Origin and DNA of Turks

[Sile]

Again, the name "Kürt" is the name of one of the most important tribes that established the Hungarian state in the 9th century. This means that Kurds are just like the Turks of Hunnic origin. And according to Persian sources the nation of the Huns in the 5th century is called "Turk", so it means that Kurds are of Turkish origin. Tell me something, do you have any source indicating the presence of Kurds before the 9th century? No, you dont have, so please stop with the fairytales and the non scientific gossips.

About the Kurdish subject, i am asking you another question? Can a Zazaki understand what a Kurmanci talks? No! And it is scientifically proven that they are not even dialects of each other, which means that there is no such thing as a Kurdish language. I am respecting all languages, and i accept Kurds as my brothers, what more do you want? You are the one insulting, and you are the one that is a racist and a Turk hater. All that is said is an imaginery Indo-European or Indo-Iranian nation, there is no such thing, it is not right scientifically. Most of the so called modern imaginery Indo-European or Indo-Iranian nations have their origin in the earliest Scythians/Sakhas, which are of Turkish origin. And before this all have their origin in the Sumerians(Kengers), of whom the language is proven to be of Turkish origin.

Read your history, the turkic people did not enter modern Turkey until just over a 1000 years ago.........clearly genetics show the majority of modern turks are NOT turkic people.

 

[isbara]

Read your history, the turkic people did not enter modern Turkey until just over a 1000 years ago.........clearly genetics show the majority of modern turks are NOT turkic people.

I know my history, you go and learn my history. Turks entered Türkiye during the 4th and 5th century when the Huns(=Turks) settled in here. Read the sources written by Priscus, 5th-century Roman diplomat and Greek historian, and you'll see that im right. And you probably also didnt know that during the Battle of Manzikert(1071) in Türkiye, the Byzantine(Eastern Roma) army was built of Christian Turks of Hunnic origin that settled in Eastern Roma during the 4th and 5th centuries. These Turkish Huns who were under command of Romanos IV Diogenes, traded sides when they realized that the Turkish Selcukids were of the same origin as them.

Genetics do proof that majority of the Turks are of SAME ORIGIN as ancient Turks, and also in order to take any serious scientific conclusions there must be available thousands of ancient dna studies done which is not the case right now obviously. So, with so few, almost no ancient dna studies, and the fact that the older not recent ancient dna studies does contain contamination and therefore the fact that the results of these few older studies are not reliable, IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC to draw any conclusions just to fulfill your hate crime feelings inside your hearth.

We know that the Sumerians(6000-8000 years ago) are the root of civilization, and are the root of all modern Eurasian nations. We know that the Sumerian language was equal to modern Turkish language. This means that the Turks are the root of all modern cultures. Knowing the fact that mutations occured tens of thousands of years ago, how do we know certainly that before the occurrence of certain mutations, that the people responsible for these mutations did not live together before and after the occurrence of the mutations that led to new haplogroups?
For example, lets take the K-M9 marker, what if a group of people with the M9 marker lived 40,000-50,000 years ago together as one nation when there was no other culture except the Sumerian/Turkish culture, and that after tens of thousands of years ago when new mutations occured out of the M9 marker people these people kept together and did not break up just until the time after the Sumerians(when new cultures did arise)? This means that many haplogroups could have lived together for tens of thousands of years ago despite the occurence of new mutations. Same situation of relations can be thought of between the F-M89 and K-M9 marker, or between Haplogroup CF and K.

All this migration routes, facts and more can only be proven with the existence of tens of thousands of reliable ancient dna. This is obviously not happened yet, because there are so few ancient dna studies. Also, i can show you easily that every haplogroup found in the small amount of dna studies done about modern Türkiye, is also found in a majority of certain Eurasian(From Siberia to Mongolia to Central Asia to the Balkans) Turkish tribes. So, Turks of Türkiye are 100% of ANCIENT TURKISH ORIGIN, anyone saying the contrary is wrong, and if they cannot come with proof they are comitting a hate crime against modern Turks, and therefore they are not to be taken seriously in the scientific world.

 

[Aberdeen]

Isbara, the problem with what you are saying is that none of your "facts" are actually facts. The Huns were not Turks and the Hungarians are Caucasians. The Turks who invaded and conquered Turkey beginning about 1000 years ago were pastoralists from Central Asia who became moslems after being conquered by Arabs. The Turks gradually went from being servants to being soldiers for the Arabs, eventually taking over as they migrated west. It wasn't until the Turks conquered Babylon in 1055 AD that they first were able to menace the Greek territories in Anatolia. The actual Turkish tribesmen were always a small minority in Anatolia but, as professional mercenaries, were able to impose their religion, language and culture by violence. It's too bad the European powers were too exhausted after World War I to properly enforce the partition of Turkey. That would have put an end to aggression by Turkified Anatolians.

 

[isbara]

Isbara, the problem with what you are saying is that none of your "facts" are actually facts. The Huns were not Turks and the Hungarians are Caucasians.

The name of the tribe of Mo-tu(3th-2th centuries BC), the founder of the Xiongnu Hunnic state, is described as "Tu-ku (T’u-ko)" in ancient Chinese documents. "Tu-ku (T’u-ko)" is equal to the word "Turk", it means that this shows that the fact is that Huns are of Turkish origin. Also another very solid fact is the content of an ancient Persian source in the year 420 AD, whom describes the Altaic populations of around Central Asia as "Türk Hun". Also it is a fact that Efrâsiyâb(=Alp Er Tunga) the founder of the Scythian/Sakha state is of Turkish origin. Also nowadays Yakutia/Sakha Republic is a modern fact that Scythians are of Turkish origin. Look at the Divani Lugati Türk written in the 11th century by Mahmood Kashgari that confirms that Efrâsiyâb(Iranian-Turanian khan) is of Turkish origin. Also when you read the writings of Priscus(5th century AD)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus), he constantly describes the Huns as "Scythian", he also names other populations as "Scythian". This shows that there are a lot of other nations during the 5th centuries whom are of Turkish Scythian origin.

Read the contents of the ancient sources provided at the following link to see that i am right: http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/dia/pdf/c41/c410268.pdf

