Turks (Turkey) vs Central Asians: who's more Turkic?

[Böri]

The global perception and prejudice wouldn't discuss this and would directly say: Central Asians. Central Asians (in their current form) are even considered as forerunners of Turks.
However, that's all wrong.

Turks are actually more Turkic than Central Asian Turkic-speaking nations.
The reason for this that's simple above all.
Turks were always ruled by Turkic dynasties over history: The Göktürks, the Khazars, the Seljuks (who came from west Kazakhstan), the Anatolian Turcoman Lords (beyliks) and the Ottomans who were one of those beyliks.
Central Asians weren't always ruled by Turks. Actually after the 13th century, they got Mongolic Genghis Khan rulers ruling over them.

Central Asia is often considered as original homeland of Turks, which is also wrong. Originally central Asia was home to neolitic farmers from India, who later were assimilated linguistically by Iranian invaders. Then Turks came cleansed the Iranic ruling classes.

Proto-Turks were south Siberian semi-nomadic herders and cattle breeders known for their expertise in working iron, blacksmith.

The perceived patronage of Central Asians in our identity is overrated. They aren't more or not even equally Turkic as us.

[Bosniensis]

White vs Black

Which of these two colors are more White?

[Böri]

White vs Black

Which of these two colors are more White?

That's not difficult to understand. It's like Muslim Serbs (for example you) aren't Bosniaks.

[Bosniensis]

That's not difficult to understand. It's like Muslim Serbs (for example you) aren't Bosniaks.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/5cc6bebf.jpg

[Taiji]

It really depends on the context of "turkic". Central asians like mongols, kazaks, kyrgyz have more in common with east siberians and other tungusic groups than any turkish person though while the latter are closer to arabs and other MENAs than most central asians further east.

[Kamal900]

Central Asians of course.

[Gangrel]

OCAD

[Rumata]

Is OP afraid to add a poll???

[Bornoz]

It really depends on the context of "turkic". Central asians like mongols, kazaks, kyrgyz have more in common with east siberians and other tungusic groups than any turkish person though while the latter are closer to arabs and other MENAs than most central asians further east.

Why spesificly MENAs? I can understand Middle Easterns till a point but what is connection of North Africans?

[Taiji]

Why spesificly MENAs? I can understand Middle Easterns till a point but what is connection of North Africans?
I just feel that middle easterners, levantines, arabs, iranians/iraqis, semitics are all very similar people and closely related. To me north africans and middle easterners are one and the same.

[Bornoz]

I just feel that middle easterners, levantines, arabs, iranians/iraqis, semitics are all very similar people and closely related. To me north africans and middle easterners are one and the same.

I don't feel connected to any of these groups that you mentionned other than Iranians.

[Taiji]

I don't feel connected to any of these groups that you mentionned other than Iranians.Is it a cultural disconnect or a racial one? Obviously there was some cultural exchanges since biblical times maybe.

[Bornoz]

Is it a cultural disconnect or a racial one? Obviously there was some cultural exchanges since biblical times maybe.

Actually both for me.
Other than that I can't deny cultural exchange of course but a similiar excange was made with France too. So calling Turkey as ''Middle East'' is like reducing something so complex to something so simple.

[Taiji]

Actually both for me.
Other than that I can't deny cultural exchange of course but a similiar excange was made with France too. So calling Turkey as ''Middle East'' is like reducing something so complex to something so simple.
Fair enough. I brought up the connection as a comparison. Many kazaks and kyrgyz resemble evenks, yakuts, mongols, chukchi and the peoples of siberia on one spectrum. I guess I was putting Turkey closer to the other spectrum. West asia and far north east asia/siberia.

[Bornoz]

Fair enough. I brought up the connection as a comparison. Many kazaks and kyrgyz resemble evenks, yakuts, mongols, chukchi and the peoples of siberia on one spectrum. I guess I was putting Turkey closer to the other spectrum. West asia and far north east asia/siberia.

That is also something that I can't deny but I prefer to be comparised with Greeks, Armenians, Georgians than to be comparised with Arabs.

[Böri]

We talk about ethnic Turks here btw. Kurds are of course anyway closer to Assyrians, Armenians, Persians and North Arabs.


Is OP afraid to add a poll???

Can’t you read? Already stated that common prejudice says Central Asians. However that’s wrong since for 5 centuries they were ruled by Mongols, then also absorbed into Russian empire. That makes them lesser Turkic. For Turks, this was never case except some decades of chaos when Mongols pushed until Eastern and Central Turkey in 1270s.
But Mongols never physically ruled Turkomans in Western, Northern Turkey.

Turks were under (chronological order):
Göktürk
Khazar
Seljuk
Beyliks (Turkic princeps in Anatolia)
Ottoman
Republic of Turkey

Since we are they who were ALWAYS ruled by our people, Turkic dynasties and princeps/states, thus we are more Turkic than them.

[Rumata]

Can’t you read?

I can read, but I don't care to. No poll? Fine :D

[Bornoz]

We talk about ethnic Turks here btw. Kurds are of course anyway closer to Assyrians, Armenians, Persians and North Arabs.





We were also talking about ethnic Turks here. Who mentioned Kurds?

[Vlatko Vukovic]

12 points from Bosnia go to Central Asians. In my opinion, they're more Turkic in any case. Turkey is country of many assimilated Armenians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Anadolian Greeks etc.

[Aren]

Proto-Turks were pure(or close to) Siberians so neither Central Asians or Anatolian Turks are close to them.

[Böri]

12 points from Bosnia go to Central Asians. In my opinion, they're more Turkic in any case. Turkey is country of many assimilated Armenians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Anadolian Greeks etc.

In case you didn’t know in Turkey there are communities of Georgians, Muslim Armenians, Pomaks (Muslim Bulgarians) and distinct from Turks.
Historical state continuity... Turks are more Turkic than any Central Asians since those lived under Mongols and Russians unlike Turks...

[Yaglakar]

I understand that this a folk-history oriented forum (also retarded physical anthropology discussions), with ideas like Taiji's (Sino-Tibetan?) being propogated. He is your pal in this regard Bori.


Turks are actually more Turkic than Central Asian Turkic-speaking nations.

Ok


Turks were always ruled by Turkic dynasties over history: The Göktürks, the Khazars, the Seljuks (who came from west Kazakhstan), the Anatolian Turcoman Lords (beyliks) and the Ottomans who were one of those beyliks.
Central Asians weren't always ruled by Turks. Actually after the 13th century, they got Mongolic Genghis Khan rulers ruling over them.

Göktürks and Khazars are not related to Turks of Turkey. They are DEAD groups with no continuation among any Turkic speaking groups. Aral/Caspian Oghuz branch helped Kievan Rus to topple down Khazars.


Central Asians weren't always ruled by Turks. Actually after the 13th century, they got Mongolic Genghis Khan rulers ruling over them.

Mongolia has always been the center of steppe nomadic power, Turkomans of Anatolia were too far from the centrifugal forces that engulfed Eurasia. Mongols have proven that they are much more capable fighters than any Turkic group in history. It's not as if Anatolian Turks have defeated Mongol tumens. Plus, it was not only the Mongols, numerous Turkic groups have joined the Mongols in the onslaught. For many Turks it was a joint venture. Futhermore, Mongols that remained in Mongolia were just as well Turkified (30% of Turkic loan words - today's Mongolian language)


Central Asia is often considered as original homeland of Turks, which is also wrong. Originally central Asia was home to neolitic farmers from India, who later were assimilated linguistically by Iranian invaders. Then Turks came cleansed the Iranic ruling classes.

Were original Turkic speaking groups white, mixed, largely Mongoloid? I have the impression that you believe that Xiongnu and likes of them were largely Caucasoid, am I right?


Proto-Turks were south Siberian semi-nomadic herders and cattle breeders known for their expertise in working iron, blacksmith.

These are Türks not proto-Turks, DEAD people with no modern descendants and no continuity. By the way, Türks were vassals of proto-Mongols paying tribute in the form of iron crafted items (they were blacksmith) before their ascendance.


The perceived patronage of Central Asians in our identity is overrated. They aren't more or not even equally Turkic as us.

Ok

[Böri]

Mongols proved more warlike than Turks? and that last for how long? Not even 1 century, they were culturally assimilated into Buddhists, Muslims etc.
Oğuz Turcoman groups of Western Turkey and the Yakuts of Siberia were the only 2 Turkic groups which could escape the Mongol domination during 13th century.

Central Asian Turkic-speakers were all dominated by Mongols, just as groups in Russia or Iran.

[Böri]

I understand that this a folk-history oriented forum (also retarded physical anthropology discussions), with ideas like Taiji's (Sino-Tibetan?) being propogated. He is your pal in this regard Bori.



Ok



Göktürks and Khazars are not related to Turks of Turkey. They are DEAD groups with no continuation among any Turkic speaking groups. Aral/Caspian Oghuz branch helped Kievan Rus to topple down Khazars.

Göktürks were related with us. Khazars were Oğuric like Bulgars. Turks/Oğuzes lived inside Khazaria. It was a Turkic Khaganate, not Mongolic or Slavic. The last Jew Khazar, Joseph khagan has letter. Where he tells to fellow Sepharadic Jew from Spain that he is not from the lost tribe of Israel (what the Sepharadic wanted to hear) but Khazar.
He tells he is not Semitic but Japhetic and Turkic and naming Oğuz among his old ancestors' brother.




Mongolia has always been the center of steppe nomadic power, Turkomans of Anatolia were too far from the centrifugal forces that engulfed Eurasia. Mongols have proven that they are much more capable fighters than any Turkic group in history. It's not as if Anatolian Turks have defeated Mongol tumens. Plus, it was not only the Mongols, numerous Turkic groups have joined the Mongols in the onslaught. For many Turks it was a joint venture. Futhermore, Mongols that remained in Mongolia were just as well Turkified (30% of Turkic loan words - today's Mongolian language)


Yes Turks and Mongols lived next to each other once upon a time.
Mongols were subjugated by Göktürks after the slaughtering of the proto-Mongol Rourans by the Blacksmith Türks.



These are Türks not proto-Turks, DEAD people with no modern descendants and no continuity. By the way, Türks were vassals of proto-Mongols paying tribute in the form of iron crafted items (they were blacksmith) before their ascendance.



Ok

How are they dead? Göktürks live in us.
After the devastating civil war, there were eastern Türks and western Türks (Tardu).
We are the people of Tardu, so Western Türks who turned first Turgish then we were called Oğuz.
We are the same people.

[Yaglakar]

Mongols proved more warlike than Turks? and that last for how long? Not even 1 century, they were culturally assimilated into Buddhists, Muslims etc.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif/500px-Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif

There are no Turkic equivalents to Mongol expansion. It is simple as that.


Oğuz Turcoman groups of Western Turkey and the Yakuts of Siberia were the only 2 Turkic groups which could escape the Mongol domination during 13th century. Central Asian Turkic-speakers were all dominated by Mongols, just as groups in Russia or Iran.

Initial Mongol expansion, Desh-i-Kipchak and Khwarezm - Karluks, Qocho Uighurs, Yenisei Kirghiz (Khakass, Shor) and Altain groups joined Genghis Khan.

https://i.imgur.com/xlqipUh.png
Chris Peers. 2015. Genghis Khan and the Mongol War Machine. Pen and Sword. page 200

https://i.imgur.com/dOtwyT7.png
Michael C. Brose. 2006. Subjects and Masters: Uyghurs in the Mongol Empire. Western Washington Univ Center. page 76

In many ways Mongol empire manifested as a Turko-Mongol symbiosis.

[Cristiano viejo]

REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha

[Marmara]

REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha REAL MADRID WINNER OF EUROLEAGUE 2018, hahaha

You made me laugh the moment i saw you commented on this thread xD

[Böri]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif/500px-Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif

There are no Turkic equivalents to Mongol expansion. It is simple as that.



