Turkish morons claiming Aryans, R1a and 40-70% Russians are Turkic origin

[ButlerKing]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy?

[ChildOfTheJin]

LOL

[ButlerKing]

There is a attemp by Turks to steal European and Indo-European history.

You see they even claim Estrucan were Turkic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKFCs5m19pQ


And even Latin alphabet were Turkic origin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfyNShX-8vI


But remember this Turkish freaks, the original Turk was Mongoloid and their Caucasoid admixture came from Iranic tribes which has nothing to do with what your Turkish mind freaks thinks.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_JjiEhW-dsAI/RMZtsextABI/AAAAAAAABhk/AFyeVyiOYAw/A1%20Vasily%20Petrov.jpg

[adsız]

Now i got why you are banned in ABF... meaningless talks without proof against scientific works.

[Hoca]

I reported your provocative title thread..

But indeed Etruscans were non-European. No need to bring down the level of this forum with opening threads with such a title.

[Hoca]

You say Turks claim Etruscans and you post this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SKFCs5m19pQ

Turks don't claim that, the scientist are claiming that and they only post the quotes. I have not studied the topic. I'm just correcting your mistake.

[ButlerKing]

Now i got why you are banned in ABF... talks without proof against scientific works.

I'm back on ABF ages ago but I can't tell you my account.

I talk without proof?

When it comes to appearance I show facial reconstruction pictures
When it comes to genetics I show haplogroup data and autosomal DNA
When you Turkish shows your genetic you manipulate and bend it to Turkic origin.




I reported your provocative title thread..

But indeed Etruscans were non-European. No need to bring down the level of this forum with opening threads with such a title.

I find you Turkish stealing Indo-European history more provocative than anything. Now you're claiming ancient Greeks had connection with Turks, what a fool.



Turks don't claim that, the scientist are claiming that and they only post the quotes. I have not studied the topic. I'm just correcting your mistake.

Cherry picking quotes don't make them facts.

There's also semetic, Turkic, dravidian, Indo-European origin of ancient Sumenians

[adsız]

We dont need to steal other's history. We have an honored past. It is only those without history staeling to create a nation..

[Pallantides]

I'm back on ABF ages ago but I can't tell you my account.


Why not, you'd be banned again?:p

[Hoca]

Butlerking, it is well known that Etruscans were from the far east. They were definately NON-European. So before accusing others of stealing your history, you should stop stealing and molding history to your own taste.

[Hayalet]

Butlerking, it is well known that Etruscans were from the far east.
No, it isn't. Did you mean the Near East?

[Hoca]

That is what I meant. English is not my mother language xD

But to comment on the sources Butlerking posted. You say they are cherry picked. Can you prove that?

[ButlerKing]

That is what I meant. English is not my mother language xD

But to comment on the sources Butlerking posted. You say they are cherry picked. Can you prove that?

The cherry picked Turkic origin crap is already in those videos which are made by Turkish person.

Genetic evidence

In 2004 a team from Italy and Spain undertook a genetic study of the Etruscans, based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 80 bone samples taken from tombs dating from the seventh century to the third century BC in Etruria.[36] This study found that the ancient DNA extracted from the Etruscan remains had some affininties with modern European populations including Tuscans in Italy. In addition the Etruscan samples possibly revealed more genetic inheritance from the eastern and southern Mediterranean than modern Italian samples contain. Hans-Jürgen Bandelt expressed concern about the methodology used in the study, saying "it is unclear to what extent the “Etruscan” data represent severely damaged or partly contaminated mtDNA sequences; therefore, any comparison with modern population data must be considered quite hazardous."[37]
A more recent study has suggested a Near Eastern origin.[38] The researchers conclude that their data, taken from the modern Tuscan population, 'support the scenario of a post-Neolithic genetic input from the Near East to the present-day population of Tuscany’. In the absence of any dating evidence there is however no direct link between this genetic input and the Etruscans.


Like I said already even if they were Turks they couldn't have possibly been people who look like your modern Turkish. So your dream in making everything Turkic is far from ever being accomplished.

http://www.videocosmos.com/images/calendar/27071946.jpg
http://www.saigonnezumi.com/images/alikhantura.jpg

[sevruk]

I really do not understand how Turkey is going to evolve with such a stupid people :)

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

This is simply nothing compared with Butlerkings repeatative nonsense threads ...

[Artek]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy?

It seems to be a recapitulation of all complexes and megalomania of Turks, of course if it doesn't involve trolling :)

Let's have a healthy distance to this unscientific rubbish, that's the thing I should recommend.

[Proto-Shaman]

This thread deserves this...
http://candacedave.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/no-more-mortgage-0302.jpg

[Smeagol]

This thread deserves this...
http://candacedave.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/no-more-mortgage-0302.jpg

Why?

[Proto-Shaman]

Why?
typical Butlerking thread, typical Butlerking half-korean half-white pictures :rolleyes:

[kokturuk]

Huns were Turkics and they were not %100 mongoloid.

[The King, I am]

Oh my god we should just ignore these claims, they'll slowly and quietly fade away as time goes on.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Italics were definitely anatolian, that's where founders of rome came from. Hittites were Indo-european speakers (and possibly the original ones). R1a in fact probably does originate in anatolia or nearby (but most likely more north) during several ice ages ago.

So get over it, it's true in some sense. Of course the people in turkey are not mainly r1a but seemingly most the "germanics" coming from the east, like ostrogoths, were.

However the migration period was not when europe got settled, r1b was certainly there long before then in spite of what some claim these days.

[Hoca]

Italics were definitely anatolian, that's where founders of rome came from. Hittites were Indo-european speakers (and possibly the original ones). R1a in fact probably does originate in anatolia or nearby (but most likely more north) during several ice ages ago.

So get over it, it's true in some sense. Of course the people in turkey are not mainly r1a but seemingly most the "germanics" coming from the east, like ostrogoths, were.

However the migration period was not when europe got settled, r1b was certainly there long before then in spite of what some claim these days.

Also most of what is Russia today was part of Genghis Khan and his Mongol-Turkic army and they did a lot of plowing if you know what I mean, and before and after Genghis Khan there were always Turkic empire from Siberia all the way to east Europe such as Atilla, Gokturks, Avars, Bulgars, Tatars,etc. Sometimes that area was one whole empire and sometimes fragmented Turkic states neighboring each other.

[justme]

Modern Turks that are from Turkey are actually Hittite Trojan and Anatolian people with a Turkic language a lot of the are also Illyrian and Greek including Slavic and Armenian with a Turkic language.

[King Claus]

typical Butlerking thread, typical Butlerking half-korean half-white pictures :rolleyes:

I rather be half korean and half white than the stereotypical turkish look.

[Proto-Shaman]

Istereotypical turkish look.
Does it exist at all?

[Mehmet]

Modern Turks that are from Turkey are actually Hittite Trojan and Anatolian people with a Turkic language a lot of the are also Illyrian and Greek including Slavic and Armenian with a Turkic language.

Nope. Not at all.
Genetic studies proved the presence of substantial Northern Asiatic genes among the Turkish population; almost as much as among Finns, Russians and other people in the East. And this Northern Asiatic genetic input is missing in all neighbors (Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc..).

11th century Byzantine chroniclers described the Oghuz-Turk Seljuk migrations to Anatolia with statements such as "they are more numerous than stars in the sky to come here".

People in Central Asia don't look like Turkey Turks as a result of Mongol-Genghis Khan genocides and rapes.
Anatolian, unmixed Turks are the purest examples of Turks: overall Caucasian people with substantial Northern Asiatic genes ('Europo-Mongoloid' like TA forumer blogen would describe).


I rather be half korean and half white than the stereotypical turkish look.

What's wrong with our 'look'?
Care to provide examples.
We are far from looking like Gypsies.

[ButlerKing]

Nope. Not at all.
Genetic studies proved the presence of substantial Northern Asiatic genes among the Turkish population; almost as much as among Finns, Russians and other people in the East. And this Northern Asiatic genetic input is missing in all neighbors (Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc..).

11th century Byzantine chroniclers described the Oghuz-Turk Seljuk migrations to Anatolia with statements such as "they are more numerous than stars in the sky to come here".

People in Central Asia don't look like Turkey Turks as a result of Mongol-Genghis Khan genocides and rapes.
Anatolian, unmixed Turks are the purest examples of Turks: overall Caucasian people with substantial Northern Asiatic genes ('Europo-Mongoloid' like TA forumer blogen would describe).



What's wrong with our 'look'?
Care to provide examples.
We are far from looking like Gypsies.


What you say is very stupid because even during the Ottoman empires the Turkish people had imported million of balkan, caucasus, nubian slaves. The ancestors of Finns and Russians were Uralic and Siberians, aside from that they also experienced Turkic invasions and migrations. Central Asia in the past were like 85% Caucasoid and 15% Mongoloid and Mongoloid/Caucasoid, Mongoloid skulls was even more prominent in Kazakhstan. The Turkic mixed with the Indo-Europeans creating Caucasoid type people, Turanid caucasoid type and Turanid Mongoloid type.
Records of Turkfication in Turkey even during the Ottoman period was all well recorded.


This chart represents the Turkish samples Central Asian admixture


blue = Central Asian admixture
red = Anatolian

19 Turkish from Behar et al. (2010)
http://i42.tinypic.com/i2ulwm.jpg

[justme]

Nope. Not at all.
Genetic studies proved the presence of substantial Northern Asiatic genes among the Turkish population; almost as much as among Finns, Russians and other people in the East. And this Northern Asiatic genetic input is missing in all neighbors (Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc..).

11th century Byzantine chroniclers described the Oghuz-Turk Seljuk migrations to Anatolia with statements such as "they are more numerous than stars in the sky to come here".

People in Central Asia don't look like Turkey Turks as a result of Mongol-Genghis Khan genocides and rapes.
Anatolian, unmixed Turks are the purest examples of Turks: overall Caucasian people with substantial Northern Asiatic genes ('Europo-Mongoloid' like TA forumer blogen would describe).



What's wrong with our 'look'?
Care to provide examples.
We are far from looking like Gypsies.
Sorry I meant to a say Turks who live mainly around Antalya and Ismir.. Which whom a lot can pass as Albanian and Greek.

[Hoca]

What you say is very stupid because even during the Ottoman empires the Turkish people had imported million of balkan, caucasus, nubian slaves.

