deleted

[Guti]

deleted

 

[dodona]

Turkish people in Anatolia are not native to West Asia. Turks are invaders who came from the Altai and assimilated some native people in Anatolia such as Greeks, Levantines (Arabs) and Armenians.

I'm with you 95% as you are right that turks are not native to West Asia. Anatolian 'Turks' are largely the descendants of the byzantine peoples having only a small turkish(=mongoloid) admixture. Furthermore the 'Altay' in real was the Manchurian-Mongolian steppe from where they expanded towards the Transbaykal, where they later became dominated by the Xiongnu(Ouno) refugees from the Yinshan mountainous region. Now having a Ouno leadership they conquered old Iranian territories: west mongolia, djungaria,parts of xinjiang, ..., and the sayan-altay. Turks are not native to the Altay.

 

[dodona]

Those Turkic speaking tribes who came to Anatolia were originally from the Altai.

nobody known. The closest relatives are the Turkoman living to the north of Iran.

 

[dodona]

Altai Kai making cool music, however differ significantly from regular altaians anthropologically, who show a much more EA admixture, whereas some Kaians are either mixed with Russians or preserving the type of the original Iranian population. Before the 300BC the Altay was largely populated by Iranians or other IE tribes, some Samojed/Yeneseic related tribes, and some rather archaic survivors,
With 400-300BC so-called Xiongnu related tribe conquered the pazyryk and tager region. Note that we don't now if the spoken Turki or any unknown language. The region became turkic much later.
To declare the Altay for the original homeland of the Turks is belongs to the race theories of the 19ths century, thus invalid.

 

[Carlito's Way]

Damn all I know is that Turkish people take pride in their less than 10% Asian ancestry lol

 

[dodona]

thus anything else than Turks.

 

[dodona]

Exactly, but wait a minute, they all speak Turkic as their native language. Hahaha.

Although I think all of them have still some minor Mongolic/Turanic DNA from the Altai. The DNA of every Anatolian Turk has additional Eastern Eurasian DNA in it.

to what degree?

 

[dodona]

the point is, that 'Turks' of 'Turkey' have a lot to do with the original inhabitans of greek speaking byzantine empire, and almost nothing to do with real turks from central-asia. Hence the 'Turks' of 'Turkey' are a purely artificial construct based on pan-turanist fascist ideologies.

 

[Kurdquistador]

the point is, that 'Turks' of 'Turkey' have a lot to do with the original inhabitans of greek speaking byzantine empire, and almost nothing to do with real turks from central-asia. Hence the 'Turks' of 'Turkey' are a purely artificial construct based on pan-turanist fascist ideologies.

you must be living under a rock . it has been proven countless of times in forums that turks are a mix of native anatolians and oghuz invaders from central asia . so they do have to do with central asian turks

 

[dodona]

you must be living under a rock . it has been proven countless of times in forums that turks are a mix of native anatolians and oghuz invaders from central asia . so they do have to do with central asian turks

the views of infiltratintg turkofascists don't matter. Science tells us that CA DNA is small represented under 'Turks' of 'Turkey' . Removing absorbed ancient Iranian DNA from that pool leaves a CA part even smaller. And so 'Turks' of 'Turkey' look: Mongoloid features are very rare under them.

 

[Kurdquistador]

the views of infiltratintg turkofascists don't matter. Science tells us that CA DNA is small represented under 'Turks' of 'Turkey' . Removing absorbed ancient Iranian DNA from that pool leaves a CA part even smaller. And so 'Turks' of 'Turkey' look: Mongoloid features are very rare under them.

i am talking about genetic results of turks

they are a mix of anatolian and central asian turkic

also mongoloid is visible on many turks faces

 

[Kin017]

I get your point. And I do understand where you are coming from. Turks in Anatolia are much closer to the Armenians than to the Turks in Turkmenistan. But..

Turks are a 'modern' nation/ethnicity and a product of many ancient people. Just like the 'new world' people like Americans, Brazilians and even the Russians who are multiracial.

Turks are a product of many races and I do agree with you that the Anatolian Turks of today have more of the so called Anatolian ancestry than their 'original' Central Asian ancestry, but nevertheless they never lost their original Central Asian (Mongoloid) ancestry.

Turks are a product of many people from the past, but at the end, because of their language and original history, they are still linked to the Mongoloid/Eastern Asian people in Central Asia.
Turks are not purely 'Byzantine' people. They are a product of the 'Byzantine' people, original Mongoloid Central Asian Turks and the assimilated Armenians.

Turks are much closer to the Armenians than to the Kurds. And the same is with the Armenians.
Armenians are much closer to the Turks than to the Kurds.

There are some Kurdish tribes who mixed with the Turks, but it is very, very limited.
I don't know what will happen in the future in 200, 300 years. There are millions of Kurds who live in big cities in Asia Minor. It is possible that those Kurds if they don’t return back to Kurdistan, they will mix all other people in Asia Minor.

But as we speak, Turks of today have mostly Armenian blood and not Kurdic blood at all.

At the end of the day as a Kurd I feel much more connected with the ancient people of 'old' Anatolia than with the Turks. There is much more connection between Kurds and ancient 'Byzantine' people, than between Kurds and modern Turks.
On personal level I feel more kinship with let say the Greeks (who are still Indo-European people) than with the Turks.

I thought Kurds and Armenians were much closer to eachother?

 

[Kurdquistador]

nonsense . we are not shifted more towards the caucasus than armenians . and armenians have a little more levantine yes .... but the difference is not big

 

[Kurdquistador]

armenians have a little more levant neolithic or natufian . but not a lot of more . and it is just not true that kurds are more shifted towards caucasus . armenians score a lot more CHG than kurds . i can show you G25 models

 

[Kurdquistador]

the gedrosian component is not a caucasus component even if caucasians have it too

it is a west iranian component . it is related to the caucasus component but still not the same

you have an interesting point of view though i have to admit

 

[Kurdquistador]

you dont seem to trust G25 do you ?

 

[Kurdquistador]

you are a scientist ?

can you please post data that proves that kurds are more shifted towards the caucasus than armenians are ? i am curious to see

 

[Kurdquistador]

well politics and economy has nothing to do with this topic so you having a degree there doesnt mean anything . not that i want to take anything away from you

who made that plot ? it is interesting

 

[Kurdquistador]

ok thanks . and why do you think these men are more creditable ? what makes them so special ?

btw. i think pca charts dont tell the whole story . because for example persians have often elevated south asian which one can see on gedmatch especially eurogenes k12b . thats why some iranians look curry . i think gedmatch has its place

 

[Kurdquistador]

i dont think hating anybody because of his/her ethnicity alone is good . i mean i also dislike some ethnic groups but there are good people in all ethnicities . you should not look too political into stuff when we are discussing genetics either . especially since kurds also have a little "semitic" as you call it .

also semitcs are diverse . lebanese for example are not much different to kurds and they are also not hateful towards our people . i think lebanese are cool people