Originally Posted by
Kaspias
Recent articles suggest possibly earliest of ancestors of Turkic is around 80% East Eurasian birthplace being around Baykal River. Speculating it, there is one other theory that claims 100% East Eurasian origin birthplace being Yellow River. In addition, there are several claims that suggest Proto Turkic presence among Saka's but I would presume that it is thanks to the interaction between IE Saka and Asian(Baykal-connected) Sakas.
However, we do not know at what stage these people started to speak Turkic. Consider the fact that they started to identify as Turk in the early medieval - or in late Xiongnu in maximum.- Selçuk Bey, who directed his hordes to the Khorasan were not even identifying Turk until he discovers the fact that Persians call all those Asian nomads as Turk. This is thanks to the fact that Oghuz was seen as a rebellious formation within Turkic groups, and excluded from the common Turkic ethnogenesis. Some other factors such as the dissolution of Kimaks, famine in Western Siberia created a melting pot in the Eastern part of the Caspian Sea and led Oghuz to experience a population boom and eventually find themselves leading other Turkic groups.
At this stage I would like to speculate that Turkic surely has an Asian background, however, both language's itself(or directly inherited as an isolated language than neighbor languages?) and the ethnogenesis from a general perspective emerged with a mix between Steppe and Asian groups, later acquired BMAC also. In this sense, the Turkic culture, people who identified as Turkic, were actually emerged kind of late, thus we must take these Medieval populations as a reference while measuring how Turkic today's Turks. Otherwise, it would be like using a WHG/EEF calculator and claim that one is 20% Spanish(let's say) just because he comes up with the 20% EEF score. That's what Sora tries to point out, I believe.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks