Anatolians+Turkmens)

You are really very, very dumb. Etruscans spoke a non-IE language and arrived to a peninsula that was later cinquered by Latins. Ancient Romans and modenr Italians (their descendants) are Europeans.

You are clearly posting on a wrong forum.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:51 PM
Their Y- and mtDNA doesn't prove anything. R1a is not 'non-Turkic' by definition. Just like 'non-mongoloid' is also not 'not-Turkic' by definition. You keep comming up with the same reasoning. 'They were not Mongoloid, so they were not-Turkic'.

Also, modern Kyrgyzes, despite their high R1a, are about 80% Mongoloid.

They have IE Y-DNA and Asian MTDNA. It does not take an Einstein to figure that they were initially a mix of IE males and Siberian females that later got diluted by additional Asian admix.

Yakuts have expanded into North-East Asian territory. Of course they have the most Asian - that does not contradict what I said about core Turkic territories being more Caucasoid than the most places in Western Eurasia that Turks have expanded into.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:53 PM
b)Starting indirect attacks upon other ethnicity.
this was hilarious, since you are attacking us for hours...
and it's clearly about butthurt, nothing else. look at this topic,;
kurds, armenians, serbians, greeks, romanians, bulgarians etc. posting anti-Turkic stuffs..and masturbating... guess what's their common point???
BUTTHURT !
http://i49.tinypic.com/2wokmlc.png

LoL, they are taking their revenges with their keyboards...it's pity...

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:54 PM
You are really very, very dumb. Etruscans spoke a non-IE language and arrived to a peninsula that was later cinquered by Latins. Ancient Romans and modenr Italians (their descendants) are Europeans.

You are clearly posting on a wrong forum.

Rome as city was founded, actually, with the unification of the etrurian villages in the northern banks of river Tiber (Tevere in modern italian) with the southern ones, wich were inhabited by latin people; plus, the city absorbed a lot of other central italian immigrant people, like osco-sabellian, sabinian, campanians and also many of greek people from the colonies of "Megas Hellas".

Roman culture of the first kings was heavy etrurian and greek influenced, 5 of the total 7-8 kings were etrurians, the same latin language spoken in the city (wich actually was different from latin spoken by other latin cities) was heavy etruscan and greek influenced (30% of latin vocabulary was/is of etrurian origin)...the religion, the architecture, the clothing style, the organization...all a syncretism between 3 cultures: etrurian, latin and colonial greek.
The same word "Roma" come from etrurian language and mean "The place in the middle of the river".

Dacul
05-07-2012, 08:55 PM
Romanians have also turkic ancestry because we have X DNA on mt DNA and that is altaian turkic.In a test they found 3.4% X DNA on mt dna near Constanta and 6.5% X mt DNA near Ploiesti.
Cause in Romania a good number of cumans settled.
Sure this is why a lot of romanians are low vaulted,besides the mixing with some celts.

On eupedia tabel Romania have highest mt-dna X2 from all European countries, 5% .
So you can see here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226041/
In turkic altaians speakers is found also X on mt-dna.
I am curious what is the percentage of X on mt-DNA in Turkey,cause I saw a map like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 08:55 PM
this was hilarious, since you are attacking us for hours...
and it's clearly about butthurt, nothing else. look at this topic,;
kurds, armenians, serbians, greeks, romanians, bulgarians etc. posting anti-Turkic stuffs..and masturbating... guess what's their common point???
BUTTHURT !
http://i49.tinypic.com/2wokmlc.png

LoL, they are taking their revenges with their keyboards...it's pity...

I don't care much about Turks as I've mentioned. I wish them all the best and this can be achieved by preventing you from mating with a Turkish girl - your genes clearly carry little intelligence with them.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 08:56 PM
Romanians have also turkic ancestry because we have X DNA on mt DNA and that is altaian turkic.In a test they found 3.4% X DNA on mt dna near Constanta and 6.5% X mt DNA near Ploiesti.
Cause in Romania a good number of cumans settled.
Sure this is why a lot of romanians are low vaulted,besides the mixing with some celts.

On eupedia Romania have highest mt-dna X2, 5% from all European countries.
So you can see here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226041/
In turkic altaians speakers is found also X on mt-dna.
I am curious what is the percentage of X on mt-DNA in Turkey,cause I saw a map like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG
romanians have more mongoloid admixture than hungarians...,
romanians 3% mongoloid
hungarians 0.9%

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 08:58 PM
romanians have more mongoloid admixture than hungarians...,
romanians 3% mongoloid
hungarians 0.9%

But their culture is latin and they speak a latin language.

I know romanians wery well, they're about 2 million (counting moldovans and illegals) here.

Anthropologique
05-07-2012, 08:59 PM
"Roman" as ethnicity never existed.

Yes, of course. Thank you.:thumb001:

Azalea
05-07-2012, 09:01 PM
They have IE Y-DNA and Asian MTDNA. It does not take an Einstein to figure that they were initially a mix of IE males and Siberian females that later got diluted by additional Asian admix.

Indo-European Y-DNA? So all R1a is Indo-European per definition? And Indo-European Y-DNA means that these people got Turkified by Turkic females, right?


Yakuts have expanded into North-East Asian territory. Of course they have the most Asian - that does not contradict what I said about core Turkic territories being more Caucasoid than the most places in Western Eurasia that Turks have expanded into.
1. Actually, it does. You need to be more precise. When you say that the most Mongoloid Turks are the ones that didn't expand, you are wrong.

2. You can not use modern populations as a proxy for ancient populations. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The fact that modern Kyrgyz and Kazakh people look very different than their kind 1000 years ago only proves my point. You also need to keep in mind the whole Mongolian domination. Which is probably the main reason why modern Kyrgyz & Kazakh people are more Mongoloid than their kind 1000 years ago.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 09:02 PM
Yes, of course. Thank you.:thumb001:

Is sufficient see the ethnic map of roman Italy....

http://italianfamilysearch.com/images/misc/Italian%20languages%20map.png

StonyArabia
05-07-2012, 09:02 PM
this was hilarious, since you are attacking us for hours...
and it's clearly about butthurt, nothing else. look at this topic,;
kurds, armenians, serbians, greeks, romanians, bulgarians etc. posting anti-Turkic stuffs..and masturbating... guess what's their common point???
BUTTHURT !
http://i49.tinypic.com/2wokmlc.png

LoL, they are taking their revenges with their keyboards...it's pity...