Chu-shu Chi-nien (Bambu Kayýtlarý) (Lei Hsüech’i),Taipei 1977; Shih Chi(Ssu Ma-ch’ien/m.ö.109-91), Taipei 1979; Han Shu(Pan Ku/111),Taipei 1979; San Kuo Chih(Ch’en Shou/285-297), Taipei 1979; Hou Han Shu(Fan Ye/V. yüzyýlortasý), Taipei 1979; Chin Shu (Fang Ch’iao/636), Taipei 1979; Wei Shu(Wei Shou/636), Taipei1987; Chou Shu(Ling-hu Te-feng/629), Taipei1987; Pei Shih 99(Li Te-lin/636), Taipei 1987;Suei Shu(Wei Cheng/636), Taipei 1987; ChiouT’ang Shu(Liou Hsü/945), Taipei 1985; HsinT’ang Shu(Ou Yang-hsiou/ 1060), Taipei 1985;T’ung Tien(Tu Yu/805), Shanghai 1935; T’ungChih(Cheng Ch’iao/1150), Shanghai 1935; TsuchihT’ung-chien(Ssu Ma-kuang/1085), Taipei1987; Ts’u-fu Yüan-kuei (Wang Ch’in-jo ve YangÝ/1005-1013), Taipei 1981; Wen-hsien T’ung-k’ao(Ma Tuan-lin/1254), Shanghai 1935; Dîvânülugåti’t-Türk Tercümesi, bk. Ýndeks; Ýbn Fadlân,Seyahatname (trc. Ramazan Þeþen), Ýstanbul 1975;Mes‘ûdî, et-Tenbîh, tür.yer.; a.mlf., Mürûcü’×-×eheb(Abdülhamîd), I-II, tür.yer.; ¥udûdü’l-£âlem(Minorsky), tür.yer.; Ýbnül-Esîr, el-Kâmil, bk. Ýndeks;E. Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-Kiue(Turcs), occidentaux, St. Pétersbourg 1903,tür.yer.; K. Dietrich, Byzantinische Quellen zurleander und Völkerkunde, Leipzig 1912, II, tür.yer.;O. Franke, Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches,Berlin 1930-36, I-II; Akdes Nimet Kurat, PeçenekTarihi, Ýstanbul 1937; a.mlf., IV-XVIII. YüzyýllardaKaradeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimlerive Devletleri, Ankara 1972; a.mlf., “Bulgar”,ÝA, II, 781-796; W. M. McGovern, The Early Empiresof Central Asia, North Carolina 1939; O.Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China, NewYork 1940; W. Eberhard, Çin’in Þimal Komþularý(trc. Nimet Uluðtuð), Ankara 1942; a.mlf., “ÞatoTürklerinin Kültür Tarihine Dair Notlar”, TTKBelleten, XI/41 (1947), s. 15-26; F. Altheim, Attilaet les Huns, Paris 1952; J. R. Hamilton, Lesouïghours à l’époque des cinq dynasties d’aprèsles documents chinois, Paris 1955; Liu MauTsai,Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichteder Ost-Türken (T’u-küe), Wiesbaden 1958,I-II; Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, Budapest1958; A. Zajaczkowsky, Karaims in Poland,Warszawa 1961; a.mlf., “Hazar Kültürü ve Varisleri”(trc. Çaðatay Bedii), TTK Belleten, XXVII/107 (1963), s. 477-483; Attila ve Hunlarý, Ýstanbul1962; Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De Administrandoimperio (trc. R. J. H. Jenkins), London1962, II, tür.yer.; Bahaeddin Ögel, ÝslâmiyettenÖnce Türk Kültür Tarihi, Ankara 1962; a.mlf.,Büyük Hun Ýmparatorluðu Tarihi, Ankara 1982;a.mlf., “Ýlk Töles Boylarý”, TTK Belleten, XII/48(1948), s. 795-831; a.mlf., “Doðu Göktürkleri HakkýndaVesikalar ve Notlar”, a.e., XXI/81 (1957),s. 81-137; Ýbrahim Kafesoðlu, “Tarihte Türk Adý”,Reþid Rahmeti Arat Ýçin, Ankara 1966, s. 306-319; a.mlf., Türk Millî Kültürü, Ýstanbul 1987;D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars,Princeton 1967; C. Mackerras, The UighurEmpire (744-840), Canberra 1968; M. Mori, HistoricalStudies of the Ancient Turkic Peoples(in Japanese), Tokyo 1967; L. Rasonyi, TarihteTürklük, Ankara 1971; O. Maenchen-Helfen, TheWorld of the Huns, Berkeley 1973; L. Bazin, Lescalendriers turcs anciens et médiévaux, Lille1974; a.mlf., “Turks”, EI 2 (Ýng.), X, 687-689; L.Kwanten, Imperial Nomads: A History of CentralAsia, 500-1500, Pennsylvania 1979; P. B. Golden,Khazar Studies, Budapest 1980, I-II; a.mlf.,“Turks”, EI 2 (Ýng.), X, 689-693; Th. J. Barfield,The Perilous Frontier, Cambridge 1989, tür.yer.;V. V. Barthold, Moðol Ýstilâsýna Kadar Türkistan(haz. Hakký Dursun Yýldýz), Ankara 1990; a.mlf.,“Turks”, EI, IV, 900-908; R. Grousset, Bozkýr Ýmparatorluðu(trc. M. Reþat Uzmen), Ýstanbul 1993;Ahmet Taþaðýl, Gök-Türkler, Ankara 2004, I-III;a.mlf., Çin Kaynaklarýna Göre Gök-Türkler, Ankara2004; Þerif Baþtav, “Sabir Türkleri”, TTKBelleten, V/17-18 (1941), s. 53-99; O. Pritsak,“Die Sogenante Bulgarische Fürstenliste und dieSprache der Protobulgaren”, UAJ, XXVI (1954),s. 218, 220; Reþid Rahmeti Arat, “Karluklar”, ÝA,VI, 351-352; a.mlf., “Kýpçak”, a.e., VI, 713-716.

It's too bad the European powers were too exhausted after World War I to properly enforce the partition of Turkey. That would have put an end to aggression by Turkified Anatolians.

This statement obviously proofs that you are commiting a hate crime against Turks, and are not providing any kind of historical fact based on real historical sources. If you look at modern Anatolian village names, you see that most of them have their origins in 4th-5th century Hunnic tribes, that migrated and settled within the East Roman empire, and became later Christians. A majority of modern Anatolian "Rum's"(Roman citizens), are of Hunnic origin, and these populations have allied with the Selcukids. All in all, Turks were in Anatolia already in 4th-5th century AD. And not to forget about the Sumerians that spoke a Turkish language, this is almost 8000 years ago from now, so Turks lived in Türkiye 8000 years ago!

And know that the British and their slaves were not tired or exhausted after the WW1, they got beated by us Turks, and run away from Anatolian lands like cowards.

