Might be off topic, but how come some Northwest Indians with no recent admixture can be as light as Freddie Mercury and Salmon Rushdie? Those two do look more Middle Eastern, than Indian. Well Mercury's family were Parsis, so they are of mainly Iranian stock I guess. What about Muslim Kashmiri Indian or Pakistanis like Rushdie?
go and learn greek and armenian the real language of your ancestors ;) You just read a wikipedia article and think you can educate me about my people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky earth
Ghilzai have hepthalite and saka originQuote:
from a historical perspective, a confusion has arisen that connects the Turkish, depending on pronunciation, "Khallukh" or "khallakh" خلَِّخ (also known as Kharlluk خرلَِّخ) with Arabized /Persianized "Khalji" or "khalaji" خلج of Afghan/Pashtun "Ghalzai" or "Ghilzi" غلځی. Appropriately, the authors of History of Civilizations of Central Asia state, "Arab geographers of the ninth and tenth centuries place them (Ghilzi) among the Turk tribes and frequently confuse the Khalaj (Ghilzi) with Khallukh (i.e. Kharlluk) as only diacritical marks distinguish these two ethnonyms in Arabic script. Hence, information relating to the Khallukh is often included in descriptions of the Khalaj (Ghilzi).[6] For example, the Arab geographer Ibn Khurradadhbih, in his description of the lands of Turks contradicts himself by locating the Khalaj both in the region of River Talas and 'on this side' of Amu Darya, i.e. present day Afghanistan.[7]
Even more confusion is added given that both of these races, one Caucasian (Khilji/Ghilzai) and the other Mongoloid (Kharllukh or Khallukh) both are migratory. Even today many غلځی Pashtuns migrate in the summers towards Badakhshan, Takhar, Kunduz, and so forth, close to Turkish nations on the other side of Amu Darya. It is possible that some of the so-called Khalaj Turks of central Asia, who spoke a Turkish langauge were either Turkized Ghilzai Pashtuns, or those called Khalaj were in fact Khallukh. Interestingly, the Khallukh are known to have barely reached the Amu Darya in the 8th century, hence, they can't be the "Khilji/Ghilzai" Afghans, as the "Khilij/Ghilzai" were well established by that time period.[8] Nomadic migration is not unique to Ghilzai Pashtuns, as most of the nomads in Western Afghanistan are Durrani Pashtuns. As is evident, unless one understands the phonetic and linguistic differences, one is bound to make errors in discerning between the various ethnic names in question. With the preceding in mind, let us review the available records. The oldest records of these two tribes, one Turkish and the other Afghan/Pashtun, seem to originate from between 10th and 11th centuries. The two often quoted passages that consider Ghilzai as Turks are those of Istakhari and Al-Khwarizimi, neither who was native to Afghanistan.
Istakhari (circa AD 930) says, as written by Minorsky, 'The Khalaji are a class of Turks who in the days of the old (fi qadim al-ayyam) came to the country stretching between India and the districts of Sijistan behind Ghur. They are cattle breeders of Turkish appearance (khilq), dress, and language'.[9] Clearly this 'Khalaji' is not the Khilji/Ghilzai of Afghans. It would be amazing for this 'Khalaji' to be related to "Khilji/Ghilzai" of Afghanistan, as Nizam al-Mulk [10] reports that Alaptagin ( r. 961-968 AD, Ghazni) sent Subuktagin to collect taxes from Khalaji and Turkman.[11] Clearly, Nizam al-Mulk makes an obvious distinction between the Turks and 'Khalaji'; Also, Berthold reminds us that per Nizam al-Mulk, Alaptagin's son, Sultan Mahmud, was desirous of maintaining an army that was representative of various nations. [12] The facts seem to bare that desire for diversity as al-Utbi reminds us of Sultan Mahmud's army composed of various tribes of Turks, Indians, Khalajis, Afghans, and Ghaznawis.[14] Moreover, it would be amazing for this 'Khalaj' to be related to the Khalji/Ghilzai of Pashtuns, as the author of Tarikhi Yamini, Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Jabbaru-a 'Utb (Al-Utbi), who was Sultan Mahmud's (971-1030 AD) secretary in his writings also make a distinction between the Turks and 'Khalaji". In his description of Sultan Mahmud's mobilization against I'lak Khan in Balkh, he writes the Sultan advanced ready for action with an army composed of Turks, Indians, Khaljis, Afghans and Ghaznavides. Clearly, the words Turk and Khalji appear distinctively. Hence, "Khalaj" of Istakhari cannot be the "Khalji" of Al-Utbi, as it would be impossible for the "Khalaj" to have become non-Turk in a matter of thirty-one years. This racial difference continued to be realized, and in fact became a point of contention in 1290 AD between Turks and Afghans in India. The "Khilji/Ghilzai" were opposed to the throne of India by the Turks because of their race. Barani the author of Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, writes the government of the country 'passed from the family of Turks to that of the Khiljis�the gentry, commoners and soldiers�were amazed. It appeared strange to them how the Khiljis were sitting on the throne in place of the Turks, and kingship had passed from the race of the Turks to (the people of) another race'.[15]
The above points raise a few important facts about the validity of Istakhari's passage. He asserted that the "Khalaj" came to what is Afghanistan 'in the days of the old' and amazingly retained their language, but within 31 years of his statement the Khalaj/Khilji/Ghilzai were already considered non-Turks and by 1290 AD they were at odds with Turks for being Afghan. In the next few paragraphs, we will continue to see evidence that differentiates between Turks and Kalaji/Ghilzai. Nevertheless, at this point the most logical conclusions are that Istakhari's "Khalaj" are not "Khilji/Ghilzai", or Istakhari's "Khalaj" are "khilji/Ghilzai" but the attributed Turk ethnicity and language are wrong. In either case, the "Khilji/Ghilzai" would be non-Turk.
Quote:
Moreover, Minorsky has quoted al-Khwarizimi the author of Mafatih al-ulum, who wrote sometime between 365/975 and 381/991, 'The Haytatila (Hephthalites) are a tribe of men who enjoyed grandeur and possessed the country Tukharistan; the Turks called Khalaj and K.njina are their remnants'.[16] If in fact the Ghilzi Pashtuns are Hephthalites, per recent research, they are not Turks, but rather an Eastern Indo-Iranian people that spoke an Indo-European language, and not Turkish.[17] More recently Xavier Tremblay's very detailed examination of surviving Hephthalite personal names has indicated that Enoki's hypothesis that they were East Iranian may well be correct.[18] Again, what is important for us is that these 'Turks called Khalaji' are not Turks, but Caucasian Ghilzai Pashtuns. We have to look at the writings of Arab and Muslim geographers, contemporaries of al-Khwarizmi, to realize that.
So why to the Khiljis in Iran speak a Turkic language then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vir9
According to Mahmud al-Kashgari, they were mentioned at Divânu Lügati't-Türk:
"Twenty twos call them "Kal aç" in Turkish. This means "Stay hungry". Later, they were called "Xalac". Their origins are these."[1]
"Oguzs and Kipchaks translate "x" to k". They are a group of "Xalac"s. They say "xızım", whereas Turks say "kızım" (my daughter). And again other Turks say "kande erdinğ", whereas they say "xanda erdinğ", this means "where were you ?" [2]
According to Zemarcos' Syriac chronicle, Khalajes would be remnants of Hephthalites, were separate Turkic people. He was ambassador of Byzantine Empire to Western Gokturk Khanate in 568. According to Al Khwarizmi, was Samanid officer, they were considered as descendants of Hepthtalithes along with Kanjina Turks. Ibn Khordadbeh mentioned Khalajes lived beyond Syr Darya of the Talas region in his book Kitāb al-Masālik wal- Mamālik with Karluks. But the information comes into contradictions that make it unreliable. The similarity between Khalaj and Karluk is difficult to determine the truth.
They ruled Zabulistan as vassals of Tahirids with title of Zunbil. They were subjugated by Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari, was founder of Saffarids in 879. According to Saffarid sources they were inhabitants of Zabulistan, this meant they lived in present Afghanistan and among Ghazni and Zamindawar. Later, they were successively ruled by Samanids and Ghaznavids.