Well the map is correct, but the Ottomans only dominated Western Arabia, the Hejaz. The rest of Arabia was often ruled by various tribal Sheikhs many of whom paid tribute to the Ottomans. Eastern Arabia was dominated by the Muntafaq tribe who ruled it from Basra and often paid tribue to the Ottomans, until they were ouset by the Bani Khalid who also were loyal to the Ottomans, but always maintained their independence. Northern Arabia was dominated by the Shammar who were one of the most loyal allies to the Ottoman sultanate. During the British and Ottoman wars that took place in Iraq many of these Arabian tribes especially the Shammar and Muntafaq fought alonside the Turks. Relatively Arabia was not ruled by the Ottomans, the only area directly ruled by them was the Hejaz. No power was ever successful or will be successful in directly colonizing Arabia. It's funny how the Ottomans dominated the Balkans but could never dominate Arabia. Truly unconquered, only Britain was successful but they indirectly colonize it, still though the greatest power at the time could and did not subdue them, is just Epic to the max yo.

Han Cholo
05-07-2012, 09:02 PM
Indo-European Y-DNA? So all R1a is Indo-European per definition? And Indo-European Y-DNA means that these people got Turkified by Turkic females, right?




Founder effect. IE expansions started way before horse technology reached the Turkic peoples. Likely some Scythian lineages were introduced at an early time to early populations of Turkic groups, and selected with founder effect while mantaining a higher mongoloid influence.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 09:03 PM
You are really very, very dumb. Etruscans spoke a non-IE language and arrived to a peninsula that was later cinquered by Latins. Ancient Romans and modenr Italians (their descendants) are Europeans.

You are clearly posting on a wrong forum.

etruscans were ancestors of the Romans. you are the one, who is dumb!
roman royal family was etruscan.

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Indo-European Y-DNA? So all R1a is Indo-European per definition? And Indo-European Y-DNA means that these people got Turkified by Turkic females, right?


1. Actually, it does. You need to be more precise. When you say that the most Mongoloid Turks are the ones that didn't expand, you are wrong.

2. You can not use modern populations as a proxy for ancient populations. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The fact that modern Kyrgyz and Kazakh people look very different than their kind 1000 years ago only proves my point. You also need to keep in mind the whole Mongolian domination. Which is probably the main reason why modern Kyrgyz & Kazakh people are more Mongoloid than their kind 1000 years ago.

a)No but most of those subclades are Western-Eurasian/Slavic so yeah, tehy come from IE. How the language was created is indeed interesting but questioning the mestizo origins of Turks seems rather pointless to me with the absence of sensible alternative.


b)
1.I said that the core that did not expand is much more Mongoloid than most of the preiphery. How is it wrong? I only forgot to mention Yakuts.

2.I precisely specified that Mongols are responcible for "darkening" of these people but thet did not look Euro back in the days - just fair. I know some Kazakhs that are light pigmented an you can see blu eyed Siberian natives. Does not mena they look Euro or Caucasoid though.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 09:07 PM
There wasn't a only-one "roman royal family", maybe you're referring to the Tarquinian kings (Tarquinio Prisco, Servio Tullio and Tarquinio II the Superb)...but yes, many kings were etrurians

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 09:08 PM
There wasn't a only-one "roman royal family", maybe you're referring to the Tarquinian kings (Tarquinio Prisco, Servio Tullio and Tarquinio II the Superb)...but yes, many kings were etrurians

The thing is Romans were not Etrurians despite absorbing them into gene pool. Modern Italians don't cluster with Turks and Georgians despite having Anatolian admix and Etrurians did not speak IE language.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 09:11 PM
The thing is Romans were not Etrurians despite absorbing them into gene pool. Modern Italians don't cluster with Turks and Georgians despite having Anatolian admix and Etrurians did not speak IE language.

Actually in Venezia/Venice there are about 1000 people who are descendats of the "Conversi", basically turkish soldier captured during the Battle of Lepanto by venetian fleet, which abjured Islam to Catholicism and were made venetian citizen.

But yes, for the rest you're right. Etrurian language wasn't indueuros but mysterious....even if 30% of latin (and about the same of modern italian) is etrurian-derived.

Pecheneg
05-07-2012, 09:11 PM
The thing is Romans were not Etrurians despite absorbing them into gene pool. Modern Italians don't cluster with Turks and Georgians despite having Anatolian admix and Etrurians did not speak IE language.
what was their language then? semitic? altaic? another one?

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 09:17 PM
what was their language then? semitic? altaic? another one?

There are many theories: some people would classify as indoeuropean and related with anciet Hittite language, Armenian or with Colchis one, some other would clasify as "para-semithic"...the truth is that the language is a mystery and, except for some grave inscriptions, is totally unknown; only known thing is that 30% of latin (and 30% of modern italian) was/is of etrurian heritage (words like persona, gladiatore, mondo, popolo, atrium, historia/storia, etc.)

Padre Organtino
05-07-2012, 09:19 PM
what was their language then? semitic? altaic? another one?

It was a language isolate with exact origins still unknow. Racially these people were Anatolians.

Peyrol
05-07-2012, 09:25 PM
It was a language isolate with exact origins still unknow. Racially these people were Anatolians.

