MertKaan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I know that the Yenissei Khirgiz were described with mainly Caucasoid feautures but at the same time the Chinese historians described the Göktürks as people with a small stature. The description of the Kyrgyz as tall, blue-eyes blonds confused many historians who assumed that they could not have originally been Turkic but rather Indo-European or Paleo-Siberian who took a Turkic language through the strong influence of Göktürks. The ancient Kyrgyz had also adopted the old Turkic alphabet so it could be the case that they also adopted a Turkic language after a while. By the way that's not my opinion but the claim of many Turkologists. Oh and the Huns were also mainly described with Mongoloid feautres by Roman historains:
"They made their foes flee in horror because their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than eyes.
Jordanes also recounted how Priscus had described Attila the Hun, the Emperor of the Huns from 434-453, as: "Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin."[31]
really I bored any more . I wrote many times same things as you. But you dont want understand me . Your opinions has full of eurocentric view. Kirghiz people origin belong to kıpcaks like bashkırs ,karacay balkar, cumans and khazaks. if we follow eurocentric view then we will see there is no turks anywhere.
You think turks must be mongolid becuse turkic language family belong to altaic language family . lol Schoolbooks are the best weapons . Everyone know that. They from person's views, and since this ''ATLAİC'' theory is..
Universally Accepted'', it is still not an ultimate truth. Actually people who accept this theory dont even care to study it.
They simple believe it, without questioning it . And as far as I know every theory is ought to be questioned... Otherwise it becomes a dogma, an axiom without proof. Thus making this theory UNSİCEİNTİFİC and DUBİOUS. Main supporters of ''ALTAİC'' theory are eu centrist and some bunch of poor pissed racists . This is enough to understand why this theory was invented .Since it is nothing but a sheer racist theory. Thanks to it a rich history of relationships of Turkic peoples with Finns, I-E and Asians is being overlooked. Tragic consequences of this theory is that Turkic peoples are seen as ''İnvaders'' without any solid undeniable proof. In conclusion I will only say that '' ALTAİC theory is a big lie . A biased unscientific racist theory of XIX c.