In 1040, they revolted against Mas'ud I of Ghazni, was sultan of Ghaznavids. He sent a punitive expedition but he was defeated and later dethroned and executed by Mohammad Ghaznavi. During the Ghaznavid and Ghurid rules, some of Khalaj gradually become Ghilzai tribe of Afghan. Ghurid Ghiyath al-Din Mahmud came to power at Firuzkuh with support of them. Later they were subjected by Khwarezmshahs in 1210s. During the Mongol invasion of 1221, many Khalajes joined the Mongols but others continued to Sayf al-Din Ighrak, who formed an ephemeral independent state in the valley of Kabul. Many Khalajes then went to India and served the sultans of Delhi, in western India and even in Bengal, its members were called Khilji and founded a dynasty which ruled Delhi sultanate from 1290 to 1320 and other dynasties in various places as Malwa. Despite their Turkic origins, they were considered as Afghans for Indians.
Some of the Khalaj remained in Afghanistan, in the fourteenth century are discussed in Khalaj Abiward in northern Khorasan, they should set the thirteenth century during the struggles between Ghurids and Khwarezmhsahs. An Uzbek tribe identified by the Russians in the 19th century with the name of Galachi, would originate from Khalaj. Other groups are indicated in Kerman and Fars and even in Azerbaijan and Anatolia. A region of western Persia, the mountainous region southwest of Tehran towards Hamadan named traditional Khalajistan, especially living in the districts (shahristans) of Sawa and Arak Province (ustan) of Markazi, and in territories inhabited by Bakhtiyaris including some close to the central mountains of Zagros.
Khalajes give their name to Halaç District at Lebap Province of Turkmenistan. Their inhabitants are Ersari tribe of Turkmens, who originated from Seljuk Turks.
Khalajs were definitely Turkic and some assimilated into modern Pashtuns. Ghilzais are definitely Pashtuns, I never denied that but Khiljis were Turkic
it has something to do with the colder climate in the mountain regions and maybe also with indoeuropean and west asian admixture among them. But this happened already a long time agoQuote:
Originally Posted by WhiteBear
The real ancestors of Turks were Iranic, Caucassian and SyroArabic tribes, that's what their genetics showQuote:
Originally Posted by Vir9
you are just annoying me wannabe turk.Ghilzai can be impossibly turks because modern ghilzai pashtuns are identical to other pashtuns and ghilzai lived in afghanistan before turks invaded this land.Just get itQuote:
Originally Posted by Sky earth
real turks were altaic people like modern mongols but they mixed much with iranic people and later with greeks,kurds,arabs and armenians in anatolia.Modern anatolian turks have almost nothing to do with real turks and are just pseudo-turks but ironically they are the most nationalist and annoying among themQuote:
Originally Posted by crank
Pashtuns are a mixture of Indians, Turkics, Persians , Mongols and Arabs. The Pashtunization process in Afghanistan during the Hotaki and Durrani empires is the reason why Pashtuns are the largest ethnicity in Arghanistan now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vir9
Afganistan:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/t...psc0a8c8e9.png
Eurasian Heartland
Eurasian Heartland can be found across a large band in the center of the Eurasian continent. It travels from the north of Europe south toward the narrow base of the Indian subcontinent. Within South Asia, it is the partner to the Indian Tectonic cluster. Across the center of Eurasia, it highlights the ancient influence of the Iranian nomads, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Cimmerians.
As early farmers moved west out of the hills of the Levant nearly 10,000 years ago, they mostly went into Europe and North Africa. The ancestors of the Eurasian Heartland, however, cautiously explored their possibilities to the east. They came into the light of history as the Persians, Sogdians, and Afghans, and have always had a hand on the turning points of history between the west and the east.
With the movement of millions from the Indian subcontinent, Eurasian Heartland has appeared in the Pacific, the New World, and Southeast Asia. Millions of displaced Afghans have also brought it west into Iran, and reinforced it in Pakistan.
just look at our dna and see how much typical iranic y-dna and autosomal dna we have and then see how much east asian y-dna and autosomal anatolian turks have.We are still close to original iranic people like pamiri but you are not even remotely related to real turks today.Actually many pashtuns were persianized in the last centuries and it is not easy for a foreigner to be so easily assimilated in the pashtun community but that happened sometimes.But anatolian turks are just a nation full of people with a Stockholm syndromeQuote:
Originally Posted by Sky earth