Look at what William David Upshaw says about Atatürk at this link http://www.turktoresi.com/viewtopic.php?f=139&t=7187:

"... Andlaşma, Timurlenk kadar hunhar. Müthiş İvan kadar sefih ve kafatasları piramidi üzerine oturan Cengiz Han kadar kepaze olan bir diktatörün zekice yürüttüğü politikasının bir toplamıdır. Bu canavar, savaştan bıkmış bir dünyaya, bütün uygar uluslara onursuzluk getiren bir diplomatik andlaşma kabul ettirmiştir. Buna her yerde bir Türk zaferi dediler. Ve eski dünya parlamentolarını bunu kabule ikna ettikten sonra, büyük sermaye gurupları, soğukkanlı ticaret erbabı ve giderek güya bazı din temsilcileri bile, Türkiye'yi uygar uluslar masasında, uluslararası bir konuk durumuna yücelterek, Amerika'yı yüksek ülkülerinden uzaklaştırmada birleştiler.' Amerikan senatörünün Hunhar Timurlenk, Sefih Müthiş İvan ve kafatası piramidi üzerinde oturan Cengiz Han'a benzettiği kişi, emperyalizme karşı Türkiye halkının ulusal kurtuluş savaşına önderlik eden Mustafa Kemal'dir.»

In short he says that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk has dictated his terms at the threaty of Lausanne to the British, so strong and smart as Timur and Genghis Khan. It means that the War of Independence was a huge and first lost of the British empire that was ended in the supreme victory of the Turks.

 

[Aberdeen]

Isbara, repeating something doesn't make it true. If you want to learn something about Sumerian, for example, there's lots of stuff available on the internet, based on all the clay tablets containing Sumerian writing that have been found. And while the experts still argue about how or whether Sumerian is connected to other Middle Eastern languages, no knowledgeable person has ever argued that Sumerian is connected to the Turkish languages of Asia. Turkish got to Turkey by immigration of nomads - that's a fact. While a lot of the genetics of Anatolians comes from the distant past in that area, that's because the Turkish invaders were relatively few in number compared to the Anatolian natives. But barbarian pastoralists often triumph over more civilized groups. There are lots of precedents for that.

Ataturk only got away with what he did because the European powers were exhausted by years of war and didn't want to fight anymore. And the people of western Europe didn't see the Greek Orthodox as better allies than the Turk 100 years ago, but most of them see now what a mistake their countries made in the aftermath of WWI.

 

[Alan]

Damn exams. Wait until the end of next week and I will give your proper response. But good that you gave the people here an inside of what you think. What this guy is preaching here is nothing new, it was part of the Turkish education system for over 8 decades and still many people believe it.

For more inside to the education System, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Language_Theory

 

[isbara]

Isbara, repeating something doesn't make it true. If you want to learn something about Sumerian, for example, there's lots of stuff available on the internet, based on all the clay tablets containing Sumerian writing that have been found. And while the experts still argue about how or whether Sumerian is connected to other Middle Eastern languages, no knowledgeable person has ever argued that Sumerian is connected to the Turkish languages of Asia. Turkish got to Turkey by immigration of nomads - that's a fact. While a lot of the genetics of Anatolians comes from the distant past in that area, that's because the Turkish invaders were relatively few in number compared to the Anatolian natives. But barbarian pastoralists often triumph over more civilized groups. There are lots of precedents for that.

Ataturk only got away with what he did because the European powers were exhausted by years of war and didn't want to fight anymore. And the people of western Europe didn't see the Greek Orthodox as better allies than the Turk 100 years ago, but most of them see now what a mistake their countries made in the aftermath of WWI.

I am providing the names of the sources about everything i write, you are only gossiping, and not providing any kind of source, which is against the scientific discussion rules, so therefore you are the one that comments fiction fairytales.

Yes there are a lot of Sumerologs, and there are lots of books written by Sumerologs that have read all those tablets. I am basing my conclusions on the books i have read. Two perfect examples that proof the fact that Sumerians are of Turkish origin are the following sources:

-Begmyrat Gerey, "5000 Yıllık Sümer - Türkmen Bağları" / "The 5000 years old ties between Sumerians and Turkomans"(read here http://www.turktoresi.com/viewforum.php?f=2 for further information on this source)
-Muazzez İlmiye Çığ, "Sumerliler Türklerin Bir Koludur" / "Sumerians are a tribe of the Turks"

I mean open your eyes, even wikipedia tries to admit that Sumerians are of Turkish origin, read this:

modern historians have suggested that Sumer was first permanently settled between c. 5500 and 4000 BCE by a non-Semitic people who spoke the Sumerian language

What do you think that a non-Semitic people in the Middle East could represent 5500 BCE? The article says obviously "non-Semitic people", which means that the Sumerians did not talk Middle Eastern languages.