Initial Mongol expansion, Desh-i-Kipchak and Khwarezm - Karluks, Qocho Uighurs, Yenisei Kirghiz (Khakass, Shor) and Altain groups joined Genghis Khan.

https://i.imgur.com/xlqipUh.png
Chris Peers. 2015. Genghis Khan and the Mongol War Machine. Pen and Sword. page 200

https://i.imgur.com/dOtwyT7.png
Michael C. Brose. 2006. Subjects and Masters: Uyghurs in the Mongol Empire. Western Washington Univ Center. page 76

In many ways Mongol empire manifested as a Turko-Mongol symbiosis.

Rule doesn't accept dualship. The state was Mongolic not Turkic. Later Mongols faded away as they were Sinicized (Yuan) in the east and Islamicized and Turkified (sometimes even Persianized like Hazara) in the western parts. So Mongols have been like a fire sparking strongly in the 13th century and then extinguishing forever. Turkic states were longer lasting and leaving marks onto natives, instead of assimilating into them (like Mongols did).

[Yaglakar]

Göktürks were related with us. Khazars were Oğuric like Bulgars. Turks/Oğuzes lived inside Khazaria. It was a Turkic Khaganate, not Mongolic or Slavic. The last Jew Khazar, Joseph khagan has letter. Where he tells to fellow Sepharadic Jew from Spain that he is not from the lost tribe of Israel (what the Sepharadic wanted to hear) but Khazar.
He tells he is not Semitic but Japhetic and Turkic and naming Oğuz among his old ancestors' brother.

I already told you, the Oghuz referred to in letters and correspondences is not necessarily about Aral/Caspian Oghuz. Oghuz is a very common denomination in early Turkic medieval history. Oghuz Turks of western Kazakhstan worked together with Rus to topple down Khazars. This is a historical fact.


Yes Turks and Mongols lived next to each other once upon a time. Mongols were subjugated by Göktürks after the slaughtering of the proto-Mongol Rourans by the Blacksmith Türks.How are they dead? Göktürks live in us.
After the devastating civil war, there were eastern Türks and western Türks (Tardu). We are the people of Tardu, so Western Türks who turned first Turgish then we were called Oğuz.
We are the same people.

If you are Türks why don't you speak Türk language? Are there records of language shift? Türk language is dead and was replaced by Oghuz language as evident in Tonyukuk inscriptions. Türks were slaughtered in Mongolia. Closest modern real Oghuz language is Tuvan (minus Mongolisms), but it is a Oghuz derivative not Türk one. Differences are very few but linguists recognize them, as they recognize a language shift.

You need to provide sources that allegedly claim Turugesh suddenly started to call themselves Oghuz.

Türk is in fact an exoethnonym applied by Arabs, Persians and Greeks to the rest of Turkic speaking groups, who were not necessarily Türks. Eventually Turkic speaking groups adopted name Turk.

[brennus dux gallorum]

Central Asians

With the exception of turkmens who assimilated native Persians as late as 14-15th century the rest are pure turkic

[Böri]

I already told you, the Oghuz referred to in letters and correspondences is not necessarily about Aral/Caspian Oghuz. Oghuz is a very common denomination in early Turkic medieval history. Oghuz Turks of western Kazakhstan worked together with Rus to topple down Khazars. This is a historical fact.



If you are Türks why don't you speak Türk language? Are there records of language shift? Türk language is dead and was replaced by Oghuz language as evident in Tonyukuk inscriptions. Türks were slaughtered in Mongolia. Closest modern real Oghuz language is Tuvan (minus Mongolisms), but it is a Oghuz derivative not Türk one. Differences are very few but linguists recognize them, as they recognize a language shift.

You need to provide sources that allegedly claim Turugesh suddenly started to call themselves Oghuz.

Türk is in fact an exoethnonym applied by Arabs, Persians and Greeks to the rest of Turkic speaking groups, who were not necessarily Türks. Eventually Turkic speaking groups adopted name Turk.

Yes Oğuz and Pechenegs rebelled to take down the Judaicized Khazar ruling class. Alliance was sealed with Svyatolslav (and later Vlodimir) of Rus'. What has this to do with subject and my claim?
Khazars were Turkic? Yes.
Did Oğuz Turks lived inside Khazar khaganate? Yes.

Khazar khaganate is represented in Turkish Republic's presidential seal, with one of the 16 stars representing Turkic Khazars

We have not been ruled by Mongols. Descent of Genghis Khan never ruled us (they even did rule Rus', China and Iran). That's the point.
People ruled by Mongols (and later also by Russians) can't be more Turkic or not even equally Turkic as us who have always been part of Turkic states and princeps.

[Yaglakar]

Yes Oğuz and Pechenegs rebelled to take down the Judaicized Khazar ruling class. Alliance was sealed with Svyatolslav (and later Vlodimir) of Rus'. What has this to do with subject and my claim?
Khazars were Turkic? Yes.
Did Oğuz Turks lived inside Khazar khaganate? Yes.

Khazar khaganate is represented in Turkish Republic's presidential seal, with one of the 16 stars representing Turkic Khazars

We have not been ruled by Mongols. Descent of Genghis Khan never ruled us (they even did rule Rus', China and Iran). That's the point.
People ruled by Mongols (and later also by Russians) can't be more Turkic or not even equally Turkic as us who have always been part of Turkic states and princeps.

Anatolian Turks are the most Turkic of all Turkics. Are you happy now, Bori? :)

[Messier 67]

Bring this topic up in Turkey and you'll get beat up, but the facts are the citizens of Turkey are barely Turks, mostly Anatolians. Central Asians are for more Turkish than Turks. Look at Azerbaijan, they speak a Turkic language and some mislabel them Turkish. They are mostly Middle Eastern. It is controversial to call Turks, "Byzantine converts to Islam", which is what most of them are.

The President of Turkey, a Georgian Muslim, called a "Turk".