Etrurian paints from Fanum Voltumnĉ archeological site, Tuscany

http://www.eileen.it/images/etrusco2.jpg

http://www.canino.info/inserti/monografie/etruschi/tombe_tarquinia/Olimpiadi/Olimpiadi_7.jpg

http://www.editoriaprofessionale.it/img/p/1415-1394-thickbox.jpg

http://www.battifolle.it/Lavori/Etruschi/Arezzo%20etrusca/Affresco%20Etrusco.jpg

http://www.arteaffreschi.it/affreschi_img/AE%20100308.jpg


This last one is very representative, because is the celebration for the visit of a Ligurian King, probabily the legendary king Nemryss (so, celtic/ gallo italic) to the etrurian Lukumon (prince)...the celtic king and the other ligurian man are very fair compared to etrurians

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xAtSsBpZMkg/TWEAI_PxopI/AAAAAAAAALs/-kFkxRu8s_A/s1600/gli_etruschi.jpg

Beethoven
05-12-2012, 12:59 AM
Europeans or other Western Asians. But defintly not Arabs

Arne
05-12-2012, 01:02 AM
They are mostly closer to the Hunnic Emperors from the East and that´s also what they are very proud of their mongolic heritage.

accepthetruth
05-14-2012, 12:16 AM
definitely European. You have Bulgaria and Romania right next door, and Turks look like the near-east as well, which is not arab by blood .

Yaroslav
05-14-2012, 03:20 AM
Turks are an interesting bunch.

Linguistically they are Turkic/Asian.

Culturally they are Arab (Islam).

Politically/racially they are European.

R4ge
05-14-2012, 03:24 AM
Culturally they are Arab (Islam).

Islam and Arabic culture has had a very large influence on Turkey however they're definitely not culturally the same as Semitic nations.


Politically/racially they are European.

Turks are not European racially, they're Pred West Asians/Anatolians with some Far Eastern admixture.

Beethoven
05-15-2012, 02:01 PM
Turks are an interesting bunch.

Linguistically they are Turkic/Asian.

Culturally they are Arab (Islam).

Politically/racially they are European.
Muslims are not same. They are different just like Christians.

Turkish and Arab people totally different. Persians,arabs,lebanese,syrians,morrocans they all different people.

Su
10-08-2012, 02:56 PM
Muslims are not same. They are different just like Christians.

Turkish and Arab people totally different. Persians,arabs,lebanese,syrians,morrocans they all different people.

+1

ZephyrousMandaru
10-08-2012, 08:40 PM
Well, Arab is a very capacious term. If you're comparing Turks to Saudi Arabians or Yemenis, then obviously they're going to be genetically closer to Europeans. But if it's Syrians or Lebanese, that would be disputable. If Turks are closer to Europeans than they are to even Syrians or Lebanese people, it'd probably be by a very small margin.

Demhat
10-08-2012, 08:58 PM
depends on the Arab. There are different Arab groups. They are closer to Syrians, Lebanese or Iraqis in compare to Germans or Ex-Yugos but closer to Germans and EX-Yugos in compare to Saudis and co.

Food
10-08-2012, 09:22 PM
Syrians

MarceloBielsa
10-10-2012, 02:49 PM
western turkish are similar to greeks, sicilians, italians, spanish
central turkish are mixed with alpinians (celts) and cappadocian (armenoid)
east turkish are similar to levantines and a small mongolian heritage (turanid)

superhorn
10-10-2012, 10:53 PM
The Turks of Turkey aren't even the REAL Turks . The real Turks are the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and such southern Siberian peoples as the Altais, Tuvans,
Shors, Khakass etc .
The Turks of Turkey are a mixture of people descended from Greeks, Kurds and Armenians etc who adopted a Turkic language beginning about a thousand years ago .
Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, has said that the Turks of Turkey are "half breeds", and the Kazakhs are the real Turks .

Annihilus
10-10-2012, 10:58 PM
The Turks of Turkey aren't even the REAL Turks . The real Turks are the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and such southern Siberian peoples as the Altais, Tuvans,
Shors, Khakass etc .
The Turks of Turkey are a mixture of people descended from Greeks, Kurds and Armenians etc who adopted a Turkic language beginning about a thousand years ago .
Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, has said that the Turks of Turkey are "half breeds", and the Kazakhs are the real Turks .

Armenians:D

Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 09:43 PM
The Turks of Turkey aren't even the REAL Turks . The real Turks are the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and such southern Siberian peoples as the Altais, Tuvans,
Shors, Khakass etc .
The Turks of Turkey are a mixture of people descended from Greeks, Kurds and Armenians etc who adopted a Turkic language beginning about a thousand years ago .
http://i48.tinypic.com/35a92c0.jpg





Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, has said that the Turks of Turkey are "half breeds", and the Kazakhs are the real Turks .
no he didn't. :bored:

Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 09:46 PM
western turkish are similar to greeks, sicilians, italians, spanish
central turkish are mixed with alpinians (celts) and cappadocian (armenoid)
east turkish are similar to levantines and a small mongolian heritage (turanid)

then tell me, how the fuck western Turks score most east asian admixture in whole country? :picard2:

Anatolian Eagle
10-11-2012, 09:49 PM
The Turks of Turkey aren't even the REAL Turks . The real Turks are the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and such southern Siberian peoples as the Altais, Tuvans,
Shors, Khakass etc .
The Turks of Turkey are a mixture of people descended from Greeks, Kurds and Armenians etc who adopted a Turkic language beginning about a thousand years ago .
Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan, has said that the Turks of Turkey are "half breeds", and the Kazakhs are the real Turks .

...said the Ukranian Jewish "Slav", who is descended most likely from Krymchaks or Crimean Karaites which happens to be Turkic :D

Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 10:02 PM
hey stop it mate...
They are all direct descendants of Moses..
Just look at their faces. They look exactly like their orieantal jewish kins in middle east :rolleyes: .
http://g1210.hizliresim.com/12/d/dvfkl.jpg (http://*******/c25MCx)


yemenite jews
http://imageshack.us/a/img690/9062/yemeni129.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/yemeni129.jpg/)

ficuscarica
10-11-2012, 10:17 PM
The Turds look:
1/3 Asian
1/3 Arab
1/3 European

Incal
10-12-2012, 04:14 AM
Behavior? Like Arabs.