Ottomans didn't import slaves bitch. I'm sick of your nonsense. The only slaves that can be called slaves were Janissary core and the girls in the harem of the sultan. Janissary were not allowed to have children, so you can cross that one. And the European girls in the Harem was only used by the sultan so only ancestors of Ottoman imperial family have a lot of Balkan blood. Remaining native Turkish population has small amount of Balkan blood, mind you I'm not talking about the Balkan Turks that came to Anatolia during collapse of Ottoman Empire. Those are obviously not Native Anatolian.

[ButlerKing]

typical Butlerking thread, typical Butlerking half-korean half-white pictures :rolleyes:

Koreans are good example of Mongolian descendant. It's hard finding pictures of half Mongolian and half White.

The Koreans have like 16% C3 ( north Koreans have 22% ) and but their mtDNA is 90% similar to Mongolians. In autosomal DNA level they have very high Siberian admixture.

Look at Central Asian is like looking at half Koreans.

[RandoBloom]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy?


Considering how Russians only lived on area of Russian principalities and rest was Tatar, Ugric, Siberian, Mongol etc I am not amazed at all.

[Smeagol]

typical Butlerking thread, typical Butlerking half-korean half-white pictures :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, he loves that picture.

[ButlerKing]

Ottomans didn't import slaves bitch. I'm sick of your nonsense. The only slaves that can be called slaves were Janissary core and the girls in the harem of the sultan. Janissary were not allowed to have children, so you can cross that one. And the European girls in the Harem was only used by the sultan so only ancestors of Ottoman imperial family have a lot of Balkan blood. Remaining native Turkish population has small amount of Balkan blood, mind you I'm not talking about the Balkan Turks that came to Anatolia during collapse of Ottoman Empire. Those are obviously not Native Anatolian.


Lie all you want but it won't change reality

Turkification


Turkification (Turkish: Türkleşme when voluntary and Türkleştirme when involuntary) is the assimilation of individuals, entities, or cultures into the various historical Turkish states and cultures, especially the Ottoman Empire. As the Turkish states developed and grew there were many instances of this assimilation, voluntary and involuntary, including the Anatolian, Balkan, Caucasian and Middle Eastern peoples from different ethnic origins, such as the Albanians, Arabs, Armenians, Circassians, Greeks, Jews, Roma, various Slavic peoples, Iranian peoples such as Kurds, as well as Lazs from all the regions of Ottoman Empire and Iran. An early form of Turkification occurred in the time of the Seljuk Empire among the indigenous peoples of Anatolia, involving religious conversion, cultural and linguistic assimilation, and interethnic relationships.

[Mehmet]

What you say is very stupid because even during the Ottoman empires the Turkish people had imported million of balkan, caucasus, nubian slaves. The ancestors of Finns and Russians were Uralic and Siberians, aside from that they also experienced Turkic invasions and migrations. Central Asia in the past were like 85% Caucasoid and 15% Mongoloid and Mongoloid/Caucasoid, Mongoloid skulls was even more prominent in Kazakhstan. The Turkic mixed with the Indo-Europeans creating Caucasoid type people, Turanid caucasoid type and Turanid Mongoloid type.


This chart represents the Turkish samples Central Asian admixture


blue = Central Asian admixture
red = Anatolian

19 Turkish from Behar et al. (2010)
http://i42.tinypic.com/i2ulwm.jpg

It's not 'Anatolian'.
You call everything non-Mongoloid in us to be 'Anatolian'.
These same genetic elements were also present in Central Asia.
When Turkish people's ancestors were there, and it was before the Mongol invasion.

When Turks came to Anatolia, they found Armenians and Greeks; Christian people.
No substantial admixture happened with them.

Racial admixture is recent in Turkey; starting from 19th century; with the Ottoman collapse and Balkinians/Caucasians/Arabs rushing to Anatolia.

[Kiyant]

It's not 'Anatolian'.
You call everything non-Mongoloid in us to be 'Anatolian'.
These same genetic elements were also present in Central Asia.
When Turkish people's ancestors were there, and it was before the Mongol invasion.

When Turks came to Anatolia, they found Armenians and Greeks; Christian people.
No substantial admixture happened with them.

Racial admixture is recent in Turkey; starting from 19th century; with the Ottoman collapse and Balkinians/Caucasians/Arabs rushing to Anatolia.

You know that our ancestors the Göktürks were a strong mix of mongoloid and minor caucasian.
You cant deny that modern Turkey Turks are mixed (not so much like everyone wants to make it) but Turkey Turks are not purer then Altaians for example who are the closest to the original Turkics.

[ButlerKing]

It's not 'Anatolian'.
You call everything non-Mongoloid in us to be 'Anatolian'.
These same genetic elements were also present in Central Asia.
When Turkish people's ancestors were there, and it was before the Mongol invasion.

When Turks came to Anatolia, they found Armenians and Greeks; Christian people.
No substantial admixture happened with them.

Racial admixture is recent in Turkey; starting from 19th century; with the Ottoman collapse and Balkinians/Caucasians/Arabs rushing to Anatolia.

What do you think happened to the original people of Turkey who had a bigger population and longer history than this modern Turkish people? Are you telling me their DNA played no large role? Turkic people and their tribes were always a minority in the past when they invaded.


You know..... when anthropologist classify Turkish people here it's what they show

Turkey=

35% dinaricized mediterraneans( Greek colonist).
20% mediterraneans( aegean coast,greek colonist),
25% irano afghans (eastern turkey, kurds, Armenians),
20% turanids (original semi oriental turkics, inhabits continental parts of anatolia one of them being region around konya)

=35% D.M/ 25% I.A / 20% med. /20% Turanids


Even today modern Turkish people have from 5 - 18.5% Mongoloid admixture with a few even having from 20-22%.


And even today the Turkish people Turanid phenotypes as been diluted from Mongoloid to Caucasoid because autosomal DNA shows there is not one Turk who is more than 29% Central Asian genetically.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

ButlerKing it was basically abandoned when ottomans came to anatolia. They could well be "original turks" in first place, though it's not known for sure.


Considering how Russians only lived on area of Russian principalities and rest was Tatar, Ugric, Siberian, Mongol etc I am not amazed at all.

Ethnic russians are what...20% of the population?

[McCauley]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy?

I'm not surprised, I've seen them claiming Huns, Scythians and all kinds of other ancient peoples that are no longer in existence, certainly not in the Turkish population.

[Proto-Shaman]

I'm not surprised, I've seen them claiming Huns, Scythians and all kinds of other ancient peoples that are no longer in existence, certainly not in the Turkish population.
Central Asia was Turkic and is still Turkic, and it won't change.

[Mehmet]

What do you think happened to the original people of Turkey who had a bigger population and longer history than this modern Turkish people? Are you telling me their DNA played no large role? Turkic tribes were always a minority in the past when they invaded.


You know..... when anthropologist classify Turkish people here it's what they show

Turkey=

35% dinaricized mediterraneans( Greek colonist).
20% mediterraneans( aegean coast,greek colonist),
25% irano afghans (eastern turkey, kurds, Armenians),
20% turanids (original semi oriental turkics, inhabits continental parts of anatolia one of them being region around konya)

=35% D.M/ 25% I.A / 20% med. /20% Turanids


Even today modern Turkish people have from 5 - 18.5% Mongoloid admixture with a few even having from 20-22%.

The rate of Mongoloid admixture proves the immigration from Central Asia was very important.
It's not that 100% Korean-Japanese people came and started to mix with locals.

Those who came from Central Asia had similar proportions.

The Mongol invasion has wipped out our past in Central Asia. That's why we can't prove 1000 years ago, those in Turkestan were looking like us.

But there's a reason why there are different levels of Asiatic influence in Central Asia (highest in Kazakhs and lowest in Turkmens; Kyrgyz and Uzbek in-between). And this reason is the Mongol invasion.
Even Iran's population dropped to 2 millions back then, go and figure for Turkestan.

[ButlerKing]

The rate of Mongoloid admixture proves the immigration from Central Asia was very important.
It's not that 100% Korean-Japanese people came and started to mix with locals.

Those who came from Central Asia had similar proportions.

The Mongol invasion has wipped out our past in Central Asia. That's why we can't prove 1000 years ago, those in Turkestan were looking like us.

But there's a reason why there are different levels of Asiatic influence in Central Asia (highest in Kazakhs and lowest in Turkmens; Kyrgyz and Uzbek in-between).


Here's is the descendants of Seljuks, their Y-DNA has proven they had not been effected by the Mongol invasion and neither their mtDNA.


By the way, if Turks weren't Mongoloid or mix race Mongoloid than why does Turkmen do not have Mongolian Y-DNA C3 but look heavily Mongoloid? Haplogroup Q is high in Iranian Turkmen but have only 10% Mongoloid maternal DNA.


http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/WorldHaplogroupsMaps/TurkmenY_DNA_Iran.gif

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68529000/jpg/_68529151_turkmen_melons_g.jpg

Same with the Afghan Turkmen high 53% haplogroup Q but in this case they look predominately Mongoloid, I suspect Turkmen of Pakistan is the same since they are basically descent from Afghan Turkmen but I don't know anything about their mtDNA

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_c38fx9-iX30/Rdqs3Wzp1qI/AAAAAAAAAA0/abWa8bwj-VM/s320/afghan7.jpg

From Pakistan
http://cdncms.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2011/10/23/turkmen.jpg

[ButlerKing]

The rate of Mongoloid admixture proves the immigration from Central Asia was very important.
It's not that 100% Korean-Japanese people came and started to mix with locals.

Those who came from Central Asia had similar proportions.

The Mongol invasion has wipped out our past in Central Asia. That's why we can't prove 1000 years ago, those in Turkestan were looking like us.

But there's a reason why there are different levels of Asiatic influence in Central Asia (highest in Kazakhs and lowest in Turkmens; Kyrgyz and Uzbek in-between). And this reason is the Mongol invasion.
Even Iran's population dropped to 2 millions back then, go and figure for Turkestan.

Can you explain to me why Turkmen who have 0% Mongolian admixture look like this ?


The most famous Iranian Turkmen is Khodadad Azizi who is a national Iranian football hero who brought Iran to the world cup in 1998
http://footbik.narod.ru/IGROKY/A/IZO/AZIZI_KHODADAD_jpg.jpg
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/137830/ttorrkk.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/4819755175_7333d03ca4.jpg
http://www.oldcarpet.com/images/Turkmen-girl-rug-weaving-iran-1-250.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/4t3pr8.jpg

[Mehmet]

Seljuks were 1/3 Mongoloid, 2/3 Caucasian.
The Mongoloid element dropped as they moved Westwards.
That's my theory.

Back at Crusaders times, if you read the description of Turks, that fits my theory.
Arabs describe Seljuk Turks as beautiful people with slightly slanted eyes and long hair and Mongols to have frightening faces.

Anyway, the rate of Mongoloid admixture in present day Turkey, the fact it's absent in ALL neighboring nations prove my theory.

You try to pose Seljuks as Japanese people having melt down in a Caucasian sea.
That's not true and not logical.

[YeshAtid]

Are you Turkmen butlerking?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

The rate of Mongoloid admixture proves the immigration from Central Asia was very important.
It's not that 100% Korean-Japanese people came and started to mix with locals.

Those who came from Central Asia had similar proportions.

The Mongol invasion has wipped out our past in Central Asia. That's why we can't prove 1000 years ago, those in Turkestan were looking like us.

But there's a reason why there are different levels of Asiatic influence in Central Asia (highest in Kazakhs and lowest in Turkmens; Kyrgyz and Uzbek in-between). And this reason is the Mongol invasion.
Even Iran's population dropped to 2 millions back then, go and figure for Turkestan.

This is it, 100%.

Central asia was never asian in the sense we think of asian now, that's completely new!

Obviously butlerking is one of the most biased when it comes to this fact. All the "mongoloid" y-dna clades N and Q and R1a stem from the original europeans not from east asia group. Completely obvious fact which this guy just can't grasp.

[RandoBloom]

ButlerKing it was basically abandoned when ottomans came to anatolia. They could well be "original turks" in first place, though it's not known for sure.



Ethnic russians are what...20% of the population?

Considering that from this
http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/kievan_rus_map2.gif
They went to inhabit 17 milion square kilometers which were inhabitet by Tattars, Mongols, Ugrics and Siberians there was a lot of mixing

[ButlerKing]

Seljuks were 1/3 Mongoloid, 2/3 Caucasian.
The Mongoloid element dropped as they moved Westwards.
That's my theory.

Back at Crusaders times, if you read the description of Turks, that fits my theory.
Arabs describe Seljuk Turks as beautiful people with slightly slanted eyes and long hair and Mongols to have frightening faces.

Anyway, the rate of Mongoloid admixture in present day Turkey, the fact it's absent in ALL neighboring nations prove my theory.

You try to pose Seljuks as Japanese people having melt down in a Caucasian sea.
That's not true and not logical.


Clearly they can be their more than as shown from their DNA autosomal DNA chart. 2 out of 18 samples are more than 50-55% Mongoloid which means 11% of Turkmen people


The Arabs had clearly described Turks with strong Mongoloid appearance.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png
http://www.tourstouzbekistan.com/uploads/albums/photogallery/turkmen-children.jpg
http://files.myopera.com/baiulgen/gallery/turkmen.jpg

[Hoca]

Are you Turkmen butlerking?

He is probably Iranian. He knows a lot about Iran and remembers silly information such as Iran being in world cup all the way back in 1994 (apparently). That exactly fits my theory since most Iranians are butt hurt they were steam rolled by Turkic peoples and have resentment against Turanism and Turkic race.

[ButlerKing]

This is it, 100%.

Central asia was never asian in the sense we think of asian now, that's completely new!

Obviously butlerking is one of the most biased when it comes to this fact. All the "mongoloid" y-dna clades N and Q and R1a stem from the original europeans not from east asia group. Completely obvious fact which this guy just can't grasp.

Well if you have studied history it would tell you that original Central Asians were speaking Iranic Indo-European languages like the Tajik people.

Nonsense, haplogroup N and Q reachest 100% in Mongoloid where european DNA admixture reaches 0%. R1a is Indo-European.

[Proto-Shaman]

He is probably Iranian. He knows a lot about Iran and remembers silly information such as Iran being in world cup all the way back in 1994 (apparently). That exactly fits my theory since most Iranians are butt hurt they were steam rolled by Turkic peoples and have resentment against Turanism and Turkic race.
Iranians are simply Turkic spermium lost in Semitic space.:bored:

[ButlerKing]

He is probably Iranian. He knows a lot about Iran and remembers silly information such as Iran being in world cup all the way back in 1994 (apparently). That exactly fits my theory since most Iranians are butt hurt they were steam rolled by Turkic peoples and have resentment against Turanism and Turkic race.

It's true many Iranians dislike Turks but I'm no Iranian man.

[Arcadefire]

THe Steppes were never densely populated. Being located between Europe, the Middle east and China, it acted as a zonal playground for the different races. Afterall, the silk route (attracted traders from every corner of the old world) made it possible for people of different races to interact (fuck around) with each other. Saying that people of central Asia were predominantly of a single race is as dubious as saying "there is no life outside of the earth".

[ButlerKing]

Seljuks were 1/3 Mongoloid, 2/3 Caucasian.
The Mongoloid element dropped as they moved Westwards.
That's my theory.

Back at Crusaders times, if you read the description of Turks, that fits my theory.
Arabs describe Seljuk Turks as beautiful people with slightly slanted eyes and long hair and Mongols to have frightening faces.

Anyway, the rate of Mongoloid admixture in present day Turkey, the fact it's absent in ALL neighboring nations prove my theory.

You try to pose Seljuks as Japanese people having melt down in a Caucasian sea.
That's not true and not logical.

Apparently the Arabs described Turks with small eyes, flat nose, red faces which sounds very mongoloid.

Narrated Abu Huraira: A companion of Muhammad

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."


And the reason for low mongoloid admixture is for many reasons

1. Turkic invaders were minority

2. Turkic blood diluted from bringing million of slaves

[Hoca]

Apparently the Arabs described Turks with small eyes, flat nose, red faces which sounds very mongoloid.

Narrated Abu Huraira: A companion of Muhammad

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."


And the reason for low mongoloid admixture is for many reasons

It also says Turks have lether skin and shoes made of hair. I don't know how much you can believe this source since it sounds very bias and obviously demonizing the Turks for having steamrolled them.

Bu oc cevap vermeyin ya, laf'tan anlamiyor zaten, aynisini soyleyim duruyor ve bizi sinirlendirinci seviniyor.

[ButlerKing]

Iranians are simply Turkic spermium lost in Semitic space.:bored:

Iranians are Iranians, they have only little semetic admixture. There is far more Central Asian and Mongoloid influence in Turkish and Azeris than Arabs on Iranians....... only the Arabs Iranians have heavy Arab admixture.

[ButlerKing]

It also says Turks have lether skin and shoes made of hair. I don't know how much you can believe this source since it sounds very bias and obviously demonizing the Turks for having steamrolled them.

Bu oc cevap vermeyin ya, laf'tan anlamiyor zaten, aynisini soyleyim duruyor ve bizi sinirlendirinci seviniyor.

Their talking about nomadic shoes who they used to make it with animal fur.

This is a very accurate source.

[Mehmet]

Clearly they can be their more than as shown from their DNA autosomal DNA chart. 2 out of 18 samples are more than 50-55% Mongoloid which means 11% of Turkmen people


The Arabs had clearly described Turks with strong Mongoloid appearance.

You cherry pick. I can also post photos of Turkmenistan Turkmens who do not show Mongoloid features, as far as phenotype goes, and who could pass as native as far as Balkans.

That's not the point.
Turkmenistan is more than 2/3 Caucasoid. Uzbekistan is more than 50%.
This is the biggest proof that Seljuks weren't Japanese like people.

This (fact that Seljuks were most probably way more than 50% Caucasian) leads us to the following conclusions:

- Considering the relatively high amount of Northern Asiatic genetics in modern day Turkey, we can logically infer that starting from the 11th century there has been an important human immigration from Central Asia to Anatolia and these migrants outnumbered local people;

- The most important (for Turkish nationalism) conclusion is that the Caucasoid element being majority of Turkish genetics come mostly from ancient Iranic tribes of Central Asia such Scythians or Sarmats; and NOT local Anatolians, it's to say Greek and Armenian.


If you read Ibn Al Qalanissi and other chroniclers, who are also the sources for the Arabic perception of Crusades back in Medieval times, you'd see how they describe Seljuk Turks. Kilij Arslan of Rum, Imameddin Zenghi and his son Nureddin. There are even comparative physical descriptions.

[ButlerKing]

You cherry pick. I can also post photos of Turkmenistan Turkmens who do not show Mongoloid features, as far as phenotype goes, and who could pass as native as far as Balkans.

I wasn't just cherry picking. I was showing that some Turkmens are over 50% Mongoloid. Even you choose very caucasoid looking Turkmen it doesn't prove anything either nor will prove they are pure.

Mongoloid facial structure and Caucasoid facial structure is typical of Central Asians.

Let me use half Koreans as examples ( because genetically their very close with the Siberian/Altaic people )


Half Koreans half White can look like this

http://bettychambers.com/uploaded_images/bw_daniel_henney-715699.jpg

Half Koreans half White can also look like this


http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq64taZriY1qiswego1_500.jpg




That's not the point.
Turkmenistan is more than 2/3 Caucasoid. Uzbekistan is more than 50%.
This is the biggest proof that Seljuks weren't Japanese like people.

Turkmen are 13 - 56% Mongoloid however the average is 16 - 27%

Uzbeks are 27 - 58% Mongoloid however the average is 43%




This (fact that Seljuks were most probably way more than 50% Caucasian) leads us to the following conclusions:
- Considering the relatively high amount of Northern Asiatic genetics in modern day, we can logically infer that starting from the 11th century there has been an important human immigration from Central Asia to Anatolia and these migrants outnumbered local people;
- The most important (for Turkish nationalism) conclusion is that the Caucasoid element being majority of Turkish genetics come mostly from ancient Iranic tribes of Central Asia such Scythians or Sarmats; and NOT local Anatolians, it's to say Greek and Armenian.
This (fact that Seljuks were most probably way more than 50% Caucasian) leads us to the following conclusions:
- Considering the relatively high amount of Northern Asiatic genetics in modern day, we can logically infer that starting from the 11th century there has been an important human immigration from Central Asia to Anatolia and these migrants outnumbered local people;
- The most important (for Turkish nationalism) conclusion is that the Caucasoid element being majority of Turkish genetics come mostly from ancient Iranic tribes of Central Asia such Scythians or Sarmats; and NOT local Anatolians, it's to say Greek and Armenian.


Where do you get your mostly Iranic tribes DNA? I can't find it anywhere on google at all. Turkmen have 3x to 5x the number of Iranic admixture than Turkish people have

One thing that must be mentioned: Just like Turkey who introduced million of slaves to their population, the Turkmen and Uzbeks also introduced millions of Persians and Russian slaves in their population


Abolition of slavery

The Russian administration liberated the slaves of the Kazakhs in 1859.[29] However, isolated abductions of Russians or Ukrainians by Kazakhs for the slave markets of Central Asia continued until the Tsars' conquest of Khiva and Bukhara in the 1860s.[30] At major markets in Bukhara, Samarkand, Karakul, Karshi and Charju, slaves consisted mainly of Iranians and Russians, and some Kalmuks; they were brought there by Turkmen, Kazakh and Kyrgyz.[31] A notorious slave market for captured Russian and Persian slaves was centred in the Khanate of Khiva from the 17th to the 19th century.[32] During the first half of the 19th century alone, some one million Persians, as well as an unknown number of Russians, were enslaved and transported to Central Asian khanates.[33][34] When the Russian troops took Khiva in 1873 there were 29,300 Persian slaves, captured by Turkoman raiders.[citation needed] According of Josef Wolff (Report of 1843–1845) the population of the Khanate of Bukhara was 1,200,000, of whom 200,000 were Persian slaves.[35]

[ButlerKing]

Even the Kurds have much more Iranic admixture than Turkish people

http://i45.tinypic.com/112c4go.png

[Mehmet]

The look of individuals doesn't prove anything.
In the Netherlands, you have bunch of half-Dutch half-Indonesian who happen to look almost normal Dutch, hence more Germanic than the average darker Germanics (Germans or Austrians with dark hair).

A few Russian slaves in Central Asia doesn't prove anything.
Slavic slaves were abundant in Volga Tataria (yeah, most Volga Tatars pass as Central Europeans as of today), back at Golden Hordes times, not in proper Bukhara or Turkmenia.

What you pretend (you personnaly, anti-Turk Greek-Armenian-Western haters and liars) was that Seljuks were 100% Mongols who intermixed with Armenians and Greeks and started to look Caucasian, having their Asiatic genes amount decreased.
The situation of Central Asia (huge amount of Caucasoid element, despite Mongol invasions and genocides) proves us that it's still majority Caucasoid and was more Caucasian 1000 years ago.

This empowers the Turkish nationalism.
As it proves that the Caucasian blood Turks have come from Ancient Central Asian Iranics; and not through recent Greek and Armenian admixture; which never happened.


note: ancient Iranic tribes of Central Asia (Scythians, Sarmatians and others) have nothing to do with modern Persians or Kurds. They are more present in Ukraine or Southern Russians genetics.
Modern Iran received huge amount of immigration from Indian subcontinent.

[ButlerKing]

The look of individuals doesn't prove anything.
In the Netherlands, you have bunch of half-Dutch half-Indonesian who happen to look almost normal Dutch, hence more Germanic than the average darker Germanics (Germans or Austrians with dark hair).

A few Russian slaves in Central Asia doesn't prove anything.
Slavic slaves were abundant in Volga Tataria (yeah, most Volga Tatars pass as Central Europeans as of today), back at Golden Hordes times, not in proper Bukhara or Turkmenia.

What you pretend (you personnaly, anti-Turk Greek-Armenian-Western haters and liars) was that Seljuks were 100% Mongols who intermixed with Armenians and Greeks and started to look Caucasian, having their Asiatic genes amount decreased.
The situation of Central Asia (huge amount of Caucasoid element, despite Mongol invasions and genocides) proves us that it's still majority Caucasoid and was more Caucasian 1000 years ago.

This empowers the Turkish nationalism.
As it proves that the Caucasian blood Turks have come from Ancient Central Asian Iranics; and not through recent Greek and Armenian admixture; which never happened.


A few Russian slaves? I don't see how 100,000 is a small number, they were transported to Central Asia by the Kazakhs but the Iranian slaves are the largest at about 1 million which happened in the 18th to 19th century which obviously diluted their Mongoloid admixture.


I didn't say seljuks were 100% Mongoloid but they must have been more Mongoloid than modern Turkmen. These was what the Seljuks look, at least a large portion of them had to as Mongoloid as these which can still be found among modern Turkmen of Middle east


http://turkmen.traveler.uz/images/albums/Faces/turkmen%20family.jpg
http://www.abqjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/f01_jd_20jan_4turk.jpg

[Mehmet]

I didn't say seljuks were 100% Mongoloid but they must have been more Mongoloid than modern Turkmen. These was what the Seljuks look, at least a large portion of them had to as Mongoloid as these which can still be found among modern Turkmen of Middle east


You don't make sense.
Immigration happened always from East to West. This is the rule.
Kalmyk people, being Mongolian and living right in the North of the Caspian, are the biggest proof you don't make any sense.
Over the past 1000 years, Central Asia hasn't turned more Caucasian.
It has turned more Mongoloid.

Even Anatolia received around 90 Mongol clans in the late 13th century.
A population replacement occured in the 13th century in Central Asia.
Turkmens are the most Caucasians as they have been the furthest to Mongolia.

The point:
Turkey Turks inherited most of their Caucasian (and Mongoloid) genes from their Seljuk ancestors.
And not from Japanese (Mongoloid) or native Anatolians (Hellenized Hittites or Armenians).
The Caucasoid element present in Seljuks were from Scythians and Sarmatians.

Conclusion: We are not mixed (or not at considerable amount) with Greeks and Armenians.

[ButlerKing]

You don't make sense.
Immigration happened always from East to West. This is the rule.
Kalmyk people, being Mongolian and living right in the North of the Caspian, are the biggest proof you don't make any sense.
Over the past 1000 years, Central Asia hasn't turned more Caucasian.
It has turned more Mongoloid.

Even Anatolia received around 90 Mongol clans in the late 13th century.
A population replacement occured in the 13th century in Central Asia.
Turkmens are the most Caucasians as they have been the furthest to Mongolia.

The point:
Turkey Turks inherited most of their Caucasian (and Mongoloid) genes from their Seljuk ancestors.
And not from Japanese (Mongoloid) or native Anatolians (Hellenized Hittites or Greeks).


All Central Asian Turks before Mongolian invasion would have had 20-30% of the population that were already Mongoloid and Mongoloid Turanid. Ancient people from Kazakhstans, Kyrgyzstan would have been like modern Turkmenistan , people ranging from majority 70-80% caucasoid people to the minority 20-30% half Mongoloid + predominately Mongoloid people. This explains why modern Kazakhs, Karalkalpaks, North Uzbeks, Kyrgyz are so mongoloid looking today when they mixed with Mongolians

Turkmen people have no influence of Mongolian genetics and the Kamlyks are recent migrants but they have no genetic influence on anybody. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan didn't turn more Caucasoid but Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan sure as hell did in the 19th century. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS OF IRANIAN/PERSIAN SLAVES INCLUDING 100,000 OF RUSSIAN SLAVES TRANSPORTED TO CENTRAL ASIA.

Turkish turks only have 5 - 20% Central Asian Caucasoid to 5 - 18.5% Central Asian Mongoloid DNA the rest are anatolian DNA and ottoman slaves DNA.



Conclusions: Turkish Turks are predominately anatolians with 9 - 30% Central Asian admixture.

[Mehmet]

All Central Asian Turks before Mongolian invasion would have had 20-30% of the population that were already Mongoloid and Mongoloid Turanid. Ancient people from Kazakhstans, Kyrgyzstan would have been like modern Turkmenistan , people ranging from majority 70-80% caucasoid people to the minority 20-30% half Mongoloid + predominately Mongoloid people. This explains why modern Kazakhs, Karalkalpaks, North Uzbeks, Kyrgyz are so mongoloid looking today when they mixed with Mongolians

Turkmen people have no influence of Mongolian genetics and the Kamlyks are recent migrants but they have no genetic influence on anybody. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan didn't turn more Caucasoid but Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan sure as hell did in the 19th century. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS OF IRANIAN/PERSIAN SLAVES INCLUDING 100,000 OF RUSSIAN SLAVES TRANSPORTED TO CENTRAL ASIA.

Turkish turks only have 5 - 20% Central Asian Caucasoid to 5 - 18.5% Central Asian Mongoloid DNA the rest are anatolian DNA and ottoman slaves DNA.

Conclusions: Turkish Turks are predominately anatolians with 9 - 30% Central Asian admixture.

:picard2:

You say:
1. Central Asians were 20-30% Mongoloid before Mongol invasion and 70-80% Caucasian.
2. You tell Turkey has around 12% Mongoloid Dna but only 22% Central Asia on average.

So the pre-Genghis Khan Central Asians happened to be 1/5 Mongoloid according to you, but Seljuk migrants were 50% Mongoloid according to you!!!!

If Turkey has 12% Mongoloid DNA (using the pre-Genghis ratio of Central Asia), that would mean 60% of Turkish people come from Central Asian genes (48% of it being Caucasian and from Scythians and Sarmatians then, not from native Anatolians).

Attention:
There's been 2 major immigration from Central Asia to Anatolia.
First after Seljuk armies defeated Byzantines in Armenia (1071); second took place in 1220's, Turks escaping from advancing Mongol armies (the grand father of Othman, founder of Ottoman was among them).

[ButlerKing]

:picard2:

You say:
1. Central Asians were 20-30% Mongoloid before Mongol invasion and 70-80% Caucasian.
2. You tell Turkey has around 12% Mongoloid Dna but only 22% Central Asia on average.

So the pre-Genghis Khan Central Asians happened to be 1/5 Mongoloid to you, but in case of Seljuk migrants it reaches 50% Mongoloid !!!!

If Turkey has 12% Mongoloid DNA (using the pre-Genghis ratio of Central Asia), that would mean 60% of Turkish people come from Central Asian genes (48% of it being from Scythians and Sarmatians then, not from native Anatolians).



Do you know that modern Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are 70-72% Mongoloid admixture on average? and the Mongols were a minority compared to the native population of those countries. And even the Mongol invasion of Central Asia was not completely Mongols but a mixture of Turkic tribes and mixture of Mongolian tribes under Genghis Khan



Let me explain this properly


Ancient Central Asians were Caucasoid Iranic people ( they also had little siberian mongoloid DNA )


Than Turkic invasion came and Mongoloid skulls and admixture increased in all Central Asia. And two types of races existed the Majority who were predominately Iranic with some Mongoloid admixture and the minority who were predominately Mongoloid with some Caucasoid admixture


Than Mongol invasion came and Mongoloid skulls and admixture increased even more



THIS IS WHAT THEY FOUND BEFORE THE TIME OF MONGOL INVASION


The Oghuz turkmen were related with Gokturk, however the different is that Gokturk were predominately Mongoloid to Mongoloid. While Oghuz Turk have both people who are 100% Mongoloid and people were 25-50% Mongoloid and 25-50% Caucasoid.