[Böri]

Bring this topic up in Turkey and you'll get beat up, but the facts are the citizens of Turkey are barely Turks, mostly Anatolians. Central Asians are for more Turkish than Turks. Look at Azerbaijan, they speak a Turkic language and some mislabel them Turkish. They are mostly Middle Eastern. It is controversial to call Turks, "Byzantine converts to Islam", which is what most of them are.

The President of Turkey, a Georgian Muslim, called a "Turk".

What the fuck you even know to even make a comment like this? Who are you?
And Stalin was also Georgian, that means Russian Slavs are Georgian Kartvelian converts? Erdoğan never talked Georgian publicly nor he said he is Georgian. Beside this, he is not a dynastic ruler, he is just an elected president who plays the pious Muslim and gets the vote of the conservative people. A president is a state worker, just that.
Erdoğan is not the leader of the Turkish nation, he is like the governor of Istanbul with some more powers.

[Vlatko Vukovic]

In case you didn’t know in Turkey there are communities of Georgians, Muslim Armenians, Pomaks (Muslim Bulgarians) and distinct from Turks.
Historical state continuity... Turks are more Turkic than any Central Asians since those lived under Mongols and Russians unlike Turks...

It depends from which view you think what is more important. I think that more important is genetics and ancestry about percentage of Kyryz for example, in comparison to Turks from Turkey.

[Böri]

It depends from which view you think what is more important. I think that more important is genetics and ancestry about percentage of Kyryz for example, in comparison to Turks from Turkey.

Real Kyrgyz from Yenisei were reddish hair and green eyes. Chinese sources are clear.
Starting from 10th century they entered Mongol domination and ended up looking more East Asian.
They were mixed with Mongols and ruled by them. That never happened for Turks.

[Armenian Bishop]

Bring this topic up in Turkey and you'll get beat up, but the facts are the citizens of Turkey are barely Turks, mostly Anatolians. Central Asians are for more Turkish than Turks. Look at Azerbaijan, they speak a Turkic language and some mislabel them Turkish. They are mostly Middle Eastern. It is controversial to call Turks, "Byzantine converts to Islam", which is what most of them are.

The President of Turkey, a Georgian Muslim, called a "Turk".

I guess you don't have to go to Turkey to get beat up for insulting Turkishness, the Internet Playground provides that opportunity.


What the fuck you even know to even make a comment like this? Who are you?
And Stalin was also Georgian, that means Russian Slavs are Georgian Kartvelian converts? Erdoğan never talked Georgian publicly nor he said he is Georgian. Beside this, he is not a dynastic ruler, he is just an elected president who plays the pious Muslim and gets the vote of the conservative people. A president is a state worker, just that.
Erdoğan is not the leader of the Turkish nation, he is like the governor of Istanbul with some more powers.

Yip! I was right.

[Vlatko Vukovic]

Real Kyrgyz from Yenisei were reddish hair and green eyes. Chinese sources are clear.
Starting from 10th century they entered Mongol domination and ended up looking more East Asian.
They were mixed with Mongols and ruled by them. That never happened for Turks.

Yes and Cumans were blond according to Russian sources........ I don't take all sources as clear.

[Shaco]

The global perception and prejudice wouldn't discuss this and would directly say: Central Asians. Central Asians (in their current form) are even considered as forerunners of Turks.
However, that's all wrong.

Turks are actually more Turkic than Central Asian Turkic-speaking nations.
The reason for this that's simple above all.
Turks were always ruled by Turkic dynasties over history: The Göktürks, the Khazars, the Seljuks (who came from west Kazakhstan), the Anatolian Turcoman Lords (beyliks) and the Ottomans who were one of those beyliks.
Central Asians weren't always ruled by Turks. Actually after the 13th century, they got Mongolic Genghis Khan rulers ruling over them.

Central Asia is often considered as original homeland of Turks, which is also wrong. Originally central Asia was home to neolitic farmers from India, who later were assimilated linguistically by Iranian invaders. Then Turks came cleansed the Iranic ruling classes.

Proto-Turks were south Siberian semi-nomadic herders and cattle breeders known for their expertise in working iron, blacksmith.

The perceived patronage of Central Asians in our identity is overrated. They aren't more or not even equally Turkic as us.

You do realize that Turks in Anatolia are nothing but a mix of Armenians, Iranians and Greeks? 25% of your population is Iranic due to native kurdish population, Armenians have inhabited Anatolia for a long time (longer than Turkic languages have existed) and western turkey was inhabited by Greeks. Turks are just another branch of West Asians/middle easterns speaking an altaic language which is clearly related to other East Asian languages like Japanese and Korean. The turks who look Europid are simply decendants of ancient Greeks and modern balkanoid slaves which the Ottomans mass imported into mainland Anatolia. Stop feeding yourself lies. African Americans living in the US aren't Anglo saxons just because they speak English. They are ethnically Africans. Turks are related to the people around them, Armenians, Iranians and southern Greeks. Haplogroups like R1b, J2 and G are all heavily concentrated in these 3 countries. Phenotype wise, they all overlap with one another.

[Bornoz]

You do realize that Turks in Anatolia are nothing but a mix of Armenians, Iranians and Greeks? 25% of your population is Iranic due to native kurdish population, Armenians have inhabited Anatolia for a long time (longer than Turkic languages have existed) and western turkey was inhabited by Greeks. Turks are just another branch of West Asians/middle easterns speaking an altaic language which is clearly related to other East Asian languages like Japanese and Korean. The turks who look Europid are simply decendants of ancient Greeks and modern balkanoid slaves which the Ottomans mass imported into mainland Anatolia. Stop feeding yourself lies. African Americans living in the US aren't Anglo saxons just because they speak English. They are ethnically Africans. Turks are related to the people around them, Armenians, Iranians and southern Greeks. Haplogroups like R1b, J2 and G are all heavily concentrated in these 3 countries. Phenotype wise, they all overlap with one another.