Siberian Cold Breeze
10-12-2012, 05:58 AM
like this ?:D


minkal:Çamur teknesi.


http://imageshack.us/a/img259/5662/dalyanamurbanyosu.jpg

Türetilmiş Kelimeler minkale,
çamur (nedir ne demek)
Su ile karışıp bulaşır ve içine batılır duruma gelmiş toprak, balçık
Sataşkan, çevresini tedirgin eden, sulu, arsız (kimse)
Örnek: Çamur oyuncu ile dürüst oyuncuyu herkes karıştırıyor. H. Taner

Absinthe
10-12-2012, 06:52 AM
Arabs? :eek: If you say that to hot blooded Turk, the discussion is not gonna end too well :D

Dacul
10-12-2012, 06:57 AM
Real turks are from Altai mountains so related to mongolians.
Now you answer the question,to whom are mongolians more closed,to europeans or to arabs,lol.
If you are refering to the actual population of Turkey for me is clear they are europeans.

Loki
10-12-2012, 06:57 AM
Didn't Arabs invent things like chess?

ficuscarica
10-12-2012, 08:07 AM
Didn't Arabs invent things like chess?

They probably stole it from someone else, like most of "their" inventions. ;)

Corvus
10-12-2012, 09:55 AM
Didn't Arabs invent things like chess?

No, the Indians invented it, the Persians elaborated it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess

Talvi
10-12-2012, 09:57 AM
Didn't Arabs invent things like chess?


Chess is believed to have originated in northwest India during the Gupta empire

Siberian Cold Breeze
10-12-2012, 10:12 AM
Arabs have a different civilisation ,they love indoors ,their cities were built like labirinths ,they are calm, laidback ,they are sedantery.,they are good traders ..They are people of words poetry

We are people of action .I think we are more sponteous ,nonlineer people than orderly sedantery people.(that can be nomadic)I suspect we can be dominantly right brained but there is no research on it .

We are much outdoor people (remember our barbeque rituals).We recently started to live in cities (i mean in the beginning of our republic most population were living rural areas) and actually ,trading among Turks was not popular through out the history..

I believe land shapes people habits and culture ..you homeland makes your character.Their culture is based on human made institutions ,our culture is based on our Altaic nature based lifestyle ,deeply rooted into proverbs ,daily habits ,beliefs ,moods only a Turk may recognise.

Last one:They are Abrahamic ,we are not. Plus our culture is not European either.

aimar
10-12-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't know if they are close to Arabs, but they aren't close to Europeans, regarding culture, politics, linguistics, etc.
Racially they are inbetween europeans and arabs
The answer is probably none.

Tabiti
10-12-2012, 10:23 AM
Off topic: Not all people in ME are Arabs. All indeed speak Arabic language.
Never accepted Turks as Arabs, even the Ottoman ones. It is ridiculous.

Sky earth
10-12-2012, 10:59 AM
We are neither europeans nor arabs. We are just turks with a unique Eurasian culture.Turks have nothing to do with arabs except for Islam.

StonyArabia
10-12-2012, 02:38 PM
They probably stole it from someone else, like most of "their" inventions. ;)

You gotta be kidding is this what you believe, Arabs were the best navigators, heck Europeans even asked in Arab to sail to India. When Germans were still painting their faces and wearing horn helmets, Baghdad was known as the Jewel of the World. Don't make a fool of your self please.
Arab contributions:

Cryptanalysis and frequency analysis: In cryptology, the first known recorded explanation of cryptanalysis was given by 9th-century Arabian polymath, Al-Kindi (also known as "Alkindus" in Europe), in A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages. This treatise includes the first description of the method of frequency analysis

For some of the work attributed to Ahmad, it is not exactly clear whether he wrote his, whether his father wrote it or whether they wrote it together. It is clear, however, that he worked on a book on ratio and proportion. This was translated to Latin by Gherard of Cremona and was a commentary of Euclid's Elements. This book influenced early European mathematicians such as Fibonacci. Further, in On similar arcs, he commented on Ptolemy's Karpos (or Centiloquium); many scholars believe that ibn Yusuf was in fact the true author of that work. He also wrote a book on the astrolabe. He invented methods to solve tax problems that were later presented in Fibonacci's Liber Abaci. He was also quoted by mathematicians such as Thomas Bradwardine, Jordanus de Nemore and Luca Pacioli.

Ali ibn Ridwan
Work
A commentary on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (the pseudo-Ptolemaic Centiloquy and its commentary, which is sometimes attributed to Ali, is actually the work of Ahmad ibn Yusuf ibn al-Daya)
De revolutionibus nativitatum (The Revolutions of Nativities), edited by Luca Gaurico, printed in Venice (1524)
Tractatus de cometarum significationibus per xii signa zodiaci (Treatise on the Significations of Comets in the twelve Signs of the Zodiac), printed in Nürnberg (1563)

Al-Asma'i or Asma`i, Abd al-Malik ibn Quraib al-Asma`i (c. 740-828) (Arabic: ‏أبو سعيد عبد الملك ابن قريب الأصمعي‎) was an Arab scholar of the Basra school of Arabic grammar.

He was also a pioneer of Natural Science and Zoology.He is considered as the first Muslim scientist to study animals in detail. He wrote many works such as: Kitab al-Khail (The Book of the Horse), Kitab al-Ibil (The Book of the Camel), Kitab al-Farq (The Book of Rare Animals), Kitab al-Wuhush (The Book of Wild Animals), Kitab al-Sha (The Book of the Sheep) and Kitab Khalaq al-Insan (The Book of Humanity). He also provides detailed information on human Anatomy.

Ala-al-din abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi-Hazm al-Qarshi al-Dimashqi (Arabic: علاء الدين أبو الحسن عليّ بن أبي حزم القرشي الدمشقي ), known as Ibn al-Nafis (Arabic: ابن النفيس ), was an Arab physician who is mostly famous for being the first to describe the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

He was born in 1213 in Damascus. He attended the Medical College Hospital (Bimaristan Al-Noori) in Damascus. Apart from medicine, Ibn al-Nafis learned jurisprudence, literature and theology. He became an expert on the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence and an expert physician.

