Turkic speaking countries might create free trade zone

[MertKaan]

Kazakhs are not "turkicised mongols", nor are Uzbeks. Surely, both have Mongol ancestry due to intermarriages for centuries, but that works both ways.

Turks in Turkey, the Anatolian Turks as they are known to other Turkic people, are of Oghuz Turkic stock, like Azerbaijani Turks, Ahiska (Meskheti) Turks, Turcomans of Iraq, and if we consider them separately the Karapapaks and Afshars (which is wrong as both consider themselves Azerbaijani Turkish). The Oghuz Turks are essentially Turkmens - from Turkmenistan. They do have Asiatic features/eyes. So the fact that most Turks and Azerbaijanis today do not have slanted eyes simply means that due to intermarriages with Caucasian, Semitic, Iranic, Slavic, and other peoples, the Oghuz Turks became more "European" in appearance. See, for example, old Persian poetry, before Mongols/Chingiz Khan, for proof on Turks that Persians came into contact with. Also, note the first portraits of Ottoman sultans, before their mothers became non-Turkic and thus subsequent sultans became indistinguishable from "Europeans".

You are wrong because uzbeks and khazaks were occured after mongol invasion . Mongols first defeat Kıpchak turks and they have forced them to went west , so kıpchaks called tatar by russians. Some kıpcaks went to volga bolgaria(presentday Tatarstan people mixed with kiphcaks, bolgar turks and mishars (mongolic tatars)) , some went to crimea. Present day mesketian turks karacay balkar turks and crimean tatars were kipchak (polovets - cuman) I said that khazaks were turkicized mongols because Khazaks have 12 big tribes but only 3 tribes are turkic, khazars , cumans(polovets) and nogays others are mongolic tribes when mongols became muslim after they were turkicized

altay turks, tuvans , khakas were more intermarried with mongols but still their genetic evidence more closely with kirghiz turks and other kıpchaks than khazaks

 

[gr8vision]

You are wrong because uzbeks and khazaks were occured after mongol invasion . Mongols first defeat Kıpchak turks and they have forced them to went west , so kıpchaks called tatar by russians. Some kıpcaks went to volga bolgaria(presentday Tatarstan people mixed with kiphcaks, bolgar turks and mishars (mongolic tatars)) , some went to crimea. Present day mesketian turks karacay balkar turks and crimean tatars were kipchak (polovets - cuman) I said that khazaks were turkicized mongols because Khazaks have 12 big tribes but only 3 tribes are turkic, khazars , cumans(polovets) and nogays others are mongolic tribes when mongols became muslim after they were turkicized

altay turks, tuvans , khakas were more intermarried with mongols but still their genetic evidence more closely with kirghiz turks and other kıpchaks then khazaks

Before declaring anyone to be "wrong" and then proceed to provide such a wealth of opinions, please present verifiable and authoritative data, citations, facts, i.e., proof.

Meskheti Turks cannot be predominantly Kipchak, they are predominantly Oghuz Turks. Of course, they must have some Kipchak blood in them too, since Khazars, Kipchaks (Polovtsi/Cumans) and Kazakhs lived in Caucasus, and specifically in Georgia, too.

Uzbeks and Kazakhs' Turkic languages are from different subbranches of Turki - one is Kipchak, the other is Karluk/Chagatai. Thus, linguistically, it seems the Uzbeks should be closer to Mongols, yet DNA testing reveals that it is the Kazakhs and Kyrgiz who are closest (depending on the area).

From what I know, Kyrgiz and Kazakh are essentially one people - would be interesting to find out any difference.

 

[MertKaan]

Before declaring anyone to be "wrong" and then proceed to provide such a wealth of opinions, please present verifiable and authoritative data, citations, facts, i.e., proof.

Meskheti Turks cannot be predominantly Kipchak, they are predominantly Oghuz Turks. Of course, they must have some Kipchak blood in them too, since Khazars, Kipchaks (Polovtsi/Cumans) and Kazakhs lived in Caucasus, and specifically in Georgia, too.