There are a lot of academicians that proof the existence of the relations between the Sumer language and Altai language group, they also say that the Sumerian language is a Proto-Turkish language. Fritz Hommel is the front of the academicians that defend this statement. (Hommel, Fritz. 1925. Ethnologie und Geographie Des Alten Orients. München.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Hommel
I suggest you to read the decisive studies done by Fritz Hommel, after all professor Hommel is not of Turkish origin, so you could put your hate feelings aside and let science decide the truth.

For the other comments you made i refer to my previous post, all are answered quite convincingly in there.

 

[isbara]

Damn exams. Wait until the end of next week and I will give your proper response. But good that you gave the people here an inside of what you think. What this guy is preaching here is nothing new, it was part of the Turkish education system for over 8 decades and still many people believe it.

For more inside to the education System, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Language_Theory

Science is done with facts, not with blaming or hate crime feelings. Everyone's time is precious, if you think you have other counter theories, provide them, or else it is proven that i am right.

 

[LeBrok]

Isbara, repeating something doesn't make it true.

Repeat the same propaganda to young students for years, and it becomes the only "truth" in their heads. What Isbara says seems so ridiculous to the rest of the world, but it is the only "logical" understanding in his head. These views are easily reinforced and greatly potentiated by our nationalistic nature.
Now, is it possible to even plant a seed of a doubt in his hard head?

 

[isbara]

Repeat the same propaganda to young students for years, and it becomes the only "truth" in their heads. What Isbara says seems so ridiculous to the rest of the world, but it is the only "logical" understanding in his head. These views are easily reinforced and greatly potentiated by our nationalistic nature.
Now, is it possible to even plant a seed of a doubt in his hard head?

Someone who knows that he or she is not right in his/her cause, will only insult the person on the other side, and will not respond with scientific facts that are taken from solid historical sources!

 

[LeBrok]

These are true Turkish people from Central Asia. They speak Turkish language.

These are the Anatolians. They look same as Greeks and other Near Eastern people in the area.

And this is what your countryman says on this subject:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...atures-and-admixture-is-high?highlight=turkey

 

[isbara]

These are true Turkish people from Central Asia. They speak Turkish language.


These are the Anatolians. They look same as Greeks and other Near Eastern people in the area.


And this is what your countryman says on this subject:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...atures-and-admixture-is-high?highlight=turkey

I live in Netherlands, and i have family members that were thought by other people to be of Chinese descent. Did you see the pictures of all 70-80 millions of Turks in Türkiye? Did you visit all villages and did you see their facial types? And also it is not scientific to let face types decide the origin of people, and a very simple argument i will provide to proof this is this example: "There is a Yakut man, and there is a Cameroon woman, they marry and they will have a child, their child looks exactly like an African, does this mean the child is not of Yakut origin?"

 

[LeBrok]

Someone who knows that he or she is not right in his/her cause, will only insult the person on the other side, and will not respond with scientific facts that are taken from solid historical sources!

The problem is that you don't present scientific facts, but only propaganda from Turkey's education system. At the same time you failed to respond to scientific facts we are presenting.

- Sumerian was not a Turkish language.
- Turkish sounding names and words in other languages are coincidental.
- Kurdish is indo-european, not Turkish language.
- Original Turks came from Central Asia and conquered Anatolia. They introduced their language over local population.
- Genetically, citizens of Turkey are related to old Anatolians and Near Easterners, and only in small minority they carry original Turkish genes, from Central Asia.

 

[isbara]

The problem is that you don't present scientific facts, but only propaganda from Turkey's education system. At the same time you failed to respond to scientific facts we are presenting.

- Sumerian was not a Turkish language.
- Turkish sounding names and words in other languages are coincidental.
- Kurdish is indo-european, not Turkish language.
- Original Turks came from Central Asia and conquered Anatolia. They introduced their language over local population.
- Genetically, citizens of Turkey are related to old Anatolians and Near Easterners, and only in small minority they carry original Turkish genes, from Central Asia.

Its obvious that you did not read my previous posts, because i gave all sources that support my statements. I even gave the example of Fritz Hommel, German professor, is not of Turkish origin, has nothing to do with Turkish government. Fritz Hommel, a very respected professor has proven in the 1920's that the Sumerians are of Turkish origin, and that they spoke a Turkish language, if your eyes did not catch my previous statements i ask you friendly to read my text carefully and you will see that i am right.

Tell me, based on what is Kurdish Indo European? And what does this Indo European languague mean, is there even a Indo European/Iranian language or is it just an imaginery term? Arent the so called Indo European / Iranian languages and cultures all descended from the Sumerians? So, are they not all of Turkish origin?