Balkan Slaves :lol:

You may not know that friend but as about 15-20% of Turkey's population is Balkan descent (Mostly Balkan Turks, lesser Bosnians, Albanians etc.) and you can be sure about that none of their ancestors were slaves. A slave from 400 years ago doesn't effect her grandchildren's genotype or phenotype in 21th century.

Btw I am not defending Böri in here. I also don't think that people in here are so ''Turkic'' It is something linguistic actually.

Just wait for him to come and blame me for being Kurdish..

[Böri]

Blah blah No consistent, scientific opposing arguments.

Asia Minor and Balkan Turks lived, non stop, for the last 1500 years, without breaks, under Turkic state formations and same-ethnicity dynasties.

Turkic Central Asians never did so since 13th century Mongol invasion. They were ruled by Mongols then by Russians during these last two centuries.

Leave aside being as Turkic as us, they arent even equally Turkic.
Period.

[Böri]

Just read and repeat the prestigious list of Turks’ background during these last 1500 years:

Göktürks
Western Göktürks (Tardu yabgu then Tong Yabgu)
Khazars (through Oghuz Yabgunate, sometimes direct rule from Atil and Sarkil)
Seljuk Empire
Anatolian Turkic Beyliks (established to better face Mongol onslaught from Iran)
Ottoman beylik-> Ottoman Empire
Republic of Turkey

:thumb001:

[Lavrentis]

You do realize that Turks in Anatolia are nothing but a mix of Armenians, Iranians and Greeks? 25% of your population is Iranic due to native kurdish population, Armenians have inhabited Anatolia for a long time (longer than Turkic languages have existed) and western turkey was inhabited by Greeks. Turks are just another branch of West Asians/middle easterns speaking an altaic language which is clearly related to other East Asian languages like Japanese and Korean. The turks who look Europid are simply decendants of ancient Greeks and modern balkanoid slaves which the Ottomans mass imported into mainland Anatolia. Stop feeding yourself lies. African Americans living in the US aren't Anglo saxons just because they speak English. They are ethnically Africans. Turks are related to the people around them, Armenians, Iranians and southern Greeks. Haplogroups like R1b, J2 and G are all heavily concentrated in these 3 countries. Phenotype wise, they all overlap with one another.

Haplogroups have nothing to do with autosomal admixture. For example, due to Spaniards taking Amerindian wives, tons of Mexicans, if not most, are R1b, the Spanish clades. But Spaniards have nothing to do with Mexicans autosomally, it’s two different worlds. So it’s the same with R1b, J2, and G.

Also, I don’t think that Turks have significant Greek ancestry, they’re pretty far away from Greeks autosomally, with the exception of Pontian and Azov Greeks, those are kinda close to Turks:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180523/e45beac2ec1f2b5ac5bd7eca4644d81b.jpg

Anyway, this thread is not about this kind of conversation, so let’s not ruin it.

[Shaco]

Haplogroups have nothing to do with autosomal admixture. For example, due to Spaniards taking Amerindian wives, tons of Mexicans, if not most, are R1b, the Spanish clades. But Spaniards have nothing to do with Mexicans autosomally, it’s two different worlds. So it’s the same with R1b, J2, and G.

Also, I don’t think that Turks have significant Greek ancestry, they’re pretty far away from Greeks autosomally, with the exception of Pontian and Azov Greeks, those are kinda close to Turks:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180523/e45beac2ec1f2b5ac5bd7eca4644d81b.jpg

Anyway, this thread is not about this kind of conversation, so let’s not ruin it.

Well this discussion ties in very well with this topic. The whole point is that the textbook turk is described as an east Asian (southern Siberian with Mongoloid features). Kazakhs, Uzbeks and western mongols all share direct ancestry with proto turks whom originated in East Asia.

Look very closely at the graph you posted, Istanbul average is very close to other balkanoids, these are the remaining ancient Greeks and European slaves which the Ottomans clearly imported from eastern Europe and the Balkans. There is no doubt that the ottomans took Europeans and enslaved them in mainland Anatolia. It is a fact which everyone has admitted to, including turks themselves. How could one claim that turks from Istanbul are more Turkic than Kazakhs? They are Europeans decendants of European slaves speaking an east Asian language for gods sake.
Anatolians themselves are native to West Asia and share similarities with the people around them like the Kurds, Persians, Armenians and southern Greeks whom inhabited the western coast of turkey 2500 years ago! This is before proto turks had even migrated into central Asia. Turkey has been a massive melting pot of surrounding tribes and ethnicities for thousands of years. There is absolutely nothing turkic about turkey. Turks by definition are east Asian mongoloids (slanted eyed Siberian tribes).

Turkish is part of the altaic language family, linguistics have made deep connections between altaic languages and other East Asian languages like Korean and Japanese. How does anything Turkic have to do with west asia, and especially Europe?

[Böri]

There is no Altaic language family, that was hypothetical during 20th century and has been discredited over past decades by scientists in linguistics. Nor Turks are genetically similar to any Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds or Persians.
Stop spamming the thread and get lost Hewal.
I doubt you are even 5% similar to original, PIE Indo-Iranians (or PIE Armenians) from Kurgan.

Bunch of linguistically assimilated North MENA hairy farmers.

[Profileid]

You do realize that Turks in Anatolia are nothing but a mix of Armenians, Iranians and Greeks? 25% of your population is Iranic due to native kurdish population, Armenians have inhabited Anatolia for a long time (longer than Turkic languages have existed) and western turkey was inhabited by Greeks. Turks are just another branch of West Asians/middle easterns speaking an altaic language which is clearly related to other East Asian languages like Japanese and Korean. The turks who look Europid are simply decendants of ancient Greeks and modern balkanoid slaves which the Ottomans mass imported into mainland Anatolia. Stop feeding yourself lies. African Americans living in the US aren't Anglo saxons just because they speak English. They are ethnically Africans. Turks are related to the people around them, Armenians, Iranians and southern Greeks. Haplogroups like R1b, J2 and G are all heavily concentrated in these 3 countries. Phenotype wise, they all overlap with one another.

