Turkic replacement of IE languages in Central Asia

Woden said:
You are misrepresenting the map that I produced. The whole purpose of the map is to show that speakers of Turkic languages in and around Europe cluster genetically with Europeans. Do you get that bit?
Click to expand...

No, because it's not true. It does not cluster with the other european countries, plus there are only a few represented european countries. There are no Western nor Northern countries. And stop repeating posts. You have an exactly the same post in another thread.
 
Woden said:
What does it even mean to say "opposed genetically"? Do you even understand that this is science and not a game of checkers for kids?

In reality, not your little WN imaginary world, Turkic is a language group that includes various populations in the same way that Indo-European does.
Click to expand...

Alans (mostly R1a1) Indo-European horsemen were swept away by the invaders hunno-Turkish-Mongol, came from a Siberian region north of Manchuria, their original homeland. The Alans were pushed to the Caucasus Mountains, the current North Ossetia or "Alania".
In recent history, Armenians another Indo euopéen was massacred by the Turks. Europeans in the Ottoman Empire were killed or subjected they had no choice and were mixted to the Turkish so Siberians haplogroups are not europeans R1a1 is not a siberian haplo so I am not WN the Spaniards have done the same thing in South America: forced conversion or killing native americans
 
willy said:
This is normal Turks are not Europeans they are close to Asian populations. they have no connection with the Indo Europeans they are even completely opposed genetically and culturally .
Click to expand...


You can be right,but still i have a few quesitons about Turks.Even Uyghur Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?

On the other hand,I'm confusing about me.I know my forefathers came from Bulgaria(3/4) and Greece(1/4).Just my mothers mother came from Greece.(my family came to Turkey 1920's).So many people saying you all are not Turks.They are saying just a few thousands Turks came.But Anatolia and Thrace population were 25 Million,then how can we still speaking Turkic language?Culturally and genetically we are not belong to Asia,you know too.

And can someone explain me DNA of Thracian people.We are belong to where?
 
Last edited:
Thracian : "Even Uyghurs Turks have European DNA.How can be possible?"

Indo-european migrations.
An early wave around 3,500 BC at the origin of the Afanasevo culture, apparently coming from the north of the black sea (it could be at the origin of the tocharian language), then later some Indo-iranian addition.
 
Thank you all so much.

I watched a tv programme on discovery channel,riddle of the desert mummies,than i was thinked wrong.I was thought they could be Turkic,and that makes Turks as white(i thinked Turks were white and some of them mixed with Mongolian and Chinesse,lol.).But when i see a Turk who live in Asia their face's look like Japanesse or Chinesse.Most of them are slant eyed.Than i take my answer about Uyghurs.But still i have quesitons about Anatolia and Thrace.
 
I wouldn't say most Turks look like Chinese or Japanese, although they show some affinities.
 
I was talking about Turks from Kyrgzistan,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan etc..
 
secherbernard said:
The Tarim mummies: of european features are the link between Afanasevo culture and Tocharian in Tarim Basin. They are another proof of the Indo-european homeland in Steppes.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain this...
Tocharians belong to Afanasevo culture. Afanasevo came from? Anatolia? And when?
 
So, i guess thats why today's Turkey has only %9 Asian Y-DNA?
All turkish population can not be asimilated from greeks or other nations, Uyghurs were Ottoman's relatives, so some asimilated and some IE uyghurs turks.
Any clue from where and when did they come in Pontic Steppes?
 
Last edited:
There are two famous turkish myth about ancient turkish history. Its interesting.
Very shortly:

Bozkurt Legend:

Their ancestors lived in the west of the caspian sea (Seems like its talking about Pontic Steppes). Enemy massacred all of their nation, only one child left, he was raised and breastfeeded by a wolf and saved their race.(seems like this part is legend :) But Enemy sought the baby and tried to kill him, wolf took the baby and ran to the Altai Mountains to protect him. Boy growed and married. Nation created once again.(Seems like Andronovo Culture)

Ergenekon Legend:

New nation became powerful once again, enemies envied them and they attacked all together on this nation. Enemies massacred most and took some prisoners (end of Andronovo Culture). One of the princes and one of his nephew escaped with their wifes. They went in some mountains and lost their way, they were traped in mountains. And lived in this trap for centuries, created the nation once again. One day they decited to leave that place and tried to find a way out, and then a wolf appeared, wolf showed them the way out... They fought and conqured lands of those who is hostile against them...
 
Last edited:
Ah these legends, how much truth is in them? I guess wolf should be a symbol of Turks, maybe it is, I'm not familiar. Funny thing is that Turks are not only nation with legend about wolfs saving humans. How far fetched is this? We know that it's impossible for kids to rebuilt a culture and language without adult care and supervision. They won't even remember their tribe history, so why would ancient people invent stories like that? I shouldn't even analyze stories like this, lol.
Do you have a legend about Turk's migration? There should be one why Turks moved and settled in Anatolia.
 
Caneker said:
Any clue from where and when did they come in Pontic Steppes?
Click to expand...
From David Anthony, "The wheel, the horse and the Language" page 305:
the Repin culture of the Volga-Ural region threw off a subgroup that migrated across the Kazakh steppes about 3700-3500 BCE and established itself in the western Altai, where it became the Afanasievo culture.
Click to expand...
 
LeBrok said:
Ah these legends, how much truth is in them? I guess wolf should be a symbol of Turks, maybe it is, I'm not familiar. Funny thing is that Turks are not only nation with legend about wolfs saving humans. How far fetched is this? We know that it's impossible for kids to rebuilt a culture and language without adult care and supervision. They won't even remember their tribe history, so why would ancient people invent stories like that? I shouldn't even analyze stories like this, lol.
Do you have a legend about Turk's migration? There should be one why Turks moved and settled in Anatolia.
Click to expand...

Its legend and myth, judging it with pure reality is not sensible. Perhaps the legend tries to tell us that it was an existence war, they were weakend like a defenceless baby, but survived because they had a warrior soul and wolf represents that.
Yes wolf is turkish symbol. There is a wolf head on Gokturk(583-603) flag.
Anatolia migration started with Seljuks, there is no myth about it. If you want to learn why, just read history. I have a better question, why did they move and settle in Asia before?
 
Last edited:
Caneker said:
Its legend and myth, judging it with pure reality is not sensible. Perhaps the legend tries to tell us that it was an existence war, they were weakend like a defenceless baby, but survived because they had a warrior soul and wolf represents that.
Yes wolf is turkish symbol. There is a wolf head on Gokturk(583-603) flag.
Anatolia migration started with Seljuks, there is no myth about it. If you want to learn why, just read history. I have a better question, why did they move and settle in Asia before?
Click to expand...


We are all descendants of the best warriors, and successful tribes. The peaceful and unsuccessful are all gone.

Usually there are always the same reasons for the move: wars, overpopulation, climate change.
 
LeBrok said:
We are all descendants of the best warriors, and successful tribes. The peaceful and unsuccessful are all gone.

Usually there are always the same reasons for the move: wars, overpopulation, climate change.
Click to expand...

Really curious taking into account that at least since the bronze age slavery was the common rule. It's been calculated a total amount of 60 milions of slaves in the roman empire. Those "unsuccessful" were the demographic base of many ancient societies. Your and my -partially- grandparents (yes, they had children)
 
It's hard to be sure of these figures. Consider the fact though that the tribe which the slave came from was successful for centuries till he or she got captured. Most likely more slaves died without many off springs or even at all. Their luck and success ran out. Same with Roman empire or Italy itself, at the end population shrunk drastically, the less successful and mostly poor died of starvation or were in first line to be killed. Their DNA pool got wiped out.
Off course I'm generalizing the whole thing. On individual bases even most pathetic human being can survive just because he's lucky, and vice versa.
Find me one nation on earth that is and always has been peaceful and survived millenia.
Also some ancient and transitional haplogroups are missing. It means in some way they were not successful.
 
LeBrok said:
It's hard to be sure of these figures. Consider the fact though that the tribe which the slave came from was successful for centuries till he or she got captured. Most likely more slaves died without many off springs or even at all. Their luck and success ran out. Same with Roman empire or Italy itself, at the end population shrunk drastically, the less successful and mostly poor died of starvation or were in first line to be killed. Their DNA pool got wiped out.
Off course I'm generalizing the whole thing. On individual bases even most pathetic human being can survive just because he's lucky, and vice versa.
Find me one nation on earth that is and always has been peaceful and survived millenia.
Also some ancient and transitional haplogroups are missing. It means in some way they were not successful.
Click to expand...

Slavery was accumulative, exterminions were execptional. Roman slaves had children because it was a garantee to "produce" new slaves (hereditary slavery) Slaves use to live longer -worse, but longer- than warriors. Humans are overall survivors, nor warriors or slaves (circumstantial fatcs)

I can't find one nation that has been "always" peaceful because societies aren't 100% peaceful neither 100% warlike. Humans carry both sides of the coin. Submission can lead you to survive, violence can lead you to die. And, of course, viceversa. History is plenty of examples in all senses (black americans, for example)
 
You would be right if there was always status quo. Real life is not that pretty. Every 50 years or so there were great disasters, failed crops, starvation. Guess who dies first from hunger master, or slaves and their family?
Surely submission is vital in surviving too, but victory increases survival of your tribe and allows you to feed more kids than submissive people.
One can also claim that nothing really vanishes in nature. Even though Neanderthals were wiped out, some old haplogroups, Huns in europe, Illyrians, Prussians, Veneti, etc, there are some of their gens living still in us. So maybe it's all statistical after all. Few gens are left but their language, culture, believes, distinctive look, etc gone for ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 55291 times.

Back
Top