By Russian anthropologists



Oghuz from Western + Southern Kazakhstan.

Russian translations.


" Among the Oghuz (mainly in the steppe zone of their resettlement) dominated Mongoloid racial type. "They - wrote about the Aral Oghuz in the tenth century. Al-Masudi, - most of undersized (Turks) and they have very small eyes" [11]. Other medieval authors note poorly defined vegetation on the face and body and Ploskonos Oguz. All of this suggests Mongoloid features that were characteristic of the bulk predominantly steppe Oguz [12]. "


http://i45.tinypic.com/zmf75y.jpg


" These written sources of X-XII centuries. the physical appearance of the Oghuz confirm some paleoanthropological materials. Among the found in the Oguz-Pecheneg mounds of western Kazakhstan skulls dominate Mongoloid types with the South Siberian features. However, there are also found the skull Caucasoid and metisnogo appearance. [13]


More intensive process of ethnic assimilation is likely to take place among the Oghuz south-western regions of Central Asia. Quite a few, but very interesting in this respect craniological material is located in southern Kazakhstan. In excavated ANBernshtam Oguz cemeteries Sasyk-Bulak buried dolihokrannye Caucasoids mixed with Mongoloid features. [14] "




http://i50.tinypic.com/73hqo0.jpg

[ButlerKing]

The first Turkic migration were the Gokturk happened in the 6th century


http://i48.tinypic.com/2r6nx2b.jpg


And they looked like this

http://i48.tinypic.com/2cz4nwz.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/34j6fk9.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2qa5p28.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2vi0aw0.jpg




After the Gokturks conquered all Central Asia, the Oghuz tribes migrated to Turkmenistan from Kazakhstan and intermixed with the Iranian people


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Seljuk_Empire_locator_map.svg

[Mehmet]

That's propaganda.
There's logic and common sense. When you see modern day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; who are still more than half Caucasian despite Mongol invasion, it's clear as day vast majority of our genes come from Seljuks.
And vast majority of our Caucasian genes aren't from native Anatolians, but from Scythians and Sarmatians.

[ButlerKing]

That's propaganda.
There's logic and common sense. When you see modern day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; who are still more than half Caucasian despite Mongol invasion, it's clear as day vast majority of our genes come from Seljuks.
And vast majority of our Caucasian genes aren't from native Anatolians, but from Scythians and Sarmatians.


Mehmet, do you honestly believe a mere 600,000 Mongolians could have change the ancient Central Asians who had from 10 - 20 million populations? it's true that a majority of Central Asians were massacred. You make sound as if the Mongolians in the 13th century had enough people to change all the Central Asians.


DNA shows Uzbeks have a lot Mongolian DNA but Turkmen have 0% of it.

Turks have mostly anatolian DNA it is gullible to think a minority turkic tribe replaced a majority anatolian people.

[Tatar]

Mehmet, do you honestly believe a mere 600,000 Mongolians could have change the ancient Central Asians who had from 10 - 20 million populations? it's true that a majority of Central Asians were massacred. You make sound as if the Mongolians in the 13th century had enough people to change all the Central Asians.


DNA shows Uzbeks have a lot Mongolian DNA but Turkmen have 0% of it.

Turks have mostly anatolian DNA it is gullible to think a minority turkic tribe replaced a majority anatolian people.

Haha Privet Valeriy Konik ))))

[Xyresic]

I am the only one who finds it really weird that an "Englishman" like ButlerKing has an obsession with Turks and Mongols?

And when I say obsession I mean that's literally all he talks about.

The only person I can think of that constantly says anti-Turkish propaganda and posts pictures of people on a level like ButlerKing is a person called Oslonor.

Here's some of his garbage:
http://azeriturks.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azeriaryans.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azeripolitics.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azerisinus.blogspot.co.uk/
http://aryanpanturks.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azerinazist.blogspot.co.uk/
http://yahoopartone.blogspot.co.uk/
http://oslonor.blogspot.co.uk/
http://zorost.blogspot.co.uk/
http://yazdgerdiii.blogspot.co.uk/

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person.

[Kiyant]

I am the only one who finds it really weird that an "Englishman" like ButlerKing has an obsession with Turks and Mongols?

And when I say obsession I mean that's literally all he talks about.

The only person I can think of that constantly says anti-Turkish propaganda and posts pictures of people on a level like ButlerKing is a person called Oslonor.

Here's some of his garbage:
http://azeriturks.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azeriaryans.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azeripolitics.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azerisinus.blogspot.co.uk/
http://aryanpanturks.blogspot.co.uk/
http://azerinazist.blogspot.co.uk/
http://yahoopartone.blogspot.co.uk/
http://oslonor.blogspot.co.uk/
http://zorost.blogspot.co.uk/
http://yazdgerdiii.blogspot.co.uk/

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person.

That guy is really obsessed and weird as fuck.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I don't know what his slant is, but he is obviously obsessed with east asians in some weird way that makes him say a lot of stupid shit.

(talking about BK, but shoe fits for other guy as well, if he's not the same)

[Kiyant]

I don't know what his slant is, but he is obviously obsessed with east asians in some weird way that make his say a lot of stupid shit.

He is obsessed with central/east/north asians and made hundreds of weird posts about those people.

[Mehmet]

Mehmet, do you honestly believe a mere 600,000 Mongolians could have change the ancient Central Asians who had from 10 - 20 million populations? it's true that a majority of Central Asians were massacred. You make sound as if the Mongolians in the 13th century had enough people to change all the Central Asians.


DNA shows Uzbeks have a lot Mongolian DNA but Turkmen have 0% of it.

Turks have mostly anatolian DNA it is gullible to think a minority turkic tribe replaced a majority anatolian people.

They did.
Eastern Kazakhstan was called 'Mogolistan', even after their conversion, until end of 14th century. Kyrghyz people have also been influenced.
That's why the rate of East Asian component differs from one country to another. In fact even within Kazakhstan, eastern Kazakhstan is close to Mongolia while Western Kazakhs are like Tatars.

I don't have anything against that situation; pretty much on the contrary.
I'm quite proud of the relatively high levels of the Asiatic component in Turkey.
Actually this proves that, taking into account the genetics of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the Turkish people from Turkey aren't that much from their ancestors who left Central Asia 1000 years ago.

The conclusion is perfect for Turkish nationalism.
Majority of the Caucasian element in Turks don't come from Anatolian natives but from ancient Indo-Europeans from Central Asia (Scythians and co).
That's great.

This empowers a Turkish nationalism.

[ButlerKing]

They did.
Eastern Kazakhstan was called 'Mogolistan', even after their conversion, until end of 14th century. Kyrghyz people have also been influenced.
That's why the rate of East Asian component differs from one country to another. In fact even within Kazakhstan, eastern Kazakhstan is close to Mongolia while Western Kazakhs are like Tatars.

I don't have anything against that situation; pretty much on the contrary.
I'm quite proud of the relatively high levels of the Asiatic component in Turkey.
Actually this proves that, taking into account the genetics of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the Turkish people from Turkey aren't that much from their ancestors who left Central Asia 1000 years ago.

The conclusion is perfect for Turkish nationalism.
Majority of the Caucasian element in Turks don't come from Anatolian natives but from ancient Indo-Europeans from Central Asia (Scythians and co).
That's great.

This empowers a Turkish nationalism.

Turkish are not only different to Uzbeks and Turkmen in terms of Mongoloid DNA but even in terms of Caucasoid DNA they largely different.

In terms of Y-DNA which is transmitted from paternal.

Turkish have 15.8% R1b but Turkmen in Turkmenistan have 35%, and Turkmen have 9.8% R1 but Turkish have 6.5 but in terms of Y-DNA J1 and J2 Turkish turks have 9% J1 and 20-25% J2 while Turkmen have 0% J1 and 11% J2 and there is no proof that R1b and J1 and J2 in Turkish all came from Turkmen because some of them would have likely have been native to anatolians just like many Southern europeans have this dna today showing once again there is no way that Turkish are Caucasoid genetic descendants of Turkmen

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DHFjD7y3i0Y/Tdp9ol50DVI/AAAAAAAAGp4/bWSnGK2VZv8/s1600/J2+map.png



Another type of DNA found good frequency in Turkish but non-existant in Turkmen


Y-DNA Eb1a and Eb1b, the North Africans are Eb1b berber type is found very high in North Africans but low in the Black Sub saharan africans. Eb1b is found from 6.25 to 9% in Turkey but 0% in Turkmen.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Y_Haplogroup_E.PNG


Haplogroup I 0% in Turkmen, 2.5% in Uzbeks and 5.35% in Turkish

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG





SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?



Turkmen and Turkish R1b have a gap of 15% difference
Turkmen and Turkish R1a have a gap of 3.3% difference
Turmnen and Turkish J1 and J2 have a gap of 26% difference
Turkmen and Turkish E have a gap of 6.25 to 9% difference
Turkmen and Turkish I have a gap of 5.35% difference

55.6 to 58% Caucasoid genetic difference between Turkmen and Turkish and this is not including Mongoloid Y-DNA N and Q. Haplogroup Q is found 10% in Turkmen and in some cities in Turkmenistan 12- 15, and in Turkmen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran 42.6 to 54% where they look more mongoloid. Turkish have only 1.91% haplogroup Q with only some studies showing 3.52 and 5.02 %. Y-DNA N is 4% in Turkish but it is 0% from Southern Turkmenistan to 9% in some cities of Northern Turkmenistan.


Mongoloid paternal Y-DNA differences

In Turkmenistan

Turkmen and Turkish Q have a gap of 8.11% difference to some having 8.50 to 9.8%
Turkmen and Turkish N have a gap of 0 to 6% difference.

In Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan

Turkmen and Turkish Q have a gap of 40.6% to 52% difference
However the N is the same, both having 4%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA).PNG




So genetic difference of Mongoloid + Caucasoid Y-DNA in Turkmen from Turkmenistan and Turkish from Turkey alone is 69 to 72%

[Visitor_22]

Agreed. Turkish people look very different from turkmens.
They tend to look more like people of Caucasus Mountains, kurds, pashtuns, etc.
Very few ones remind turkmens.


Turkmen girls

http://s019.radikal.ru/i642/1203/72/05680a1d5bfa.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/20/72338327_ab6dc39ae6.jpg

http://f.bilgibende.com/foto/13/06/20/iuuq_NV_00xxx_SL_usbwfm_NK_jnbhft_SL_dpn0uvslnfojt ubo41_SL_kqh.jpg

http://www.tourstouzbekistan.com/uploads/albums/photogallery/turkmen-beauty_girl.jpg

http://s008.radikal.ru/i305/1105/cf/c4b21b8c9c1e.jpg

http://s46.radikal.ru/i114/1105/26/39fa5fbe1d14.jpg

http://www.dezinfo.net/images2/image/02.2010/turkmen/1011.jpg

http://s59.radikal.ru/i164/1203/bd/09524ae9ad81.jpg


P.S. I see turks are pissed off! :)

[Proto-Shaman]

Agreed. Turkish people look very different from turkmens.
They tend to look more like people of Caucasus Mountains, kurds, pashtuns, etc.
Very few ones remind turkmens.

Turkmen girls

...
P.S. I see turks are pissed off! :)

The only one who should be pissed of is you :) reality is somehow different. The results are as in the following for the Turkmenistan samples and samples from Turkey:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40073&d=1384126119
(data based on recent analysis by Hodoğlugil & Mahley et al. (2012) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332727) and samples from the Yunusbayev study (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=17))

The results for Kayseri were similar to results for Istanbul. These results suggest that Turkmens of Turkmenistan are fundamentally West Asian genetically and similar to Turks of Turkey. Furthermore the Siberian genetic content in Turkmens and Turks of Turkey are comparable suggesting a significant Turkmen influx into Anatolia if indeed the source population of Turks of Turkey were Turkmens of Seljuqs. Interestingly enough Siberian genes in the Aydin region of Turkey is even higher than in Turkmenistan.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1398420_751298368217321_1530413498_o.jpg

Furthermore in 2001, Benedetto et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601) revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia.

Here are some Turkmens of Turkmenistan:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40060&d=1384119388
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40059&d=1384119383
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40058&d=1384119382
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40056&d=1384119380
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40055&d=1384119376
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40054&d=1384119371
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40053&d=1384119368
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40052&d=1384119363
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40007&d=1384116750http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40050&d=1384119357
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40049&d=1384119356
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40048&d=1384119353
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40047&d=1384119348
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40066&d=1384119488
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40003&d=1384116746
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40065&d=1384119487

[Proto-Shaman]

-------edited--------

[Krampus]

Turks = cunts end of discussion

[ButlerKing]

The only one who should be pissed of is you :) reality is somehow different. The results are as in the following for the Turkmenistan samples and samples from Turkey:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40073&d=1384126119
(data based on recent analysis by Hodoğlugil & Mahley et al. (2012) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332727) and samples from the Yunusbayev study (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=17))

The results for Kayseri were similar to results for Istanbul. These results suggest that Turkmens of Turkmenistan are fundamentally West Asian genetically and similar to Turks of Turkey. Furthermore the Siberian genetic content in Turkmens and Turks of Turkey are comparable suggesting a significant Turkmen influx into Anatolia if indeed the source population of Turks of Turkey were Turkmens of Seljuqs. Interestingly enough Siberian genes in the Aydin region of Turkey is even higher than in Turkmenistan.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1398420_751298368217321_1530413498_o.jpg

Furthermore in 2001, Benedetto et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601) revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia.

Here are some Turkmens of Turkmenistan:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40060&d=1384119388
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40059&d=1384119383
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40058&d=1384119382
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40056&d=1384119380
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40055&d=1384119376
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40054&d=1384119371
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40053&d=1384119368
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40052&d=1384119363
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40007&d=1384116750http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40050&d=1384119357
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40049&d=1384119356
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40048&d=1384119353
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40047&d=1384119348
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40066&d=1384119488
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40003&d=1384116746
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40065&d=1384119487


Your data lacks Siberian admixture
Which are the components of most Mongoloid Turks


If Turks are similar to Turkmen because of West Asian admixture than Armenians and Kurds are also Turks.

[StonyArabia]

R1a is Caucasoid Y-lineage and it also was probably shows that the Aryans came from what is now Ukraine and the Pontic steppes. The Aryans were tall, fair skinned and light eyed people and the people closest to them are the East Slavs and Balts.At least if you use the name of Aryan for the proto-Indo-European.

[Proto-Shaman]

Your data lacks Siberian admixture
Which are the components of most Mongoloid Turks

If Turks are similar to Turkmen because of West Asian admixture than Armenians are also Turks.

Armenians carry pre-Turkic influence.

[ButlerKing]

Armenians carry pre-Turkic influence.

Here is a study of Turkmen from the capital city Ashgaibat ( In the very Southern part of Turkmenistan, it became the capital after the soviet union )

Now compare with Turks of Kayseri.

It would seem Armenians and Kurds are 3x even closer to Turkish people than Turkmen in terms of Caucasoid admixture

http://i45.tinypic.com/112c4go.png

[Proto-Shaman]

Here is a study of Turkmen from the capital city Ashgaibat ( In the very Southern part of Turkmenistan, it became the capital after the soviet union )

Now compare with Turks of Kayseri.

It would seem Armenians and Kurds 3x are even closer to Turkish people than Turkmen in terms of Caucasoid admixture

http://i45.tinypic.com/112c4go.png

The results are as in the following for the Turkmenistan samples and samples from Turkey:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40073&d=1384126119
(data based on recent analysis by Hodoğlugil & Mahley et al. (2012) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332727) and samples from the Yunusbayev study (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=17))

The results for Kayseri were similar to results for Istanbul. These results suggest that Turkmens of Turkmenistan are fundamentally West Asian genetically and similar to Turks of Turkey. Furthermore the Siberian genetic content in Turkmens and Turks of Turkey are comparable suggesting a significant Turkmen influx into Anatolia if indeed the source population of Turks of Turkey were Turkmens of Seljuqs. Interestingly enough Siberian genes in the Aydin region of Turkey is even higher than in Turkmenistan.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1398420_751298368217321_1530413498_o.jpg

Furthermore in 2001, Benedetto et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601) revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia.

[ButlerKing]

The results are as in the following for the Turkmenistan samples and samples from Turkey:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40073&d=1384126119
(data based on recent analysis by Hodoğlugil & Mahley et al. (2012) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22332727) and samples from the Yunusbayev study (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=17))

The results for Kayseri were similar to results for Istanbul. These results suggest that Turkmens of Turkmenistan are fundamentally West Asian genetically and similar to Turks of Turkey. Furthermore the Siberian genetic content in Turkmens and Turks of Turkey are comparable suggesting a significant Turkmen influx into Anatolia if indeed the source population of Turks of Turkey were Turkmens of Seljuqs. Interestingly enough Siberian genes in the Aydin region of Turkey is even higher than in Turkmenistan.

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1398420_751298368217321_1530413498_o.jpg

Furthermore in 2001, Benedetto et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601) revealed that Central Asian genetic contribution to the current Anatolian mtDNA gene pool was estimated as roughly 30%, by comparing the populations of Mediterranean Europe, and Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia.


Which means 70% have nothing to do with Turkmen which also means that modern Turkish people are only 1/3 Turkmen at best.


Mongoloid admixture in Turkey reaches from 2% to 18.5% but for Turkmen it is 13% to 56%. This shows the great difference between Turkmen and Turkish.

[Proto-Shaman]

Which means 70% have nothing to do with Turkmen which also means that modern Turkish people are only 1/3 Turkmen at best.

Mongoloid admixture in Turkey reaches from 2% to 18.5% but for Turkmen it is 13% to 56%. This shows the great difference between Turkmen and Turkish.
Because of geography :picard2:

[Mehmet]

http://i45.tinypic.com/112c4go.png

According to this chart (I suppose the yellow and orange are Mongoloid genes), it's Turks and Turkmens who cluster together; whereas Armenians and Kurds are the same people.
Like I told you many times. Consider that Anatolian Turks have mixed a bit with people they Turkified and Islamized; and Turkmens have received extra Mongoloid element after Genghis invasion.

[ButlerKing]

According to this chart (I suppose the yellow and orange are Mongoloid genes), it's Turks and Turkmens who cluster together; whereas Armenians and Kurds are the same people.
Like I told you many times. Consider that Anatolian Turks have mixed a bit with people they Turkified and Islamized; and Turkmens have received extra Mongoloid element after Genghis invasion.

This study is only from one city of Turkmenistan which on average 16.5% Mongoloid with ranging frequencies of 13 - 31% however other cities have great variations of average 20-27% Mongoloid with ranging frequencies from 19 - 56% Mongoloid. Same with Turkish on Kayseri the average is only 5.5% and the highest is 3-12% Mongoloid but in Aydin is 11.6% and the highest is 5- 18.5% Mongoloid.

Turkmenistan have no signs of Genghis Khan Mongolian DNA invasion in fact there is strong evidence for Uzbeks, Hazara, most of Kazakhstan, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Nogais and some Tatars but no evidence whatsoever for Turkmen

Turkmen had recieved millions of Iranian, Russian through slavery to their country during 18th - 19th century which increased their Caucasoid DNA significantly.

Turkmen DNA is far more close to Tajiks than Turkish.

[Mehmet]

This study is only from one city of Turkmenistan which on average 16.5% Mongoloid with ranging frequencies of 13 - 31% however other cities have great variations of average 20-27% Mongoloid with ranging frequencies from 19 - 56% Mongoloid. Same with Turkish on Kayseri the average is only 5.5% and the highest is 3-12% Mongoloid but in Aydin is 11.6% and the highest is 5- 18.5% Mongoloid.

Turkmenistan have no signs of Genghis Khan Mongolian DNA invasion in fact there is strong evidence for Uzbeks, Hazara, most of Kazakhstan, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Nogais and some Tatars but no evidence whatsoever for Turkmen

Turkmen had recieved millions of Iranian, Russian through slavery to their country during 18th - 19th century which increased their Caucasoid DNA significantly.

Turkmen DNA is far more close to Tajiks than Turkish.

Tajiks intermingled a lot with various Turkic groups. It's no surprise.
The matter is that you can't even comment the chart you added.
Turks and Turkmens have similar elements, at different rates; but similar anyway.
And Armenians and Kurds don't have the yellow and orange ones.

Turkmens haven't mixed that much with ethnicities you named.

[Visitor_22]

Tajiks didn't mix with turkic tribes. Stop that bullshit man.