It's worth noting African Americans score on average anywhere between 5-15% NW European,most of which is British. I believe Turks have a similar proportion of Turkic ancestry.

[Böri]

It's worth noting African Americans score on average anywhere between 5-15% NW European,most of which is British. I believe Turks have a similar proportion of Turkic ancestry.

It’s more like you are Arab-speaking Mongrel Christian from Phoenico-Aramaic Levant farming origin historically dominated by all sorts of invaders And conquerors. What do you mean by Turkic ancestry? Siberian like genetics?
Medieval Oghuz had 20-35%, medieval Kipchak 25%. Turks of now have 8-18% average.

[Profileid]

It’s more like you are Arab-speaking Mongrel Christian from Phoenico-Aramaic Levant farming origin historically dominated by all sorts of invaders And conquerors.
I am Anglo baby :)

What do you mean by Turkic ancestry? Siberian like genetics?
Medieval Oghuz had 20-35%, medieval Kipchak 25%. Turks of now have 8-18% average.
8-18%. So not still not far from British ancestry in Aframs.
Show me a study claiming the average Turk is not mostly native Anatolian.

[Böri]

I am Anglo baby :)

8-18%. So not still not far from British ancestry in Aframs.
Show me a study claiming the average Turk is not mostly native Anatolian.

Arab Nassara, what is genetically Anatolian? Even Croats have more Neolithic Anatolian than we do ;)

[Profileid]

Arab Nassara, what is genetically Anatolian? Even Croats have more Neolithic Anatolian than we do ;)

So you couldn't find a study and now you're trying to redefine what we're talking about.

[Marmara]

I am Anglo baby :)

8-18%. So not still not far from British ancestry in Aframs.
Show me a study claiming the average Turk is not mostly native Anatolian.

That's East Eurasian alone, not Turkic. Original Turcomans were probably in between of 20-40% East Eurasian on average.

[Profileid]

That's East Eurasian alone, not Turkic. Original Turcomans were probably in between of 20-40% East Eurasian on average.

Are you talking about Turkmens? If not, I have no idea what people you're discussing.

[Marmara]

Are you talking about Turkmens? If not, I have no idea what people you're discussing.

Turcoman=Turkmen=Oghuz Turk. Oghuz Turks are the people who are originally from Oghuz Yabgu state and speakers of Oghuz branch of Turkic languages (Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen). All Oghuz Turks adopted the term "Turkmen" after converted to Islam. These Turkmens (Turcomans) conquered Anatolia and settled in, but later adopted Turk instead of Turkmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks

When i say Turcoman i refer the Turkic colonizers of Anatolia, this was what they used to call themselves.

[Shaco]

There is no Altaic language family, that was hypothetical during 20th century and has been discredited over past decades by scientists in linguistics. Nor Turks are genetically similar to any Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds or Persians.
Stop spamming the thread and get lost Hewal.
I doubt you are even 5% similar to original, PIE Indo-Iranians (or PIE Armenians) from Kurgan.

Bunch of linguistically assimilated North MENA hairy farmers.

You can't discredit what you, as an individual don't believe in. Based on my k12b calculations, I am more or less 60% caucasian and 27% or so north eastern Europen. That's where proto iranians came from if im not mistaking. Through the yamna of course. We ossetians call our land Ironiston, the same name the sarmatians gave this land 2000 years ago. At least we admit the fact that we are heavily mixed with north caucasians, Ossetian women tend to be more related to other Iranian groups than the males for obvious reasons. Unlike you turks, we admit the fact that we are not direct descendants of our ancestors. Turks are mainly West Asians and are related to their surroundings.
http://i.imgur.com/4fgUdlM.jpg

[Böri]

You can't discredit what you, as an individual don't believe in. Based on my k12b calculations, I am more or less 60% caucasian and 27% or so north eastern Europen. That's where proto iranians came from if im not mistaking. Through the yamna of course. We ossetians call our land Ironiston, the same name the sarmatians gave this land 2000 years ago. At least we admit the fact that we are heavily mixed with north caucasians, Ossetian women tend to be more related to other Iranian groups than the males for obvious reasons. Unlike you turks, we admit the fact that we are not direct descendants of our ancestors. Turks are mainly West Asians and are related to their surroundings.
http://i.imgur.com/4fgUdlM.jpg

Nope. Not close to Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Georgians, Kurds etc.
Here me for example.

MDLP K16 Modern




Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 42.85
2 Neolithic 12.14
3 Steppe 11.63
4 Siberian 10.69
5 Indian 8.25
6 NearEast 4.67
7 SouthEastAsian 4.1
8 NorthEastEuropean 4.08
9 Arctic 1.3
10 Australian 0.26
11 NorthAfrican 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turk (Aydin) 5.97
2 Turk (Balikesir) 6.31
3 Azerbaijani_Agdzhabedi (Azerbaijan_Agdzhabedi) 8.25
4 Turk (Turkey) 8.47
5 Circassian (Circassia) 8.78
6 Kabardin (Kabardino-Balkaria) 8.84
7 Azerbaijani_Khachmaz (Azerbaijan_Khachmaz) 9.05
8 Turk (Istanbul) 9.78
9 Turk (Adana) 10.2
10 Azerbaijani (Azerbaijan) 10.25
11 Azeri (Azerbaijan) 10.82
12 Nogai (Dagestan) 11.27
13 Turk (Kayseri) 11.29
14 Greek (Azov) 11.64
15 Turkmens (Turkmenistan) 12.39
16 Kumyk (Stalskoe) 12.4
17 Azerbaijani_Dagestan (Azerbaijan_Dagestan) 12.48
18 Ossetian (North_Ossetia) 12.51
19 Iraki (Irak) 12.95
20 Avar (Dagestan_Shangoda) 13.04

[Shaco]

Nope. Not close to Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Georgians, Kurds etc.
Here me for example.