What is your proof for your statement of Turkish genetics? What are the haplogroups found in Turkiye(i can provide similar results for all haplogroups found in Turkiye, that are also found in Turkistan regions, Central Asia, Siberia, etc.), and are there enough ancient dna studies to determine an origin based on haplogroups? So why are you people so eager to know much more about the dna haplogroups of the Yamna ancient bones? You know very well what the reason for the curiosity for ancient dna studies are, because there is almost not even one reliable ancient dna study, dont you know of the contamination problems? So, how can we make solid conclusions(whom are not fictions based on the hate crime feelings inside the hearts of evil minded intelligence agents) for the origins of modern populations without having a proper and solid ancient dna database which consists of tens of thousands, maybe 100.000's of samples of different periods of times in ancient history? The answer is quite simple, we cannot conclude anything, without the ancient dna, since the ancient dna database i am talking about does not exist, it is not scientific to talk about origins.

 

[LeBrok]

I live in Netherlands, and i have family members that were thought by other people to be of Chinese descent. Did you see the pictures of all 70-80 millions of Turks in Türkiye? Did you visit all villages and did you see their facial types? And also it is not scientific to let face types decide the origin of people, and a very simple argument i will provide to proof this is this example: "There is a Yakut man, and there is a Cameroon woman, they marry and they will have a child, their child looks exactly like an African, does this mean the child is not of Yakut origin?"

That's what I'm saying exactly, Turks are a mixed population. From genetic research we gathered that most of Turkish genome belongs to ancient Anatolians, and even more ancient Neolithic Near Eastern Farmers, and only in small proportion it came from original Turks of Central Asia. However, they were strong enough to conquered Anatolia and introduce their Turkish language over whole population and then change the religion of millions of Anatolians.

 

[isbara]

That's what I'm saying exactly, Turks are a mixed population. From genetic research we gathered that most of Turkish genome belongs to ancient Anatolians, and even more ancient Neolithic Near Eastern Farmers, and only in small proportion it came from original Turks of Central Asia. However, they were strong enough to conquered Anatolia and introduce their Turkish language over whole population and then change the religion of millions of Anatolians.

Which ancient Anatolians, what are the names, which haplogroups were found, what is the name of the study, and is there an ancient dna study about ancient Sumerian samples/bones? The most ancient Anatolians are the Sumerians, and their language is already Turkish, so ancient Anatolians are also of Turkish origin. Again, i am very upset to see that you are not providing any kind of academic source for your statements, i advise you to substantiate your comments with scientific (history and genomics) sources.

 

[LeBrok]

Its obvious that you did not read my previous posts, because i gave all sources that support my statements. I even gave the example of Fritz Hommel, German professor, is not of Turkish origin, has nothing to do with Turkish government. Fritz Hommel, a very respected has proven in the 1920's that the Sumerians are of Turkish origin, and that they spoke a Turkish language, if your eyes did not catch my previous statements i ask you friendly to read my text carefully and you will see that i am right.

Oh, you mean that one scientist 100 years ago couldn't make a mistake in his conclusion? Tell us what is the consensus of current researchers?

Tell me, based on what is Kurdish Indo European? And what does this Indo European languague mean, is there even a Indo European/Iranian language or is it just an imaginery term? Arent the so called Indo European / Iranian languages and cultures all descended from the Sumerians? So, are they not all of Turkish origin?

Here is the freshest paper:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...vid-Anthony-and-Don-Ringe?p=449007#post449007
The scientific consensus is that there was IE and proto IE language and IE culture using it. The only problem is to figure out where they are coming from.

What is your proof for your statement of Turkish genetics? What are the haplogroups found in Turkiye(i can provide similar results for all haplogroups found in Turkiye, that are also found in Turkistan regions, Central Asia, Siberia, etc.), and are there enough ancient dna studies to determine an origin based on haplogroups?

Check autosomal dna, and how Turks plot among nations. Look around Eupedia for it, I don't have time to find it right now.

So why are you people so eager to know much more about the dna haplogroups of the Yamna ancient bones? You know very well what the reason for the curiosity for ancient dna studies are, because there is almost not even one reliable ancient dna study, dont you know of the contamination problems?

There were some contaminations in the past, but right now we know how to clean dna, how to run it hundreds of times to get the full picture. The proof is that ancient dna from Europe is different than from todays population. If there was a contamination problem, ancient dna would look exactly like today's. The Paleolithic dna is different than Neolithic, which is different than Bronze age, which is a bit different than modern. We also noticed that different research teams will get agreeing results for Neolithic or Paleolithic DNA. The only conclusion is that most samples are not contaminated and we are getting the true results. We discussed it on many threads on Eupedia. Look for them, they are very interesting and intriguing.