Uzbeks and Kazakhs' Turkic languages are from different subbranches of Turki - one is Kipchak, the other is Karluk/Chagatai. Thus, linguistically, it seems the Uzbeks should be closer to Mongols, yet DNA testing reveals that it is the Kazakhs and Kyrgiz who are closest (depending on the area).

From what I know, Kyrgiz and Kazakh are essentially one people - would be interesting to find out any difference.

why mesketians can not be predominatly kıpchaks? Their language influenced by oghuz turks like crimean tatars(kıpchaks)
Kipchaks in Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uzbeks language is from karluk branch sometimes Karluk language is called Chagatai because Chagatai Mongols used Karluk language and they were turkicized therefore some uzbeks have mongolic ancestry,

 

[Wholegrain]

You are wrong because uzbeks and khazaks were occured after mongol invasion . Mongols first defeat Kıpchak turks and they have forced them to went west , so kıpchaks called tatar by russians. Some kıpcaks went to volga bolgaria(presentday Tatarstan people mixed with kiphcaks, bolgar turks and mishars (mongolic tatars)) , some went to crimea. Present day mesketian turks karacay balkar turks and crimean tatars were kipchak (polovets - cuman) I said that khazaks were turkicized mongols because Khazaks have 12 big tribes but only 3 tribes are turkic, khazars , cumans(polovets) and nogays others are mongolic tribes when mongols became muslim after they were turkicized

altay turks, tuvans , khakas were more intermarried with mongols but still their genetic evidence more closely with kirghiz turks and other kıpchaks than khazaks

Yakuts are Mongoloids, and so are Yugurs from Gansu (who are descended from the Uyghur Khaganate). Salar are majority Mongoloid.

Hadith compiled before the Mongol invasion. The Gokturks and Uyghur Kingdoms existed before the Mongol Empire.

Narrated by Abu Huraira:

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."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179

These are status made by the Gokturks of themselves. All mongoloid features.

Statue of Gokturk Khagan Kul Tigin

Kul Tigin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gokturk drawing

More gokturk stuff

' +caption+ '

Pictures from the old Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho (their descendants are the Yugur people in Gansu and not modern Uyghurs)

 

[Wholegrain]

Forensic facial reconstruction of Timur by M.Gerasimov in 1941 upon exhuming Timur's tomb.

More images of ancient Turks

The Roman historians Priscus and Jordanes described Attila 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."

Attila's Real Face

Defending Rome: The Masters of the Soldiers - Julian Reynolds - Google Books

The Early Medieval World - Michael Frassetto - Google Books

A History of the Middle Ages - Joseph Dahmus - Google Books

The Gothic history of Jordanes in English version: with an introduction and ... - Jordanes, Senator Cassiodorus - Google Books

Jordanes The origin and deeds of the Goths: in English version ... - Jordanes - Google Books

The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples - Herwig Wolfram - Google Books

Readings in Ancient History: Rome and the West - William Stearns Davis - Google Books

Readings In Ancient History: Rome And The West - William S. Davis - Google Books

Readings in ancient history: illustrative extracts from the sources - William Stearns Davis - Google Books

Rome and the West - William Stearns Davis - Google Books

The Age of Faith: The Story of Civilization - Will Durant - Google Books

The Two Cities: A Chronicle of Universal History to the Year 1146 A.D. - Otto I (évêque de Freising.) - Google Books

War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History - Robert B. Asprey - Google Books