His book on ophthalmology is largely an original contribution. His most famous book is The Summary of Law (Mujaz al-Qanun). Another famous book, embodying his original contribution, was on the effects of diet on health, entitled Kitab al-Mukhtar fi al-Aghdhiya.

His Al-Risalah al-Kamiliyyah fil Siera al-Nabawiyyah, translated in the West under the title Theologus Autodidactus, has been argued to be both the first theological novel and the first science fiction novel.


Ala Al-Din Abu'l-Hasan Ali Ibn Ibrahim Ibn al-Shatir (1304 – 1375) (Arabic: ابن الشاطر‎) was an Arab Muslim astronomer, mathematician, engineer and inventor who worked as muwaqqit (موقت, religious timekeeper) at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Syria.

Ibn al-Shatir constructed a magnificent sundial for the minaret of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus which gave both seasonal and equinoctial hours.[15] The fragments of this sundial in a Damascus museum make this the oldest polar-axis sundial still in existence.[16]
Time keeping device

He devised a timekeeping device incorporating both a universal sundial and a magnetic compass.[17]
Compendium

The compendium, a multi-purpose astronomical instrument, was first constructed by Ibn al-Shatir. His compendium featured an alhidade and polar sundial among other things. These compendia later became popular in Renaissance Europe.[18]
Universal instrument

Ibn al-Shatir described another astronomical instrument which he called the "universal instrument" in his Rays of light on operations with the universal instrument (al-ʾashiʿʿa al-lāmiʿa fī al-ʿamal bi-l-āla al-jāmiʿa). A commentary on this work entitled Book of Ripe Fruits from Clusters of Universal Instrument (Kitāb al-thimār al-yāni'a ʿan qutāf al-āla al-jāmiʿa) was later written by the Ottoman astronomer and engineer Taqi al-Din, who employed the instrument at the Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din from 1577-1580


Abu'l Hasan Ahmad ibn Ibrahim Al-Uqlidisi was an Arab mathematician who was active in Damascus[1] and Baghdad.[2] As his surname indicates, he was a copyist of Euclid's works. He wrote the earliest surviving book on the positional use of the Arabic numerals, Kitab al-Fusul fi al-Hisab al-Hindi (The Arithemetics of Al-Uqlidisi) around 952.[3] It is especially notable for its treatment of decimal fractions, and that it showed how to carry out calculations without deletions.

While the Persian mathematician Jamshīd al-Kāshī claimed to have discovered decimal fractions himself in the 15th century, J. Lennart Berggrenn notes that he was mistaken, as decimal fractions were first used five centuries before him by al-Uqlidisi as early as the 10th century

Al-ʿAbbās ibn Saʿid al-Jawharī (c. 800 Baghdad? – c. 860 Baghdad?) was a geometer who worked at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad and for in a short time in Damascus where he made astronomical observations. His most important work was his Commentary on Euclid's Elements which contained nearly 50 additional propositions and an attempted proof of the parallel postulate.

Ahmad ibn Mājid (Arabic: أحمد بن ماجد‎), was an Arab navigator and cartographer born in 1421 in Julphar, which is now known as Ras Al Khaimah. This city makes up one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates, but at that time it was classified as the coast of Oman. He was raised with a family famous for seafaring; at the age of 17 he was able to navigate ships.

His most important work was Kitab al-Fawa’id fi Usul ‘Ilm al-Bahr wa ’l-Qawa’id (Book of Useful Information on the Principles and Rules of Navigation), written in 1490. It is a navigation encyclopedia, describing the history and basic principles of navigation, lunar mansions, rhumb lines, the difference between coastal and open-sea sailing, the locations of ports from East Africa to Indonesia, star positions, accounts of the monsoon and other seasonal winds, typhoons and other topics for professional navigators. He drew from his own experience and that of his father, also a famous navigator, and the lore of generations of Indian Ocean sailors.

Bin Majid wrote several books on marine science and the movements of ships, which helped people of the Persian Gulf to reach the coasts of India, East Africa and other destinations. Among his many books on oceanography, the Fawa'dh fi-Usl Ilm al-Bahrwa-al-Qawaidah (The Book of the Benefits of the Principles of Seamanship) is considered as one of his best.



Muwaffaq al-Din Muhammad 'Abd al-Latif ibn Yusuf al-Baghdadi (Arabic: موفق الدين محمد عبد اللطيف بن يوسف البغدادي‎; 1162–1231), more commonly known as 'Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi or 'Abdallatif al-Baghdadi (Arabic: عبداللطيف البغدادي‎), born in Baghdad, Iraq, was a celebrated physician, historian, Egyptologist and traveller, and one of the most voluminous writers of the Near East in his time.

Al-Mukhtarat fi al-Tibb

Al-Baghdadi's Mukhtarat fi al-Tibb was one of the earliest works on hirudotherapy. He introduced a more modern use for medicinal leech, stating that leech could be used for cleaning the tissues after surgical operations. He did, however, understand that there is a risk over using leech, and advised patients that leech need to be cleaned before being used and that the dirt or dust "clinging to a leech should be wiped off" before application. He further writes that after the leech has sucked out the blood, salt should be "sprinkled on the affected part of the human body."

Al-Baghdadi was also the author of a major book dealing with diabetes


Modern times

Hasan Kamel Al-Sabbah (حسن كامل الصباح) sometimes referred to as Camil A. Sabbah, (August 16, 1895 - March 31, 1935) was an electrical and electronics research engineer, mathematician and inventor. He was born in Nabatieh, Lebanon. He studied at the American University of Beirut. He taught mathematics at Imperial College of Damascus, Syria, and at the American University of Beirut. He died in an automobile accident at Lewis near Elizabeth Town, N.Y.In 1921, he travelled to the United States and for a short time studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before joining the University of Illinois in 1923. He entered the vacuum tube section of the Engineering Laboratory of the General Electric Company at Schenectady N.Y. in 1923 where he was engaged in mathematical and experimental research, principally on rectifiers and inverters and he received 43 patents covering his work. Among the patents were reported innovations in television transmission.