So, how can we make solid conclusions(whom are not fictions based on the hate crime feelings inside the hearts of evil minded intelligence agents) for the origins of modern populations without having a proper and solid ancient dna database which consists of tens of thousands, maybe 100.000's of samples of different periods of times in ancient history? The answer is quite simple, we cannot conclude anything, without the ancient dna, since the ancient dna database i am talking about does not exist, it is not scientific to talk about origins.

I doubt that you ever understand the real world. You have a typical conspiracy theorist mind, which can only see the "patterns" suiting your beliefs. Your rampant hyper nationalism blinds you even more.

 

[isbara]

Oh, you mean that one scientist 100 years ago couldn't make a mistake in his conclusion? Tell us what is the consensus of current researchers?

2004: Begmyrat Gerey, "5000 Yıllık Sümer - Türkmen Bağları" / "The 5000 years old ties between Sumerians and Turkomans"
2013: Muazzez İlmiye Çığ, "Sumerliler Türklerin Bir Koludur" / "Sumerians are a tribe of the Turks"

Here is the freshest paper:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...007#post449007
The scientific consensus is that there was IE and proto IE language and IE culture using it. The only problem is to figure out where they are coming from.

Read the following text at the following link you provided: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

The Anatolian-origin theory explains the success of the IE languages as one example of a global process of language shift that accompanied the expansion of farming.

It seems clear that the ancestor of the Anatolian subgroup (which includes Hittite) separated from the other dialects of PIE first, so from a cladistic point of view Anatolian is half the IE family (e.g., Jasanoff 2003). Within the non-Anatolian half, it appears that the ancestor of the Tocharian subgroup (whose attested languages were spoken in Xinjiang, today in western China, until approximately the tenth century ce) separated from the other dialects before the latter had diverged much (e.g., Winter 1998, Ringe 2000).

Question 1, are the Sumerians not the ancestors of the Hittites? Yes they are! And if your sources confirm that Sumerians are the root of the imaginery Indo European nation, and if your sources confirm that there is a direct archeologically connection between Xinjiang and Anatolia, and if we know that the Sumerians spoke a Turkish language, then are the Indo Europeans not all of Turkish origin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites And if the Sumerians
http://education-portal.com/academy...ylonians-hittites-hurrians-and-assyrians.html (Heirs of the Sumerians: Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Assyrians)

Question 2, According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages the Tocharians date from the 6th to the 8th century AD. Lets say that the Tocharians are from the fiction Indo European group and they lived in Xinjiang, China. Is it not a fact that the Huns were in Xinjiang and neighbouring areas way before the Tocharians? Yes, the Xiongnu lived around the 3th century BC, this is 1100 years earlier than Tocharians. And in the Chinese documents, it is obviously stated that the ancestors of the Xiongnu were also living in Xinjiang. So, Turks were living in here way before the Tocharians. And not to forget that the Scythians/Sakhas(9th century BC up until the 4th century AD) were related to the ancestors of the Huns, and that they also lived within the steppes between China and Türkiye. Is it then not scientifically to say that the Huns and the Scythians are the ancestors of the Tocharians? Yes it is! And is it not a fact that in stead of talking about an Indo-European/Iranian group, to talk about a Turanian/Turkish group which is based on the connections between the Xiongnu, Scythians and the Sumerians?

There were some contaminations in the past, but right now we know how to clean dna, how to run it hundreds of times to get the full picture. The proof is that ancient dna from Europe is different than from todays population. If there was a contamination problem, ancient dna would look exactly like today's. The Paleolithic dna is different than Neolithic, which is different than Bronze age, which is a bit different than modern. We also noticed that different research teams will get agreeing results for Neolithic or Paleolithic DNA. The only conclusion is that most samples are not contaminated and we are getting the true results. We discussed it on many threads on Eupedia. Look for them, they are very interesting and intriguing..

Yes exactly, right now means beginning from the end of 2014, there is a new Y-SNP technique that eliminates the contamination problem. But before end 2014 the problem of contamination still existed, so there are almost not even one reliable ancient dna study, so how can we make any logical conclusions? We need an ancient dna database with at least tens of thousands of ancient dna samples from different populations and different times. This is clearly not the situation right now, in nowadays academic world!

 

[LeBrok]

Which ancient Anatolians, what are the names, which haplogroups were found, what is the name of the study, and is there an ancient dna study about ancient Sumerian samples/bones?

There is no DNA of ancient Sumerian collectd yet.
What is the scientific consensus about Sumerian language?
You picked one guy who claims that it was Turkish language. Why didn't you pick a scientist who claims it was an Afro-Asiatic language?
You see, your hyper nationalism skewed your logic, making you believe that this scientist was right. You want Turkey to be something special, and that it has a long history in the area. That your language is aboriginal and original to Near East. The longer the history of Turkish language, people and culture the bigger the validity to claim Turkey your true homeland.

This is how it works in your brain:

The most ancient Anatolians are the Sumerians, and their language is already Turkish, so ancient Anatolians are also of Turkish origin.

"The most ancient Anatolians are the Sumerians" - your believe, your wishful thinking
"and their language is already Turkish" - cherie picked conclusion of one linguist from 100 ago.
"so ancient Anatolians are also of Turkish origin" - your own conclusion, a confirmation of your beliefs
In mean time you ignored scientific consensus of modern researchers claiming that Summer is a language isolate, not related to other existing languages.

At the end of this page you will find a list of many scientific papers who don't agree with your belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language
Please accustom yourself with other scientific points of view on Sumerian language.

We would have a different discussion if you came here and said " Hey guys, I found this german scientist, who claim that Sumerian was a Turkish language, I think it probably was". It would be a typical statement of curious open mind. Instead you came here and claimed "It is the Truth, because a german scientist said that". I'm sorry but this is not how critical thinking works, which is base for a sound logic. For that I'm sure that doesn't matter how many scientific papers I find to confirm my point of view, trying to open your eyes on other possibilities. You will ignore them, because they don't fit your beliefs, your version of truth.

When you read our threads discussing recent scientific papers, you will notice that most of us use less certain language. We say: I think, probable, most likely, maybe, perhaps, what do you think, sometimes, etc. This is because we know that things we discuss are not 100% proven, we leave a room for possibilities, we change our minds and our assumptions. Now that's critical thinking, this is how certainty and future consensus is being born.

 

[LeBrok]

2004: Begmyrat Gerey, "5000 Yıllık Sümer - Türkmen Bağları" / "The 5000 years old ties between Sumerians and Turkomans"
2013: Muazzez İlmiye Çığ, "Sumerliler Türklerin Bir Koludur" / "Sumerians are a tribe of the Turks"

All Turks on government salary? How objective and convincing.

Question 1, are the Sumerians not the ancestors of the Hittites? Yes they are! And if your sources confirm that Sumerians are the root of the imaginery Indo European nation, and if your sources confirm that there is a direct archeologically connection between Xinjiang and Anatolia, and if we know that the Sumerians spoke a Turkish language, then are the Indo Europeans not all of Turkish origin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites And if the Sumerians
http://education-portal.com/academy...ylonians-hittites-hurrians-and-assyrians.html (Heirs of the Sumerians: Babylonians, Hittites, Hurrians and Assyrians)

Question 2, According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharian_languages the Tocharians date from the 6th to the 8th century AD. Lets say that the Tocharians are from the fiction Indo European group and they lived in Xinjiang, China. Is it not a fact that the Huns were in Xinjiang and neighbouring areas way before the Tocharians? Yes, the Xiongnu lived around the 3th century BC, this is 1100 years earlier than Tocharians. And in the Chinese documents, it is obviously stated that the ancestors of the Xiongnu were also living in Xinjiang. So, Turks were living in here way before the Tocharians. And not to forget that the Scythians/Sakhas(9th century BC up until the 4th century AD) were related to the ancestors of the Huns, and that they also lived within the steppes between China and Türkiye. Is it then not scientifically to say that the Huns and the Scythians are the ancestors of the Tocharians? Yes it is! And is it not a fact that in stead of talking about an Indo-European/Iranian group, to talk about a Turanian/Turkish group which is based on the connections between the Xiongnu, Scythians and the Sumerians?

Did you read this latest paper on IE language? What do you think?

Yes exactly, right now means beginning from the end of 2014, there is a new Y-SNP technique that eliminates the contamination problem. But before end 2014 the problem of contamination still existed, so there are almost not even one reliable ancient dna study, so how can we make any logical conclusions? We need an ancient dna database with at least tens of thousands of ancient dna samples from different populations and different times. This is clearly not the situation right now, in nowadays academic world!

Wrong. It is not logical to conclude that if something exist, it has to happen. Car accidents exist, but they don't happen every time you drive your car, right?
Most dna from ancient samples from independent studies agree with each other. That's why we know that they are good.