W. C. Privy's Original Bathroom Companion - Google Books

The Volga-Ural region was inhabited by the Turkic Pechenegs who were being driven westward by their neighbors the Oghuz and would soon leave the area entirely. The Oghuz tribes extended from the middle and lower course of the Syr Darya (Yaxartes, Saihun) and Aral Sea region, where Khorezmian outposts kept watch on them, to Ispijab (Isfijab, Isbijab, identified with Sairam near present day Chimkent in the Kazakh SSR). Here they bordered with the Karluks. They nomadized as far north as the Irtysh and the Kimek confederation. The Karluk encampments stretched from Ispijab to the Ferghana valley and beyond in the east and extended to the Chu and Hi rivers in the north where the subject Chigil and Tukhsi tribes lived. The entire Oghuz-Karluk border with the Muslim world is described as being in a state of constant warfare, with the raids of the "Turks" reaching deep into Khorasan. South and east of the Karluks, and closely associated with them, were the Yaghma who extended towards Kashgar. (p. 348)
The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

One of the issues that most occupied the travelers was the physiognomy of the Turks. Both mentally and physically, Turks appeared to the Arab authors as very different from themselves. The shape of these “broad faced people with small eyes” and their physique impressed the travelers crossing the Eurasian lands. In their accounts, they presented the Turks as people with an alien physical appearance. The anonymous author of Ḥudūd al-'ālam asserted that, “The Ghuzz have arrogant faces and are quarrelsome, malevolent and malicious.” (p. 222-3)
« The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in Medieval Arabic Writing », in : R. Amitai, M. Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary Wold. Leyde, Brill, 2005, pp. 201-241.

The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.

As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman. (p. 71)

The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries. The fact we have seen, that the Turkomans marry Persian women, when they take them as prisoners. The Turkoman women are, like the men, tall, and when young, well-shaped; their faces are rounder than those of the men; the cheek-bones less prominent; the eyes black, with fine eye-brows, and many with fair complexion; the nose is rather flat; the mouth small, with a row of regular white teeth. In a word, a great number of the younger part of the community might be reckoned as fair specimens of pretty women. (p. 73)

Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60-78.

 

[MertKaan]

Yakuts are Mongoloids, and so are Yugurs from Gansu (who are descended from the Uyghur Khaganate). Salar are majority Mongoloid.

Hadith compiled before the Mongol invasion. The Gokturks and Uyghur Kingdoms existed before the Mongol Empire.



These are status made by the Gokturks of themselves. All mongoloid features.

Statue of Gokturk Khagan Kul Tigin

Kul Tigin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gokturk drawing

what is your point ? your pics only showed some old turks faces but not all of them. already we know all turks have higher caucasoid Y dna and lower caucasoid mt dna

Turkic Genetic Charts - Turkicworld

Turkic Genetics - Turkicworld

Turkic Genetics Contents - TurkicWorld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wusun

 

[atatwolf]

Look what I found.. enjoy:

Today there are more than 200 million Turkic speaking peoples. If we don't create on sphere of influence, create powerful economy and cultural relations, which language is the most important. Turkic world will disolve over-time.

I watched Turkish program couple of weeks ago and they said language is the most important thing for a country. If your country looses its national language, it will cease to exist over time.

Most Turkic countries speak their own language, but I heard from many Turkic people that they speak Russian better than their own Turkic tongue. This needs to change if Turkic world wants to survive. We need new cultural Turkic renaissance where Turkish cultural world unites.

By the way, if you guys want I can post the TV show where they discuss how important language is for Turkey.

 

[Wholegrain]

what is your point ? your pics only showed some old turks faces but not all of them. already we know all turks have higher caucasoid Y dna and lower caucasoid mt dna

Turkic Genetic Charts - Turkicworld

Turkic Genetics - Turkicworld

Turkic Genetics Contents - TurkicWorld

Wusun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Y chromosomes and mtdna don't determine physical looks (caucasian and mongoloid). Autosomal DNA does. Y chromosome and mtdna just tells you who your fathers and mothers were a long time ago and where they came from. They don't determine your hair color, eye color, skin color or anything physical.

See these PCA clusters for autosomal DNA. Mostly middle eastern, not central asian. Look at where the Uzbek , Uyghur and Hazara cluster and compare it with the Turkish cluster.

And also this for autosomal DNA. Yakuts are a Turkic people in Siberia.