They sure stole their works. There is even more than those I mentioned :thumb001::thumb001: Moorish Spain was known as the Jewel of Europe due to his advanced culture and civilization.

Well Baghdad was :I n about 762 A.D., the Abbasid dynasty took over rule of the vast Muslim world and moved the capital to the newly-founded city of Baghdad. Over the next five centuries, the city would become the world's center of education and culture. This period of glory has become known as the "Golden Age" of Islamic civilization, when scholars of the Muslim world made important contributions in both the sciences and humanities: medicine, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, literature, and more. Under Abbasid rule, Baghdad became a city of museums, hospitals, libraries, and mosques. (Check out the links to the right for the Baghdad Photo Gallery, which has pictures of some of these great monuments.)

Most of the famous Muslim scholars from the 9th to 13th centuries had their educational roots in Baghdad. One of the most famous centers of learning was Bayt al-Hikmah (the House of Wisdom), which attracted scholars from all over the world, from many cultures and religions. Here, teachers and students worked together to translate Greek manuscripts, preserving them for all time. They studied the works of Aristotle, Plato, Hippocrates, Euclid, and Pythagoras. The House of Wisdom was home to, among others, the most famous mathematician of the time: Al-Khawarizmi, the "father" of algebra (which is named after his book "Kitab al-Jabr").

While Europe festered in the Dark Ages, Baghdad was thus at the heart of a vibrant and diverse civilization. It was known as the world's richest and most intellectual city of the time, and was second in size only to Constantinople.

Thank you and have a good day. You should really study real history.

Talvi
10-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Well In all honesty there are a lot of things people think come from Arabs but they actually dont. And a lot of what their maths and astronomy is is based on that of India. Just like "Arabian numbers" are actually sanskrit.

Pecheneg
10-12-2012, 03:06 PM
Real turks are from Altai mountains so related to mongolians.
Now you answer the question,to whom are mongolians more closed,to europeans or to arabs,lol.
If you are refering to the actual population of Turkey for me is clear they are europeans.

wtf is "real Turks"?
Is it so hard to accept that there is no pure race? and Turkic peoples were not sedentary, there are Turkic speaking peoples from pacific ocean to adriatic sea. yea first Turks were probably strongly mongoloid, but today, most of the Turkic speaking populations are pred. caucasoid. get over it.

btw
Most europeans have nothing to do with original indo-european ar1an nomads but 99% of europe are indo-european speakers. does it ring any bell in your head???

Prince Carlo
10-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Turks are just Levantines mixed with Central Asians and Greeks.

Pecheneg
10-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Turks are just Levantines mixed with Central Asians and Greeks.
you forgot to add yemenites and nigerians, you know...there were also yemenites and nigerians in asia minor together with levantines.

StonyArabia
10-12-2012, 03:14 PM
Well In all honesty there are a lot of things people think come from Arabs but they actually dont. And a lot of what their maths and astronomy is is based on that of India. Just like "Arabian numbers" are actually sanskrit.

There has been influences from other civilization, and the Arabs advanced upon them. That's true, but to say they did not invent anything or stole it is frankly not insult to the Arabs, but rather to history. Yes the Arab numbers came from India, but their evolution was done by the Arabs, who introduced it to the Europeans via trade and what not. It's basically what they did in the past they take and advance upon the works of others. For example many advancements were not possible if they did not translate the Greco-Roman works, that were being burned and destroyed. However I posted a list of Arab scholars and scientists but that's only some of them, and there also has been many inventors that were of Arab origins, and some are relatively in modern times as well. These areas were the most advanced during that time Baghdad Arabia, Moorish Spain, Persia, and Islamic India(Sindh).

The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825 in Arabic, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, "On the Use of the Indian Numerals" (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830. Their work was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle East and the West.[10] In the 10th century, Middle-Eastern mathematicians extended the decimal numeral system to include fractions, as recorded in a treatise by Syrian mathematician Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi in 952–953. The decimal point notation was introduced by Sind ibn Ali, he also wrote the earliest treatise on Arabic numerals.

A distinctive West Arabic variant of the symbols begins to emerge around the 10th century in the Maghreb and Al-Andalus, called ghubar ("sand-table" or "dust-table") numerals, which are the direct ancestor of the modern Western Arabic numerals used throughout the world. Ghubar numerals themselves are probably of Roman origins.

Prince Carlo
10-12-2012, 03:23 PM
you forgot to add yemenites and nigerians, you know...there were also yemenites and nigerians in asia minor together with levantines.

Modern Levantines are African shifted.

Onur
10-12-2012, 03:25 PM
We are neither europeans nor arabs. We are just turks with a unique Eurasian culture.Turks have nothing to do with arabs except for Islam.
This is the truth.

If we are related with Arabs just because majority of us are muslims, then Albanians and Bosnians should be considered as Arab relatives too. All the christians of Europe should also be relatives of Jews of Palestine since Jesus was from there. I just said that to point out how ridicules to connect religions with ethnos.


Imho, Turks are neither Europeans nor Arabs but i can say that culturally we are more closer to Europe than Arabs. We absolutely have no relation with Arabs except ruling upon them for few centuries before WW-1.

StonyArabia
10-12-2012, 03:27 PM
Modern Levantines are African shifted.

So are Italians and Iberians, in the latter it's more especially the Portuguese.

Gaijin
10-12-2012, 03:47 PM
I voted none.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7115/7615638790_a62b8a7b3b_b.jpg

Hayalet
10-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Turks are just Levantines mixed with Central Asians and Greeks.
Hodoğlugil & Mahley 2012

http://imageshack.us/a/img90/4917/abcdg.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img266/7542/globali.png

Fst distances of Turks:

Adygei 0.004
Tuscan 0.004
Italian 0.005
French 0.006
Palestinian 0.007
Druze 0.008
Russian 0.010
Bedouin 0.011
Orcadian 0.011
Basque 0.014
Sardinian 0.013
Mozabite 0.027

Incal
10-12-2012, 04:40 PM
Arabs have a different civilisation ,they love indoors ,their cities were built like labirinths ,they are calm, laidback ,they are sedantery.,they are good traders ..They are people of words poetry.

