Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 190

Thread: Turks with 10 - 25% Mongoloid admixture ( Turkish people autosomal DNA )

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    I can't find your quote of a Hungarian from anywhere while my source comes from Russian anthrolologist. The Uralic expansion to Europe may have been mostly Proto-European with some Mongoloid admixture but the original Uralic were Mongoloid

    Oldest Proto-Uralic by Russian anthropologist from 6000 BC
    As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so any theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.

    Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.

    Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?

  2. #77
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post
    Using pictures of children is really misleading and sly. Children have infantile facial features similar to Mongoloid ones (like wide-set eyes, low nose bridge, etc). Always use adult pictures when comparing different ethnic/racial groups, it will lead to less confusion.
    That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.

    Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    The comb-ceramic culture is today considered to have arrived in Europe before Uralic languages. We dont know what language or genes the bearers of the culture had, but it would be a huge coincidence if it was just one language and one gene profile. Archeological cultures cannot be seen as proof of any race or language.
    Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?

    And by the way, the people in purple on the map most certainly are not all mongoloid, it covers Finland, the Baltic states and Northern Russia as well.
    Yes it does cover Finland but the Mongoloid people were not in finland is the culture that was spread to Finland.


    You dont consider it odd that the presumed Siberian admixture has disappeared from so many Uralic speakers?
    No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.

    1 generation 50%
    2 generation 25%
    3 generation 12.5%
    4 generation 6.25%
    5 generation 3.12%
    6 generation 1.66%
    7 generation 0.75%


    Sure it does. That article is poorly sourced, but it still gets it right. The Urheimat is in the Volga-Ural region, where for example Mordvin and Mari people live today. Those people only have minor Siberian admixture.
    That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.


    Speaking of Wikipedia, the Swedish article has featured article status, and goes through the commonly accepted theories on Uralic origins. The Samoyedic people are seen as the first to leave the Urheimat, going East. Commonly Ugric (Khanty and Mansi) are then considered to have left East, but some claim that it was Finnic-Permic who left the Urheimat first. I see no reason not to trust academics here. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraliska_spr%C3%A5k
    Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.


    Not entirely true. Linguistic evidence shows that Finns and Saami were one people living in proximity to the Baltic-speaking peoples. Saami were thus not a Samoyedic people, and if you want to claim that, I think you are pretty alone with your theory. As they migrated north by a more Eastern route than the Finns, they picked up genes from a Siberian people now gone. They then donated these genes in turn to the Finns.
    Except that Saami have much more Mongoloid admixture the Finns and are genetically similar to North Europeans rather than western Uralic people.

    -----------------

    They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.

    But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.



  4. #79
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    As I said before, the Proto-Uralic language can only be reconstructed to the time of the Urheimat, 4000 BC, so any theories on where the Proto-Uralics came before that are just speculation. Could be West, could be East, there is no proof.

    Lexically Uralic languages are closer to PIE than any other family.

    Talk of a "Uralic race" seems like pseudo-science or at least very dated science to me. Uralic peoples are not particularly related to each other. What exactly is the source?
    The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic


    I've got it from Russian wikipedia but it's cited in several accademic Russian studies.

  5. #80
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-11
    Posts
    622
    Points
    8,324
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,324, Level: 27
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 426
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Paleolithic European
    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    That 1/4 Korean child I posted shows nothing of Mongoloid features.


    You implied here that she did:


    "If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."

    Large eyes and long nose can be found in Mongoloid people but that doesn't in any way make them Caucasoid.


    Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

    Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post


    You implied here that she did:


    "If that face isn't influenced by Mongoloid than I don't know what is. Even this 1/4 Korean girl looks far more whiter than her."


    Well not really, I said she look whiter than her, the fact is that Uralic girl also look predominately white herself with some mongoloid influence and this 1/4 Korean looks completely white with slight mongoloid.


    Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

    Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).
    [/quote]

    I have found that in paleo-Mongoloid people although they still look distinguishable Asians.