 

[MertKaan]

@Wholegrain

really what is your point ? No one said turks are pure. Yakuts(sakha-saka) people genetics are more closely with finno -ugric people. But they are turkic and part of turkic history . This is very normal becuse we turks have great and old history

First, the genetical composition and outer appearance need not to be confused. Genetical composition is a macro state, with a global perspective and imperceptibly slow changes; it is a statistical matrix. The outer appearance is a micro state, close to individual layer, driven by genetical micro changes, and fast and fluid. In archeology, the outer appearance is yet imperceptible, the skeletons are not only mute, but also give no indication about the color, texture, and curling of hair, eyes color, pigmentation, epicanthic folds, etc. A group may have a huge intra-group diversity, but at a first glance look somewhat similar.

Second, we are just approaching the resolution needed for demographical perceptive. Unlike sedentary peoples, the Türkic peoples were distinguished by high mobility and high fluidity. As a result, almost any category in the past studies is comprised of a number of distinct elements, and without seeing these constituent elements the picture is blurred and misleading. For example, the Senior Juz of the Kazakh people in its composition has two main components, each with a unique history and origin: Uisyn aka Usuns, of Dulat aka Dulo, and Sary Uisyn subdivisions, and Kangly, who descend from the ancient Kangar (Ch. Kangju). Without a closer examination, the genetical image is as realistic as a serving of potato soup, which in reality consists of quite distinct potatoes, meat, onions, etc. The genetical analysis is also complicated by comparisons of incompatible objects. The genetical picture of countries with poly-ethnic population, taken at its statistical median, can't be meaningfully compared with the genetical picture of ethnically relatively homogenous groups, like Kazakhs compared with Mari. Historians and anthropologists need a more detailed resolution.

Thirdly, explicit or implicit, there floats a notion that a certain ethnicity, and even politonym, somehow has “its” haplogroup, transplanting us from a statistical world into a world of doctrines and beliefs. That notion is a relict of creationist mentality, an individual with a certain non-consequential genetic marker creates a race of purebred clones developing in isolation from the rest of the humanity, and distinguished by “its” language, etiology, and ethnology. Such notions conflict with inextinguishability of the genetic lines, with nature's inability to rectify population based on invisible non-consequential markers, and with the social realities of life. For example, in nature the parental NOP-marked line has as many if not more chances to survive than its daughter R-marked line, and nature has no mechanisms to stratify population into marker-denominated streams. In this world, things do change, but no stochastic process would create an organized structure by random experimentation.

On another hand, parents pass on their genes independently of their language, etiology, and ethnology. They can change their cultural traits, but can't change their genetical traits. When a statistical majority is correlated with a particular marker, we would rather presume (i.e. guess) that the majority retained their traits, and the minority switched their cultural traits. For example, the majority of peoples predominantly marked with Y-DNA haplogroup C belong to Tungus peoples, and the minority outliers with the same predominant C-marked haplogroup belong to linguistic Mongols, Iranians, and Chukchi. In that situation, it is quite reasonable to accept that Mongols, Iranians, and Chulchi received their present languages in a process of cultural adaptation.

When the reality shows up at the doorstep, even learned scientists that know better have to listen. Citing Dienekes blogspot on the incoming “surprise” results, “This really puts into question the nature of the proto-Indo-Iranians and the "Caucasoidness" of the Bronze Age IE in Siberia.” It sure does, exactly like on the first day these naatturress were concocted. Fortunately, nobody displays any embarrassment.

And lastly, the genetic graphs demonstrate the spuriousness of the“Altaic” category, and its continued use in genetic research not only was failing to model an analyzable concept, but also tends to produce misleading results and superficial conclusions. Fortunately, the macro-Altaic category, heavily advocated in the past century, by now is pretty much discredited.

Turkic Genetics - Turkicworld

 

[atatwolf]

Wholegrain, don't believe those graphs. Those are made by amateur Greek website. If you post crap, please include sources.