MDLP K16 Modern




Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 42.85
2 Neolithic 12.14
3 Steppe 11.63
4 Siberian 10.69
5 Indian 8.25
6 NearEast 4.67
7 SouthEastAsian 4.1
8 NorthEastEuropean 4.08
9 Arctic 1.3
10 Australian 0.26
11 NorthAfrican 0.02

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turk (Aydin) 5.97
2 Turk (Balikesir) 6.31
3 Azerbaijani_Agdzhabedi (Azerbaijan_Agdzhabedi) 8.25
4 Turk (Turkey) 8.47
5 Circassian (Circassia) 8.78
6 Kabardin (Kabardino-Balkaria) 8.84
7 Azerbaijani_Khachmaz (Azerbaijan_Khachmaz) 9.05
8 Turk (Istanbul) 9.78
9 Turk (Adana) 10.2
10 Azerbaijani (Azerbaijan) 10.25
11 Azeri (Azerbaijan) 10.82
12 Nogai (Dagestan) 11.27
13 Turk (Kayseri) 11.29
14 Greek (Azov) 11.64
15 Turkmens (Turkmenistan) 12.39
16 Kumyk (Stalskoe) 12.4
17 Azerbaijani_Dagestan (Azerbaijan_Dagestan) 12.48
18 Ossetian (North_Ossetia) 12.51
19 Iraki (Irak) 12.95
20 Avar (Dagestan_Shangoda) 13.04

Someone should tell you that the caucasian category includes the following people's, Armenians, Anatolians, Iranians, Georgians and Azerbaijanis (mix of Iranic and caucasian). You played yourself, look at your Siberian value. Congratulations, you have 11% of your east Asian Turkic ancestry.

[Aren]

It’s more like you are Arab-speaking Mongrel Christian from Phoenico-Aramaic Levant farming origin historically dominated by all sorts of invaders And conquerors. What do you mean by Turkic ancestry? Siberian like genetics?
Medieval Oghuz had 20-35%, medieval Kipchak 25%. Turks of now have 8-18% average.

11th century Ottoman Turk had close to 50% East Eurasian input, the already mixed Anatolian-Central Asian individual had 25% East Eurasian.

[Bornoz]

I doubt you are even 5% similar to original, PIE Indo-Iranians (or PIE Armenians) from Kurgan.

Bunch of linguistically assimilated North MENA hairy farmers.

LOL

Who gives a flying f*ck? What is PIE Indo-Iranians :lol: I am not a bastard who has no self confidence. I am what I already am. You are the one who consubstantiates his nation and character. That basically means you have no character and try to prove yourself that you are valuable but actually you are not.

Hep sevgisiz bi piç olarak kalacaksın moruk. Devam et böyle

[Marmara]

11th century Ottoman Turk had close to 50% East Eurasian input, the already mixed Anatolian-Central Asian individual had 25% East Eurasian.

That person was 22% East Eurasian and she wasn't mixed, keep crying.

[Aren]

That person was 22% East Eurasian and she wasn't mixed, keep crying.

She most certainly were. Why else would we find a 45-50% East Eurasian shifted individual from the same grave?

[Marmara]

She most certainly were. Why else would we find a 45-50% East Eurasian shifted individual from the same grave?

Different background? Turks weren't homogeneous in Central Asia.

[Aren]

Different background? Turks weren't homogeneous in Central Asia.

That wasn't in central Asia, but in Anatolia in the 11th century.

[Marmara]

That wasn't in central Asia, but in Anatolia in the 11th century.

She genetically wasn't half Anatolian because she actually had higher Baltic and about the same South Asian.

[Tsezar]

Central Asians weren't always ruled by Turks. Actually after the 13th century, they got Mongolic Genghis Khan rulers ruling over them.


Have you seen the Kül Tigin sculpture? Does he look like the average Mongol or the average Anatolian monkey?

[Larali]

Turks are Turks and Kurds are Turks and little lambs are gyros....

[brennus dux gallorum]

Have you seen the Kül Tigin sculpture? Does he look like the average Mongol or the average Anatolian monkey?

oh sit,you should not post here, Bori will mastrubate to your slanted eye's shape all night, with side effected a damaged pc screen :icon_biggrin:

[Aren]

She genetically wasn't half Anatolian because she actually had higher Baltic and about the same South Asian.

Exactly, she can't be an ancestor to modern day Turks because her genome isn't matching, like you said too high Baltic and South Asian, most likely admixed already in central Asia before arriving in Anatolia. The other guy though, with 45% East Eurasian is a pretty good fit.

[Böri]

Turks aren’t genetically West Asian. Typical West Asians are Mesopotamian people such as Assyrians, Armenians or at lesser extent the Kurds. Turks are clearly different than those West Asians.

[Profileid]

Turks aren’t genetically West Asian. Typical West Asians are Mesopotamian people such as Assyrians, Armenians or at lesser extent the Kurds. Turks are clearly different than those West Asians.

Why are those the very same groups that commonly show up on Turkish oracles then?

[Shaco]

Turks aren’t genetically West Asian. Typical West Asians are Mesopotamian people such as Assyrians, Armenians or at lesser extent the Kurds. Turks are clearly different than those West Asians.

West Asia contains the following countries, entire Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Anatolia is not only genetically west Asian but it is also geographically west Asian. Istanbul is only 3% of the country's area while 98% of the country is clearly in West Asia. Looks like you haven't been to central/eastern turkey to take a good look at the people living there.

[Tsezar]

Turkey is but one of many Central Asian colonies. Modern Turkish people are Middle Eastern/West Asian/Mediterranean natives who speak an East Asian language.
Anatolians and Mongoloid Turks are very different and irreconcilable species: One is South West Caucasoid and one is North East Mongoloid

[Böri]

Turkey is but one of many Central Asian colonies. Modern Turkish people are Middle Eastern/West Asian/Mediterranean natives who speak an East Asian language.
Anatolians and Mongoloid Turks are very different and irreconcilable species: One is South West Caucasoid and one is North East Mongoloid

Yenisei-Lena region that is in Siberia is the ancestral homeland of Turks. Then the proto-Turks expanded southwards to Altai region. That is Siberian ethnicity.
Again, we are they who always lived in Turkic state formations and ruled by solely Turkic dynasties.

Nobody can deny the Turkicness of Turkic-speaking Central Asians however they were ruled for 500 years by Mongol dynasties and 150 years by Russo-Soviet state formations.These facts make them, if anything, less Turkic than us. We are the true heirs of the Göktürks (Bilge Khagan, Tardu Yabgu, Bumin etc).

Genetically we are for sure closer to proto-Turks than Cypriot or Pontic 'Greeks' are close to Proto IE Hellenes; or than the Middle Eastern Iranic modern groups (Persians, Pashtuns, Kurds etc and even Ossetians) are to PIE Iranians from the Ukrainian Kurgan steppes.
We are certainly also closer genetically to our ancestors compared to modern Armenians who are Assyroid people with some Georgian effects (proto Armenians were also IE from steppes).

[oszkar07]

We are certainly also closer genetically to our ancestors compared to modern Armenians who are Assyroid people with some Georgian effects (proto Armenians were also IE from steppes).

This sounds debatable.
Armenians have around 3000 years documented history in the same region.
Turkics went from C.A to Persia to Anatolia.
Turkics mixed heavily with local Anatolian population and encouraged locals to become Muslim's by implementing the tax system for non Muslim's, of course there was many converts the converted people eventually became identified as Turk's.
Then you have all the immigration into Turkey from caucasus, Balkan's etc.
Then you claiming modern Turks are less mixed , more pure than Armenians ?

[Böri]

This sounds debatable.
Armenians have around 3000 years documented history in the same region.
Turkics went from C.A to Persia to Anatolia.
Turkics mixed heavily with local Anatolian population and encouraged locals to become Muslim's by implementing the tax system for non Muslim's, of course there was many converts the converted people eventually became identified as Turk's.
Then you have all the immigration into Turkey from caucasus, Balkan's etc.
Then you claiming modern Turks are less mixed , more pure than Armenians ?

Armenians have 2300 years state history actually.
A handful group of proto-Indo-Europeans from what's today Central Russia moved into the Assyrian region and simply assimilated the bunch of natives.
3500 years ago, the speakers of proto-Armenian language where more European-looking people, probably with some Eurasian touch while modern Armenians can be hardly distinguishable from Assyrians and south Georgians; that means native people to the region.

[Tsezar]

Yenisei-Lena region that is in Siberia is the ancestral homeland of Turks. Then the proto-Turks expanded southwards to Altai region. That is Siberian ethnicity.
Again, we are they who always lived in Turkic state formations and ruled by solely Turkic dynasties.

Nobody can deny the Turkicness of Turkic-speaking Central Asians however they were ruled for 500 years by Mongol dynasties and 150 years by Russo-Soviet state formations.These facts make them, if anything, less Turkic than us. We are the true heirs of the Göktürks (Bilge Khagan, Tardu Yabgu, Bumin etc).

Genetically we are for sure closer to proto-Turks than Cypriot or Pontic 'Greeks' are close to Proto IE Hellenes; or than the Middle Eastern Iranic modern groups (Persians, Pashtuns, Kurds etc and even Ossetians) are to PIE Iranians from the Ukrainian Kurgan steppes.
We are certainly also closer genetically to our ancestors compared to modern Armenians who are Assyroid people with some Georgian effects (proto Armenians were also IE from steppes).

Just because Anatolian aboriginals are ruled by Central Asian Turks does not render all Anatolians Turkic/Siberian by blood...
Just because the British Empire colonised India does not mean all 1 billion Indians are British by blood...
Mongol is originally a name for a tribe on the same level as Tatars and Merkids, it is only after Genghis Khan that the term Mongol referred to an ethnicity... Genghis Khan looked more Turkic than any Anatolian monkey on earth... According to your logic since Mongolia was ruled by Göktürks then Mongols are basically the same as Göktürks so you are basically contradicting yourself.

The best proof that Anatolians have little to nothing to do with Siberians ... look at your genes and look at your mirror ... You are way more likely an Arab/Berber than one-tenth of a Siberian...

[Böri]

Just because Anatolian aboriginals are ruled by Central Asian Turks does not render all Anatolians Turkic/Siberian by blood...
Just because the British Empire colonised India does not mean all 1 billion Indians are British by blood...
Mongol is originally a name for a tribe on the same level as Tatars and Merkids, it is only after Genghis Khan that the term Mongol referred to an ethnicity... Genghis Khan looked more Turkic than any Anatolian monkey on earth... According to your logic since Mongolia was ruled by Göktürks then Mongols are basically the same as Göktürks so you are basically contradicting yourself.

The best proof that Anatolians have little to nothing to do with Siberians ... look at your genes and look at your mirror ... You are way more likely an Arab/Berber than one-tenth of a Siberian...

Retarded Monkey, being physically owned by Mongols or living under Mongolic Gengis Khan dynasties can't make one more Turkic or so. You are not more Turkic when you have a more flat face and slanty eyes.
Turks who always lived under Turkic states and dynasties are Turks of Asia Minor; and those are they who best represent the Göktürks since they have an unbroken continuation.
We were not owned by Mongols like Iranians, Chinese and Russians were. That's the point.

Central Asia, except the Turkmens, is culturally Turco-Mongol not purely Turkic like is the history of Turkey.

[Profileid]

Retarded Monkey, being physically owned by Mongols or living under Mongolic Gengis Khan dynasties can't make one more Turkic or so. You are not more Turkic when you have a more flat face and slanty eyes.
Turks who always lived under Turkic states and dynasties are Turks of Asia Minor; and those are they who best represent the Göktürks since they have an unbroken continuation.
We were not owned by Mongols like Iranians, Chinese and Russians were. That's the point.

Central Asia, except the Turkmens, is culturally Turco-Mongol not purely Turkic like is the history of Turkey.

Delusion:The post