:eek: For real? We must be speaking about different arabs then. Arabs are some of the most violent and aggressive people in the world. That's why the Middle East has always been an unstable zone and these days resembles a powder keg.

ficuscarica
10-12-2012, 05:01 PM
CircassianWine, you admitted what I wanted to say: they took the achievements of others, improved them a bit, and then tried to look like they were great inventors. It is not particularly impressive to attack dying empires with fanatic and aggressive armies and then steal their knowledge.

The early Arab cities had the advantage of being located in open land near river streams, which made development easy, because the open land with the big rivers provided irrogated farmland. Germany on the other hand was full of dense forests back then. It took a lot of time to transform the woodland into farmland and thus create the fundament for an advanced society. Once this was achieved the ability to truly invent - and not just steal inventions - paid out.

Prince Carlo
10-12-2012, 05:59 PM
Hodoğlugil & Mahley 2012

http://imageshack.us/a/img90/4917/abcdg.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img266/7542/globali.png

Fst distances of Turks:

Adygei 0.004
Tuscan 0.004
Italian 0.005
French 0.006
Palestinian 0.007
Druze 0.008
Russian 0.010
Bedouin 0.011
Orcadian 0.011
Basque 0.014
Sardinian 0.013
Mozabite 0.027


Modern Levantines are African shifted.

Hmmm.

Sophie
10-12-2012, 06:10 PM
Baghdad/Iraq was not "Arab" at that time. The inhabitants of the land were Persians, hence the Persian names of both the city and country.


Ibn Khaldun, medieval Tunisian chronicler/historiographer of Arab descent noted:


As Ibn Khaldun suggests, it is a remarkable fact that with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs:
"Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture.


Source: Muqaddimah, Translated by Franz Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye (p.91).

Siberian Cold Breeze
10-12-2012, 10:28 PM
:eek: For real? We must be speaking about different arabs then. Arabs are some of the most violent and aggressive people in the world. That's why the Middle East has always been an unstable zone and these days resembles a powder keg.


That must be Beduin tribes ..they are different

Did you see an Arab city? I probably would get lost in those narrow streets like coridors or mazes..or tunnels I don't think a Turk likes that kind of environment ,can't see the sky ..rather clostrophic ..we have never been a fan of walls ..

Also i dont know if its a mediterranean thing or sedantery but we usually eat quickly and leave the table unlike our regional neighbores ..Spending lots of time on table is not a typical of us

I have a strange feeling that our people has a weird obsession with constructions..After leaving nomadic life but our new challange is building..You can see in the streets people watch construction process mesmerised for hours ,like they are watching a bloody ritual ,earth is digged by giant machines ,big hole on the groud like bowels of mother earth is open ,an eerie feeling from our anchestral subconsious,we used to avoid stabbing pegs when we were building our tents..It s like we are breaking a taboo..and lots of these earthquakes ,towers ,skyskrapers in cities ...mother earth is sending us,her children , these calamities because we are now hurting her ...all these construction companies ...
Like irony of fate

Talvi
10-13-2012, 12:46 AM
Also i dont know if its a mediterranean thing or sedantery but we usually eat quickly and leave the table unlike our regional neighbores ..Spending lots of time on table is not a typical of us



I feel like Turks spend a lot of time behind the table! After dinner you also want to drink that tea and have a smoke etc... all of that takes time!

Siberian Cold Breeze
10-13-2012, 01:03 AM
I feel like Turks spend a lot of time behind the table! After dinner you also want to drink that tea and have a smoke etc... all of that takes time!

This observation is not made by me I read this on different sources that we just eat and go..We need a survey about this.

May be it changes region to region ..My mother is from İzmir she is more adopted to mediaterannean seaside lifestyle and i remember when my auntie, grandma comes breakfasts were turning brunches with too much talk ,tea cofee etc ,my father is from Eastern Anatolia ,he eats like the is pursued by hordes lol..and coffe-tea comes after dinner not on dinner table..I guess spending more time on tables a later adopted habit in cosmopolit cities like İzmir or in Konaks (mansion)


Actually in rural areas people just eat not much talking ,have tea coffee conversation at village coffes etc..also I guess Anatolian low dining tables are not suitable for long feasts..

Besides food changes too from region to region.Aegean/Marmara people eats more vegetable and these vegetables are more varied (artichoke ,lots of edible plants ,even moss) and olive oil , seafood ,milk deserts

Middle and East Anatolian food is mostly dairy products ,home made flatbread ,bulgur (cracked wheat ),meat (not abundant in East Anatolia) ,home made makaroni (erişte-kind of noodles,mantı-dumplings ) soups ,beans, lentils ,dried food ,pickles ,molasses pekmez ..etc ..
Blacksea cost -corn bread and anchivory fish ,In Southeast Anatolia food are more spicy and deserts are more sweet with syrup.Thracian region food is similar to Balkan ,pastries ,awesome milk products ..briefly

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/6476/filesrm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/filesrm.jpg/)

thin flatbread

Talvi
10-13-2012, 04:52 PM
This observation is not made by me I read this on different sources that we just eat and go..We need a survey about this.

May be it changes region to region ..My mother is from İzmir she is more adopted to mediaterannean seaside lifestyle and i remember when my auntie, grandma comes breakfasts were turning brunches with too much talk ,tea cofee etc ,my father is from Eastern Anatolia ,he eats like the is pursued by hordes lol..and coffe-tea comes after dinner not on dinner table..I guess spending more time on tables a later adopted habit in cosmopolit cities like İzmir or in Konaks (mansion)


Actually in rural areas people just eat not much talking ,have tea coffee conversation at village coffes etc..also I guess Anatolian low dining tables are not suitable for long feasts..