  7. #82
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    Regardless the oldest burial shows Mongoloid/Siberian features. I see no reason why Russians need to lie about that?
    And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.

    The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.

    There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    No I don't, besides Siberian admixture still reaches 1.5% in Estonia. It doesn't take long for Mongoloid to disapear in In washes away to less than 1% in 7 generation, only about in 300 years and we are talking about thousand of years. Estonians have genetic relation between Russians and Finns.

    1 generation 50%
    2 generation 25%
    3 generation 12.5%
    4 generation 6.25%
    5 generation 3.12%
    6 generation 1.66%
    7 generation 0.75%
    Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid.


    Where Uralics came from before they reached their Urheimat is pure speculation, something which your unnamed Russian source apparently does. Nothing wrong with speculation, but dont call it fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    That's because their DNA are also mostly slavic than Uralic. They have 8.3% Mongoloid Siberian admixture.
    There is no "Slavic" or "Uralic" DNA in the sense you are suggesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    They have 75% haplogroup N but have 63% Caucasian maternal DNA. If haplogroup N was Caucasian one should expect Nenet to look predominately Caucasoid.


    [SIZE=3][B]But Nenets are extremely mongoloid looking people.

    N is simply one gene, it has nothing to do with language or race. Latvians are very N-rich but have virtually no Siberian admixture. N in Eastern Europe is too old to give any information on recent migrations of Asian peoples.

  8. #83
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    Well it's your choice if you want to believe it or not.
    Why wouldn't one believe scientific consensus on something as non-controversial as Uralic Linguistics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurka atla View Post
    The Saami even have some indigenous words that are not related with the Uralic languages which may be prove that the ancestors of Saami were not entirely Uralic
    The original language spoken in Lapland is usually considered to be the substrate for non-Uralic, non-Indo-European words in Saami. The region was inhabited before the Saami-speakers arrived, and modern Saamis mostly have those genes. In the Fennoscandia project you can read about how the La BraƱa samples are close to Finns/Saami.
    http://fennoscandia.blogspot.fi/

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    And it would be a huge coincidence if it could somehow be proven that those buried spoke Uralic languages (which it cant, of course). Again, archaeological cultures say nothing about languages spoken, certainly not cultures as wide and old as the comb-ceramic.

    The source isn't lying, but you are jumping to conclusions.

    There has clearly been many mongoloid migrations into caucasoid-inhabited territory (and vice versa) throughout history, as evident by the article "Ancient DNA Reveals Prehistoric Gene-Flow from Siberia in the Complex Human Population History of North East Europe" by Sarkissian et al. This I think is one of the most interesting parts of European history. But connecting any of these migrations to Uralic speakers requires an enormous leap of faith.



    Yes, it is mathematically possible - but is it really plausible? I tend to believe what is most likely, and that is that the original Uralic speakers in their Urheimat (where there is great Uralic language diversity today) were similar to the peoples living there now, such as Mordvins. Similarities between proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European are also much greater than between Uralic and any other family. This means there was early contact, and proto-Indo-Europeans were undoubtedly Caucasoid.


    Where Uralics came from before they reached their Urheimat is pure speculation, something which your unnamed Russian source apparently does. Nothing wrong with speculation, but dont call it fact.



    There is no "Slavic" or "Uralic" DNA in the sense you are suggesting.




    N is simply one gene, it has nothing to do with language or race. Latvians are very N-rich but have virtually no Siberian admixture. N in Eastern Europe is too old to give any information on recent migrations of Asian peoples.
    Latvians have only 35% N with only 0.7 to 1.5% Siberian admixture. They also have 40% R1a.

    Latvians are mixture of Slavic and already low mongoloid admixture finnic tribes so I don't expect them to have high Mongoloid admixture.

    I just knew N was a Mongoloid marker.