Turks have central-asian blood and depending on the region it can vary but most people you can see Turkic influence.

If you look at pureness, who is pure? Are Arabs pure? How much African Black blood do you have? Don't go down that path bro, you will end up worse

 

[Wholegrain]

Wholegrain, don't believe those graphs. Those are made by amateur Greek website. If you post crap, please include sources.

Turks have central-asian blood and depending on the region it can vary but most people you can see Turkic influence.

If you look at pureness, who is pure? Are Arabs pure? How much African Black blood do you have? Don't go down that path bro, you will end up worse

Razib Khan is not Greek. He is a Pakistani. His PCA graph places Turks squarely with middle easterners and caucasians (caucasus mountains people).

Genetics & the Jews (it's still complicated) - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

As for ending up worse, Turks originated in Siberia and Mongolia and Turkey is thousands of miles away in Anatolia. Arabs in the Arabian peninsula largely stayed where they were. Other Arabs in north africa have more non arab admixture.

@MertKaan

What I see you saying is that you think the original Turks were caucasian and Turks from Turkey are purer than Mongoloid Turks like Kazakhs, who you claim to be "Turkified Mongols".

But the Caucasian looks in Uzbeks and the Caucasian looks in Turkish people are from different genetics. The Uzbeks autosomal DNA clusters with their neighbors and Turkish people's autosomal DNA clusters with its non Turkic, former Ottoman subjects. You have Turkish people descended from Bosnians, Pomaks and Circassians, are you going to claim their DNA represents Turkic DNA and Kazakhs are fake?

This is what Razib Khan has to say.

What it means to be a Turk - Gene Expression | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Neptune]

Stay on topic please.

 

[MertKaan]

You have Turkish people descended from Bosnians, Pomaks and Circassians, are you going to claim their DNA represents Turkic DNA and Kazakhs are fake?

i have never say that we are original turks or purer other turkic lol I said that majority khazaks people origin belong to mongolic tribes as some uzbeks . Also first turks were caucasian what is the wrong on here ? (wusun people were ancerstors of huns) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wusun

I laugh to your ignorance Many bosnians, pomaks and circasians are living in turkey but they are not Turkic or TURK , Only they are turkish citizens

Bosnians

Turks in Turkey

Turks from East Turkestan

Turks from Caucasia

Turks from Bashkortostan

relax man

 

[Wholegrain]

i have never say that we are original turks or purer other turkic lol I said that khazaks people origin majority belong to mongolic tribes as some uzbeks . Also first turks were caucasian what is the wrong on here ?

I laugh to your ignorance Many bosnians, pomaks and circasians are living in turkey but they are not Turkic or TURK , Only they are turkic citizens

Bosnians

Turks in Turkey

Turks from East Turkestan

Turks from Caucasia

Turks from Bashkortostan

relax man

Your keep showing the same charts of Y chromosome haplogroups again. Since Italians have J2 are they Turks?

Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) - Eupedia

Do those haplogroups of the same letter (J2) even belong to the same subclade in Turkey and Bashkortostan? Go look up subclades. Looking a a specific subclade of J2, a geneticist can tell almost immediately where that person's ancestor came from and how far they split from other subclades. Turkish Turks J2 subclade is closer to non Turkics like Syrians and Iraqi Arabs than J2 in central asia. Your Turkish J2 suclade is J2b2 which is shared by non Turkic Syrians, Iraqis, Greeks, and Albanians.

Sicily to New Orleans and Beyond - Frank J Palisi III - Google Books

You claimed that Mongols were Turkified as a result of the Mongol Empire, but that doesn't explain Attila's Mongoloid looks which were described by Roman historians, or the Gokturks like Khagan Kul Tegin looking mongoloid, or the drawings from the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho.

 

[MertKaan]

@Wholegrain

Lol I did not claim mongol were Turkified this is fact that mostly mongols were Turkified after Mongol invasion . Actualy i dont care about how turkic people are looking. Because i said to you turkic peoples have higher mongolid mt dna