Besides food changes too from region to region.Aegean/Marmara people eats more vegetable and these vegetables are more varied (artichoke ,lots of edible plants ,even moss) and olive oil , seafood ,milk deserts

Middle and East Anatolian food is mostly dairy products ,home made flatbread ,bulgur (cracked wheat ),meat (not abundant in East Anatolia) ,home made makaroni (erişte-kind of noodles,mantı-dumplings ) soups ,beans, lentils ,dried food ,pickles ,molasses pekmez ..etc ..
Blacksea cost -corn bread and anchivory fish ,In Southeast Anatolia food are more spicy and deserts are more sweet with syrup.Thracian region food is similar to Balkan ,pastries ,awesome milk products ..briefly

http://imageshack.us/a/img854/6476/filesrm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/filesrm.jpg/)

thin flatbread

Ah, yeah... I guess my impression is mostly from families in Izmir. Long mornings with different breads with cheeses and honey and then tea or coffee and a smoke.


I saw this flatbread made when I was in.. Seven Sleepers.

Su
10-13-2012, 05:13 PM
Since we were talking about Turkish breakfast:

The very basic one (sucuk, kasar etc. are missing):
http://www.turkishcookbook.com/images/KlasikTurkKahvaltisi.jpg

Looks a bit richer:

http://galeri.uludagsozluk.com/18/kahvalt%C4%B1_4835.jpg

This is one of the best Turkish breakfasts:
http://media.sondevir.com/250x190/2012/03/16/kahvalti.jpg

I am half Central Anatolian and half Mediterranean Turk and if we got a "traditional" breakfast then we got following things on the breakfast table:

1) White cheese,
2) Yellow - kasar cheese,
3) Butter,
4) Black olives in olive oil,
5) Salami OR pastirma,
6) Fried sucuk with eggs or just friend eggs or boiled eggs,
7) If there is no option 6 then we batter pieces of white bread into an egg + milk mixture and fry them
8) If there is no option 6 and 7 then we mix eggs with grated potatoes and fry them as a big potato omelette
9) If there is no option 8 then we fry potatoes + peppers
10) Sliced tomatoes + cucumbers + spring onions + peppers
11) Baked or fried pastries
12) Honey
13) Jam, usually strawberry
14) Olive paste
15) A sort of bread

So basically at least 13 different things you got on the table :thumb001:

And if the breakfast table is full of people then it takes a while till everyone is finished etc. Maybe 30 min?

And of course all of us drink black tea.

safinator
08-05-2013, 08:46 AM
Probably none of them.

Sikeliot
08-05-2013, 04:40 PM
Europeans. Believe it or not there is not much similar between Turkey and Arab countries other than food and music. Culturally, linguistically, appearance wise I think they are closer to the Balkans.

StonyArabia
08-05-2013, 04:43 PM
Europeans. Believe it or not there is not much similar between Turkey and Arab countries other than food and music. Culturally, linguistically, appearance wise I think they are closer to the Balkans.

The only share that with the Levant. They certainly don't share much of the food, music, and other cultural elements with Arabia at all. Genetically they are much closer to Europeans, than to Arabians as well. It depends on what kind of Arabs you are speaking of as well.

Smaug
08-05-2013, 04:44 PM
Europeans.

Kiyant
08-05-2013, 04:58 PM
Europeans or none except religion turks have nothing to do with arabs.

Baldur
08-05-2013, 05:05 PM
Europeans.

Earl Robert
08-05-2013, 05:09 PM
I voted "Arabs", but could be swayed depending on what the "other" category consists of...Turks have substantial differences to them, this is obvious in their appearance. I do not just take appearance into consideration either. Appearance is only one part of ethnicity, culture is the other.

My jaw is literally dropping in disbelief, seeing people saying Turks are European.

Turkey's minister to the EUSSR, a good example: http://en.trend.az/article_photo/2011/03/05/Egemen_Bagis.jpg

gregorius
08-05-2013, 05:12 PM
euro or none, def not arabs

Kiyant
08-05-2013, 05:14 PM
I voted "Arabs", but could be swayed depending on what the "other" category consists of...Turks have substantial differences to them, this is obvious in their appearance. I do not just take appearance into consideration either. Appearance is only one part of ethnicity, culture is the other.

My jaw is literally dropping in disbelief, seeing people saying Turks are European.

Turkey's minister to the EUSSR, a good example: http://en.trend.az/article_photo/2011/03/05/Egemen_Bagis.jpg

The poll is who are they closer to not if they are european.

Earl Robert
08-05-2013, 05:16 PM
The poll is who are they closer to not if they are european.

I was more reacting to the above comments, where I got a different impression.

Smeagol
08-07-2013, 02:12 AM
Turks aren't European, but they're clearly closer to Europeans than Arabs.

wvwvw
08-07-2013, 08:47 AM
Only a fraction of Turks is closer to Europeans, 90% of them are very close to Arabs. Until 1920, "Turkey" was a theocracy ruled by the Quran, wrote with Arabic script, harems were widespread, slaves from Africa etc. Kemalism is no different than Saddamism, a very brutal ideology that is akin to fascism and Nazism. Genetically they are also closer to Iranians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and the like.

Kiyant
08-07-2013, 08:48 AM
Only a fraction of Turks is closer to Europeans, 90% of them are very close to Arabs. Until 1920, "Turkey" was a theocracy ruled by the Quran, wrote with Arabic script, harems were widespread, slaves from Africa etc. Kemalism is no different than Saddamism, a very brutal ideology that is akin to fascism and Nazism. Genetically they are also closer to Iranians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and the like.
Totally not biased because you are greek.......

Pleurat
08-07-2013, 08:49 AM
Only a fraction of Turks is closer to Europeans, 90% of them are very close to Arabs. Until 1920, "Turkey" was a theocracy ruled by the Quran, wrote with Arabic script, harems were widespread, slaves from Africa etc. Kemalism is no different than Saddamism, a very brutal ideology that is akin to fascism and Nazism. Genetically they are also closer to Iranians, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and the like.


We are talking here about genetics and sub-races.