[ButlerKing]

Tajiks intermingled a lot with various Turkic groups. It's no surprise.
The matter is that you can't even comment the chart you added.
Turks and Turkmens have similar elements, at different rates; but similar anyway.
And Armenians and Kurds don't have the yellow and orange ones.

Turkmens haven't mixed that much with ethnicities you named.

Turkmen and Turkish have a very far distant of Iranian/Green components and Southwest Asian/Gray components.

Turkmen have 3 to 5x Green components
Turkish have 2x the Gray components

[ButlerKing]

Tajiks didn't mix with turkic tribes. Stop that bullshit man.

Actually they did but to a smaller extend and much of it are Mongols

[Proto-Shaman]

Tajiks didn't mix with turkic tribes. Stop that bullshit man.
large number of Tajiks are Persianified Sart-Turks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ#t=42m15s

[Mehmet]

Butler you're turning around not to come around.
We also told some admixtures happened in both sides; yet the core element remains same.
and your chart demonstrates this too.

I strongly suspect that you are Iranian.



http://www.dezinfo.net/images2/image/02.2010/turkmen/1011.jpg
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]P.S. I see turks are pissed off! :)

This one looks perfect.
:)

[ButlerKing]

Tajiks intermingled a lot with various Turkic groups. It's no surprise.
The matter is that you can't even comment the chart you added.
Turks and Turkmens have similar elements, at different rates; but similar anyway.
And Armenians and Kurds don't have the yellow and orange ones.

Turkmens haven't mixed that much with ethnicities you named.

It it weren't for Turkmens extra 6- 18% Mongoloid admixture one can almost say Turkmens and Tajiks are the same race.

Tajiks on average have only 13% but some average are also 18 - 26% however their Mongoloid DNA ranges from as lows as 6% to as high as 52%


Here are some Tajiks

http://goatsontheroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/P1200363-001.jpg
http://centralasia-adventures.com/img/info/tajikistan/tajikistan14_big.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XUlwePYgx8M/TbPg224IONI/AAAAAAAAAdc/YPKDq1WfUJc/s400/IMG_0026.JPG

[Aladdin]

Turks are just mix of various Anatolian peoples with little Middle Eastern and Balkan input. Nothing else.

[Aladdin]

Most of the Turks are Kurds in denial.

[Mehmet]

Turks are just mix of various Anatolian peoples with little Middle Eastern and Balkan input. Nothing else.

Nope.
Just look at the face of Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and you will see the long journey of Turks.
Beside phenotype, you have also genetics.

[Aladdin]

Nope.
Just look at the face of Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and you will see the long journey of Turks.
Beside phenotype, you have also genetics.

He is self-declared Bosniak. lol

[Visitor_22]

Butler you're turning around not to come around.
We also told some admixtures happened in both sides; yet the core element remains same.
and your chart demonstrates this too.

I strongly suspect that you are Iranian.



This one looks perfect.
:)

She looks kazakh. Rest not.

[Dorian]

Yeah,just typical turks.Etruscans are not the only ones that "turks" claim to be theirs,they also teach them that Sumerian/Egyptian/Hittite/Scythian civilizations were also turkic,not just they try to claim most Anatolian&MENA civilizations but most of them are panturkists too as you can see!even though most of them deny the fact that the original turks were mongoloids they would love to expand to the
-istan countries of Central Asia as they think that Azeris/Turkmens/Tatars etc should be Turks when in fact Turkic is something different from the modern turkey and turks,it's like Germany claiming all Germanic nations.Most "turks"out of the large "flashy modernized Europeanized"cities seem to be like typical third world fanatic muslims/middle easterns(culturally/behaviour/mentality speaking)being unprogressive,illiterate,poor,some of them have not to eat and their absolutists politicians "feed" them with dreams about a new Ottoman Empire(examples below) and hatred for other nations by spreading propaganda like some modern Nazis.Those turks are so insecure people.Of course they are not the only ones,there are some nations like this in Balkans too!
I feel sorry for them but i can get jealous sometimes because my people are not so patriots.

Some funny comments:
We dont need to steal other's history. We have an honored past. It is only those without history staeling to create a nation..

People in Central Asia don't look like Turkey Turks as a result of Mongol-Genghis Khan genocides and rapes.
Anatolian, unmixed Turks are the purest examples of Turks: overall Caucasian people with substantial Northern Asiatic genes ('Europo-Mongoloid' like TA forumer blogen would describe).

Also melonhead claims that Ev13 haplogroup is negroid but Q and N are european hahahahaha how funny can that be?

[Proto-Shaman]

yeah those filthy ugly mongol turks how can they dare!

[Mehmet]

She looks kazakh. Rest not.

She could Kazakh.
She's extremely attractive anyway.

I'm not a 100% Caucasoid person, don't understand me wrong.
We needed to prove that we do have some Asiatic blood and that it didn't come from full Japanese people mixing with local Anatolian women
but through a huge immigration that happened from Turkmenistan to Anatolia, 1000 years ago.
We did.

That's why I insisted in the Caucasian elements in early Turks, not because I don't like Mongoloid.

[archangel]

we were the forefathers of all:cool:

[ButlerKing]

Turkish people, new study suggest the oldest R1a is from indo-european not Turks

[Proto-Shaman]

Turkish people, new study suggest the oldest R1a is from indo-european not Turks
Hypocritical study. How can this be when Aryan R1a in North India is of Kyrgyz and Bashkir origin? Can you count 1+1?

[Trebal]

Turks have complexes because of their own pathetic identity and that is why they invent such nonsense.

They're brown and curly haired trash like Greeks, Albanians and all these other Balkan sandniggers and they will never be Asian animals like Russians or other CIS peoples (Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc).

[Proto-Shaman]

Turks have complexes because of their own pathetic identity and that is why they invent such nonsense.

They're brown and curly haired trash like Greeks, Albanians and all these other Balkan sandniggers and they will never be Asian animals like Russians or other CIS peoples (Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc).
I think rather you have complexes with Eastern "sandnigger" genetics.

[Hellenas]

Turks have complexes because of their own pathetic identity and that is why they invent such nonsense.

They're brown and curly haired trash like Greeks, Albanians and all these other Balkan sandniggers

And you are an evil german and a common liar as well:

"THE 90% OF THE PERSONS WE STUDIED HAVE WHITE SKIN COLOR. RARELY SOMEONE MEETS DARK SKIN COLOR AND EVEN MORE RARELY VERY DARK SKIN COLOR. VERY LIGHT SKIN COLOR IS MET MORE OFTEN THAN DARK SKIN COLOR." Aris Poulianos(Anthropologist/Paleoanthropologist).

"The head hair of the Greeks is straight in slightly more than half the group, wavy in most of the rest, but curly hair is not unusual." Carleton Stevens Coon(Anthropologist).

For me Germans are inferior compared to Greeks, as when we had the ancient Greek civilization/s and our Byzantine Empire you were still uncivilized barbarians and everything you have you took it from Romans and Byzantines as well.

[Proto-Shaman]

Theories of “Indo-European Urheimat” in light of the DNA-Genealogy

"Amazingly, all four main hypotheses localizing the “Indo-European homeland”, namely “Circumpontic localization”, “Kurgan”, “Anatolian”, and “Neolithic gap” turned out to be wrong at their core. They could not explain the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India; they could not explain the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement; they were unable to point the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there, especially since (the fallacious) notion of “primordial homeland” does not contain the previous localization, which is fundamentally wrong; they could not explain the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, when the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 reached the Caucasus about 4,500 years ago, reached the Near East around 3,800-3,600 years ago, and reached the territories of the ancient Pit Grave Culture, Andronovo Culture, and Central Asia, with their probable Türkic-lingual population (haplogroup R1b1) approximately 4,000-3,600 years ago."

"The striations of the linguistic and haplogroup, or tribal (in terms of DNA genealogy) in the Eastern European Plain, in the Near East, and in Europe has led to erroneous linguistic and archaeological concepts such as the “Indo-European Kurgan Culture”, with its transposed languages (postulated” Indo-European”, when it was a Türkic language), the wrong direction of movement (the “Proto-Indo-European” was moving eastward, not westward, the Türkic was moving westward, the westward movement was seen by the creators and supporters of the “Kurgan Culture” as the “Indo-European movement, which was 180 degrees wrong), wrong periods (the Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the “Kurgan” culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward)."

"Something similar also happened to the “Anatolian theory”, where a separate (So.Caucasian) branch of the Aryans' route, the southward movement of the R1a1 haplogroup carriers across the Eastern European Plain was mistaken for the “Indo-European homeland” in Anatolia. That led to a conceptual distortion and misunderstanding of the fundamental role of the Türkic languages in the Eastern European Plain (at least from the time 10,000 years ago), and in Europe, where it continued for two and a half thousand years (from the beginning of the 3rd millennium to the middle of the 1st millennium BC)."

Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

[Proto-Shaman]

About confrontation between “Iranists” and “Türkists”.

For more than a hundred years the “Iranists, or more commonly” Indo-Europeanists” on one side, and Turkologists on the other side, completely deny the contribution of the opponent's linguistic group into the Eurasian linguistic landscape in antiquity (from the beginning of our era and older), asserting that in the Europe and Asia was either a continuous “Indo-Iranian” substrate, or conversely continuous Türkic substrate. They do not compromise. Examples are given below.

And the explanation is quite simple. Both sides are right, but on their own half. The two major Eurasian haplogroups, R1a and R1b, diverged (or rather, formed and diverged) 20-16 thousand years ago, evolved linguistically from the common Nostratic languages, respectively into the Pra-Aryan (later called “Proto-Indo-European”) and the Proto-Türkic, and then into Türkic. And because the paths of the haplogroups R1a and R1b carriers in Eurasia significantly transversed in the same territories, often with a gap of a millennia or two (R1a migrations are older in Europe, R1b migrations are older in Asia), they left “substrates” superimposed one on another, and intertwined in many ways. Since the agglutinative Türkic languages are probably less subjected to temporal changes than the flexive Indo-European languages, the Turkologists explain with ease almost all “Iranisms” from the Türkic languages. They are finding in works of the Classical writers many examples of Türkisms, in the proper names and in the names for the objects, and in separate terms. The Iranists in response brush them aside, and cite their own versions, in accordance with which certainly no Türkisms existed in the Eurasia during the past era and even more so before that. Or they ignore it, or undertake repressive measures in science. Any Turkologist can cite many examples of that kind.