    Now here is the question can you explain why Nenets have 75% Mongoloid Y-DNA but with 63% Caucasian maternal DNA and still look full blooded Mongoloid to predominately Mongoloid??? one should expect nenets to look like Caucasoids





    Nganasa extremely Mongoloid as hell with only 7% Caucasian maternal DNA but have 95% N, one should expect they look mix or slightly closer to Caucasoid.





    Now let's look at the autosomal DNA study.... this destroys your argument that N was not mongoloid.


    15 testes samples




    10 samples are = 100% pure Mongoloid /Siberian


    1 Sample = 100% Mongoloid with different Siberian admixture


    2 sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid Siberian groups with small Caucasoid admixture


    2 Sample = a mixture of different Mongoloid siberian groups with 36% Caucasoid admixture.



    Nganassan are pure Siberian Mongoloid
    , there is another study that gives them 5% R1a and 14% Caucasoid maternal DNA but that's it





  10. #85
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.

    N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages.

    I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    I have made no claim about N being this or that. It is just one gene, it says nothing about race. In the case of Latvians and Finns, we have N-rich causaoid peoples. In the case of Nganassan, N-rich mongoloid.

    N is older and more widespread than the comb-ceramic culture. The comb-ceramic in turn is older and more widespread than the Uralic languages.

    I point to my previous post on what is most plausible regarding the Urheimat-Uralics.
    Latvians and Finns have a separate branch of N haplogroup but the original was Mongoloid.

  12. #87
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    So what was your long argument for? Do you want to speculate that because of N, pre-proto-Uralics were Mongoloid? Personally, I think that is OK speculation, as long as you call it speculation. I dont think its any more likely than that they were Causaoid before reaching the Urheimat. In the Urheimat however, they were most likely Caucasoid, similar to present day Mordvins. Perhaps this debate is finished.

  13. #88
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    08-10-13
    Posts
    1
    Points
    43
    Level
    1
    Points: 43, Level: 1
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 7
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: USA - California



    Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-07-13
    Posts
    196
    Points
    12,000
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,000, Level: 33
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 650
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: Spain



    Quote Originally Posted by angelkiss888 View Post
    Many Uyghurs and Central Asians also look Caucasoid because of their mixture with the Tocharians, who were an Indo-European people from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) and were very much related to the Hittite (Luwian) people and their language was also Indo-European. The Tocharians migrated to Central Asia. They have found Tocharian mummies in the Xingxiang region of China, and in Central Asia, and the mummies have red hair/ blonde hair, etc. so the fact that Uyghurs and some central Asians have Caucasian is not because "original" Turks had Caucasian but as a result of mixing with the Tocharians, and some Iranic groups. Modern day Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbek's, etc. have have Caucasoid features as a result of mixing with the Russians in the last century or so. But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.

    This is such a stupid bullshit claim. Original Central Asians were Caucasoid that means it has nothing to do with mixing with Russians. Mongols invaded and raped the Central Asians Iranic women and Turkic women that is why Mongoloid DNA had increased from 50% extra. compared to the past Caucasoid numbered 90% and Mongoloid mixed only 10% .Central Asian Caucasoid DNA have nothing to do with Russians Caucasoid, their DNA is West Asians. You can find Turkish people and Pakistani with red hair but they have nothing to do with Europeans. Red hair can be found in people who are genetically 90% West Asian like the Kashimiris and Kulash.


    Green = West Asian admixture
    Dark blue = European admixture
    Light blue = Caucasus admixture
    Light Yellow = Siberian admixture
    Dark yellow = East Asian admixture


    The graph as shown here clearly shows Uzbeks, Uyghurs are half Mongoloid ( or 40-60% on average ) but their Caucasoid DNA is totally different.
    Central Asians have 10-25% European DNA not because of Russians is because Central Asia was between Europe, Middle east, Siberia but still closer to Middle east. Russians also have west Asian and Mongoloid DNA.