This article introduces the problem, to show that many thousands years ago have existed both the Aryan, that is Proto-Indo-European languages, and the Proto-Türkic (or Türkic) languages. They simply were carried by different tribes, the first by the tribe R1a1, the second by R1b1, and perhaps by the kindred tribes Q and N. This concept, naturally, awaits deeper linguistic studies. But the beginning, as can be seen, is established.

The next section relays the story about of opposition between “Iranists” and “Türkists”. Actually, the opposition does not exists literally, it is rather a figure of speech. Too unequal were both sides to call it an “opposition”. But this figure of speech reflects the essence of the problem. Ever since the beginning of the 1950s, the official historical science postulated that the Scythians were “Iranian speaking”. The issue was not to be discussed any more. Any arguments and scientific evidence on the subject were not acknowledged by the official science (and that the official science exists is beyond discussions), or reacted to with dead silence for at least 60 years.

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1450964_767270869953404_1981647998_n.jpg

Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

[ButlerKing]

Theories of “Indo-European Urheimat” in light of the DNA-Genealogy

"Amazingly, all four main hypotheses localizing the “Indo-European homeland”, namely “Circumpontic localization”, “Kurgan”, “Anatolian”, and “Neolithic gap” turned out to be wrong at their core. They could not explain the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India; they could not explain the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement; they were unable to point the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there, especially since (the fallacious) notion of “primordial homeland” does not contain the previous localization, which is fundamentally wrong; they could not explain the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, when the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 reached the Caucasus about 4,500 years ago, reached the Near East around 3,800-3,600 years ago, and reached the territories of the ancient Pit Grave Culture, Andronovo Culture, and Central Asia, with their probable Türkic-lingual population (haplogroup R1b1) approximately 4,000-3,600 years ago."

"The striations of the linguistic and haplogroup, or tribal (in terms of DNA genealogy) in the Eastern European Plain, in the Near East, and in Europe has led to erroneous linguistic and archaeological concepts such as the “Indo-European Kurgan Culture”, with its transposed languages (postulated” Indo-European”, when it was a Türkic language), the wrong direction of movement (the “Proto-Indo-European” was moving eastward, not westward, the Türkic was moving westward, the westward movement was seen by the creators and supporters of the “Kurgan Culture” as the “Indo-European movement, which was 180 degrees wrong), wrong periods (the Proto-Indo-European language advanced eastward across the Eastern European Plain in the 3rd millennium BC, while the ancient Pit Grave, or the “Kurgan” culture is mainly dated by the period of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, and were moving westward)."

"Something similar also happened to the “Anatolian theory”, where a separate (So.Caucasian) branch of the Aryans' route, the southward movement of the R1a1 haplogroup carriers across the Eastern European Plain was mistaken for the “Indo-European homeland” in Anatolia. That led to a conceptual distortion and misunderstanding of the fundamental role of the Türkic languages in the Eastern European Plain (at least from the time 10,000 years ago), and in Europe, where it continued for two and a half thousand years (from the beginning of the 3rd millennium to the middle of the 1st millennium BC)."

Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58 (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm)

Nice theory but is still just theory. His interpretations don't make them facts at the end of the day it will always just stays as a theory. Anyway lets say if this was true than this means East Europeans and Indian/Pakistani are in reality far more real Turks than Turkish, Azeris, Balkars Karachay.

There also claims that R1a was Mongoloid in origin. The only way R1a is native to Turks is if they were Mongoloid. Is there any modern Caucasoid Turk tribe that have as much R1a as these Mongoloid Turks?


Kyrgyz

35 - 67% R1a + 27 - 45% Indo-European mtDNA

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/2011/3/2730a2bc-0b3e-4aed-851e-a2d6dfe4d547HiRes.JPG


Altay people

28 - 58% R1a + 16 - 34% Indo-European mtDNA


http://www.virginia.edu/music/archives/pressrelease/06-07/images/altaikai.jpg


Khoton Mongolian

92% R1a + 50% Indo-European mtDNA


http://www.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~tkatoh/Khoton_Mongolian_480x360.jpg

[Petros Houhoulis]

Let's remind a few things to a few people:

"Nostratic" is a theory, which is not exactly universally accepted, and even worse, different linguists define it in different ways. It is more than probable that the relation between the Nostratic languages is owed more to aerial diffusion, than a common language, because the differences between them are immense.

The only gene which exists in all of the Altaic language countries is C, and it's main presence is in Kazakhstan - roughly in the middle.

Genes R1a and R1b do not exist in either Korea or Japan. As a result, none of them could have been related to the Altaic languages.

Game over!

[Proto-Shaman]

Nice theory but is still just theory. His interpretations don't make them facts at the end of the day it will always just stays as a theory. Anyway lets say if this was true than this means East Europeans and Indian/Pakistani are in reality far more real Turks than Turkish, Azeris, Balkars Karachay.

There also claims that R1a was Mongoloid in origin. The only way R1a is native to Turks is if they were Mongoloid. Is there any modern Caucasoid Turk tribe that have as much R1a as these Mongoloid Turks?


Kyrgyz

35 - 67% R1a + 27 - 45% Indo-European mtDNA

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/2011/3/2730a2bc-0b3e-4aed-851e-a2d6dfe4d547HiRes.JPG


Altay people

28 - 58% R1a + 16 - 34% Indo-European mtDNA


http://www.virginia.edu/music/archives/pressrelease/06-07/images/altaikai.jpg


Khoton Mongolian

92% R1a + 50% Indo-European mtDNA


http://www.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~tkatoh/Khoton_Mongolian_480x360.jpg
Nice Mongolian pictures.

Here is a Turkic one:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7341/9789075393_c28e2d7037_k.jpg

[Полковник 95]

LOL.

[Сербо Макеридов]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy? :picard1:

R1a in Turkey is only 7%.

[Messier 67]

The Turks brought R1a, C, O, K, Q, R2 and R1b into Anatolia.

The Turks were like the Magyars, a minority ruling a majority. There are still many who believe Magyars are Finno-Ugric when Hungarians are only 0.5% Haplogroup N (Finno-Ugric). R1a is 15 times more represented in Turkey than N in Hungary.

To the Christians in Southeast Europe, anyone who converted to Islam was a Turk, even if he were an African eunuch. The Original Seljuk Turks were predominantly R1a, with high amounts of C, O, and R1b.

[Tauromachos]

This is like the sixth time I read from crazy ass Turks who made such a claim, a truly believe there is a good number who thinks with these crazy ass mind theories, but the really crazy ass part is that they think it's real. Had I not kept reading I would have mistaken them for trolls or being on crack that day.

This one from forumbiodiversity thinks that original Europeans were Turkic before modern Indo-Europeans migrated, and that R1a was Turkic origin.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36557-Anatolian-urheimat-of-proto-Turkic-R1a-split-mod


There's even a member here " Kipchak Hagan " he claims 40-70% of Russians are Turkic/Kypchaka and Finno-ugric. He also claimed Aryans from Central Asia, Tocharians were originally Turkic.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?69870-KIPCHAK-ANTHROPOLOGY-Caucasoid-33-Mongoloid-admixtures/page4

Can Turkish minds get any more crazy?

COOL :cool:

[catgeorge]

The Turks brought R1a, C, O, R2 and R1b into Anatolia.

The Turks were like the Magyars, a minority ruling a majority. There are still many who believe Magyars are Finno-Ugric when Hungarians are only 0.5% Haplogroup N (Finno-Ugric). R1a is 15 times more represented in Turkey than N in Hungary.

To the Christians in Southeast Europe, anyone who converted to Islam was a Turk, even if he were an African eunuch. The Original Seljuk Turks were predominantly R1a, with high amounts of C, O, and R1b.

R1b was in Anatolia some 5,000 years before Turks arrived.

[Messier 67]

R1b was in Anatolia some 5,000 years before Turks arrived.

But the Turks brought more of that into Anatolia. R1a was also there before the Turks arrived, the Mitanni are believed to be a R1, probably R1a.

[Proto-Shaman]

R1 agglutinative people. Anatolia proto-Turkic. since at least 5000 BC.

[Сербо Макеридов]

R1 agglutinative people. Anatolia proto-Turkic. since at least 5000 BC :picard2:.

https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/shut-up-and-f-k-you-idiot.jpg

[itilvolga]

wth is all of that hate speech lol calm down, nobody cares you wayward Eüröpids we are clearly from Andronovo culture and we admit our Europid side (max. 35%) but well, guess who are still proud Turks and don't give a fuck

[Pahli]

wth is all of that hate speech lol calm down, nobody cares you wayward Eüröpids we are clearly from Andronovo culture and we admit our Europid side (max. 35%) but well, guess who are still proud Turks and don't give a fuck

Turks = Western Mongolia and not Andronovo which was mostly Indo-Iranian speaking. "Proud Turks" that don't even fucking know where they descent from, a lot of old Turkish men are spamming groups related to archaeology and genetics with "SCYTHIANS ARE TURKS" and so on, for some reason the Mongoloid being absolutely forgotten :lol:

Turks are mostly confused, do us Iranians a favor and stop claiming our ancestry as yours, I don't give a jack shit if I have less Steppe than some Turk, the culture and language has passed down to us, not to Turks that just like to steal history.

Its funny because these old dumb ass Turdic men like to fight with everyone, be it European, Asian or Middle Eastern, no one agrees with their pseudo-science and even one Turk stepped up and destroyed many of their fairy tale stories.


But the Turks brought more of that into Anatolia. R1a was also there before the Turks arrived, the Mitanni are believed to be a R1, probably R1a.

Turks only brought in small amounts of R1a, R1b was already present in Anatolia and parts of the Middle East long before the presence of Turkic nomads.

[catgeorge]

But the Turks brought more of that into Anatolia. R1a was also there before the Turks arrived, the Mitanni are believed to be a R1, probably R1a.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Proto-Shaman]

Turkish Babas put some penis in South Asian pussies, now they crying "stop claiming our ancestry as yours". LoL.

Scythian y-DNA:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/J1_Haplogroup_%28Y-DNA%29.jpg

[Diocleatian204]

There is a attemp by Turks to steal European and Indo-European history.

You see they even claim Estrucan were Turkic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKFCs5m19pQ


And even Latin alphabet were Turkic origin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfyNShX-8vI


But remember this Turkish freaks, the original Turk was Mongoloid and their Caucasoid admixture came from Iranic tribes which has nothing to do with what your Turkish mind freaks thinks.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_JjiEhW-dsAI/RMZtsextABI/AAAAAAAABhk/AFyeVyiOYAw/A1%20Vasily%20Petrov.jpg

Original Turks are Kazakhs.