  15. #90
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    05-02-13
    Posts
    67
    Points
    3,896
    Level
    18
    Points: 3,896, Level: 18
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 354
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a (R-L1029)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H14

    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Cyprus



    Try the DIY Dodecad bat calculator (http://dodecad.blogspot.com/2011/09/...ia-turkic.html) with your raw data. It is best suited for Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Cypriots, etc. I think it will help.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    27-12-13
    Posts
    20
    Points
    2,940
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,940, Level: 15
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 110
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-M269*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a19

    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Mongoloid admixture but yet greeks, Armenians or Kurds samples are 0%?
    Kurds are 2% mongoloid. Based on studies they have even more Siberian Q than Turks. Those are probably Kurdified Turkmens. Also Greeks with anatolian ancestry do have some east asian input. It was probably way more before they left Anatolia.

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    31-08-13
    Posts
    37
    Points
    3,146
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,146, Level: 16
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by angelkiss888 View Post
    But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid.
    That's the most plausible, but I dont think its possible to ever know for certain. The Turkic family branched into todays languages quite recently and some groups, such as Uyghurs, are partly caucasoid.

  18. #93
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    05-01-14
    Posts
    17
    Points
    103
    Level
    1
    Points: 103, Level: 1
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 21.0%


    Ethnic group
    Turkic
    Country: Turkey



    i am so so dissapointed to see here only oppinions and sided unscientific claims which are made and produced with western and turkophobic point of view. its just one of them,which has no any relation with facts of sciense of human history in general.

    "But "original" Turkic peoples, the untouched and homogenous ones were 100% mongoloid."

    To use "original" term to point a nationality or ethic group is means there is "fake" ones.so its sounds much more racistical. By the way people who sends comments here are missing that point Turkic ethnicity and culture is very very ancient prevalent from mongolian. so to try to describe and define Turkic population with mongoloid or mongolian terminology is very wrong and anachronistic.





    [/I][/COLOR]

  19. #94
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    05-01-14
    Posts
    17
    Points
    103
    Level
    1
    Points: 103, Level: 1
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 21.0%


    Ethnic group
    Turkic
    Country: Turkey



    Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.

    And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.

  20. #95

  21. #96
    Regular Member Achievements:
    100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    05-01-14
    Posts
    17
    Points
    103
    Level
    1
    Points: 103, Level: 1
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 47
    Overall activity: 21.0%


    Ethnic group
    Turkic
    Country: Turkey


  22. #97

  23. #98

  24. #99
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,331
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Peace365 View Post
    Are you serious? do you have any scientific sources about this? or its just a claim which is fictionised bu you.because all of that thing which you draw are have not any basis with historical or antropological facts or studies. also that mummies are with shamanic tengrist clothes and buried with such traditions which were common in Turkic culture and tradition,not in hittite or european .and the facts indicating that the main area of red or blonde hair genom is Tibet,caucasus and central asia.

    And please stop this allusions like there is no any Turks,they just a mixture of some other iranic of russian groups.By this point of view there isn't any ethnical groups in the whole planet,everyone is a mixture.
    Peace, please use "Reply with Quote" button when replying to someone's post, otherwise we don't know who you are talking too.
    Welcome to Eupedia.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Dorianfinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-08-11
    Posts
    466
    Points
    18,771
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,771, Level: 41
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 179
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-FGC13617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2b1

    Ethnic group
    European
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Templar View Post

    Long noses and large eyes aren't what distinguish Caucasoid from Mongoloids, it is a high nose bridge and eyes that don't have epicanthic folds which distinguish them.

    Other features that distinguish them: Caucasoid usually have far more body hair, the eyes are more deep set, the eyes are closer together, the brow-ridge is more prominent, the chin more protruding, and body fat in the cheeks is lower (unless the person is overweight).
    Interesting comment, epicanthic eye-folds are not exclusive to Asia and mongoloid is a term that is used to describe non-Asians too.

    Khoisan.jpgimages.jpgindex.jpg

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •