|
Post by balamir on Jan 15, 2007 21:30:39 GMT 3
I think Turks are mix of two peoples:A Mongoloid and a Caucasid people,ý think they were mixed and their sons became first Turks.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 15, 2007 21:51:54 GMT 3
I also think that way Köktürk Shad, I'm eagerly waiting for your theory
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 15, 2007 23:45:06 GMT 3
I know that Turks are mix of east asian peoples like mongolians and tungustic not those exactly but of altaic stock and the sakas and other eastern persian? Nomads.
|
|
|
Post by kokturk on Jan 16, 2007 0:16:18 GMT 3
"A majority (89%) of the Xiongnu sequences can be classified as belonging to an Asian haplogroup (A, B4b, C, D4, D5 or D5a, or F1b), and nearly 11% belong to European haplogroups (U2, U5a1a, and J1). This finding indicates that the contacts between European and Asian populations were anterior to the Xiongnu culture, and it confirms results reported for two samples from an early 3rd century b.c. Scytho-Siberian population (Clisson et al. 2002)."* " They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia. "** "There is also a connection between the Taklamakan people and the Crimean Scyths, the Celts and the Picts."*** Also, we can see the connection between Altaic and Indo-European people in the mummies of the Tarim Basin.**** According to the datas above, modern Turks are both Mongoloid and Caucasoid. But when and how did the mixture happen? No doubt that, this mixing happened before the Xiongnu people appeared. If we look at the pictures of the Tarim mummies, we will see that they are Celts or ancestors of Celts. But my opinion is that, these people are not the ancestors of modern Celts, but they were very closely-linked to them, ie not their grand grand grand fathers but they were uncles of their grand grand fathers. Because, we do not know any Celtic migration from the Central Asia to the Europe. Celts are thought to originate from Caucasia, relatives of Georgian and Circassian people, like Basques. Why am I talking about Celts? Our issue was origin of the Turks, was not it? According to my thesis, these "proto-Celts" and the ancient Altaics were our ancestors. We, Mongolians and especially Turkics became after the mixture of these people before the history, maybe before 6000 BC. Altaics were the leader of these people, so we are talking their language. * Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of a 2,000-Year-Old Necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia Christine Keyser-Tracqui,1 Eric Crubézy,2 and Bertrand Ludes1,2 ** www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml *** www.tattooheaven.com/CentAsia.html **** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Jan 16, 2007 2:00:22 GMT 3
That genetic data came from 62 specimens excavated from the Egyin Gol, near Lake Baikal, which is clearly belonged to dingling, I don't know how did they got this conclusion that they were belonged to Xiongnu, keep that in mind, xiongnu includes many annexed subjects. www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v73n2/35013/fg1.gifYou dig out a grave, and you found a skull, the skull won't tell you which folk they belong to, this is also the cases for many scythian burials, which often came from the most diverse ethnologic areas.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 16, 2007 4:00:11 GMT 3
Hello wefone90, welcome to SHF I agree with all your points except the Celtic thing. I don't believe that the Celts migrated that eastwards; those Europoids of Early Central Asia are clearly Tokharians. I really have no idea why Celts are being mentioned instead of these Tokharians in some scientific researches.
|
|
|
Post by kokturk on Jan 16, 2007 4:14:42 GMT 3
I really have no idea why Celts are being mentioned instead of these Tokharians in some scientific researches. Because none of them have ever seen a Tokharian but all of them have seen a Celt at least once. If you can provide me a definition of the appearance of Tokharians, I will gladly change my thesis.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 16, 2007 15:29:29 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by kokturk on Jan 16, 2007 21:32:45 GMT 3
The clothes found with the Tarim mummies make me think about Celt thesis, or a relationship between Celts and Tokharinas.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 16, 2007 21:34:23 GMT 3
this summer a German-Russian archaeologcial team found another ice-mummy in the Altai mountains in western Mongolia, they said it was a scythian chief but i'm not really convinced he was scythian, especially because scyhtians lvied in Ukraine anyways, the mummy was clearly blond and was dressed similar to that pazyryk lady who was tatooed. similarities bewteen Celts and Scythians are: they have fair complexions in general, have a fashion to tatoo their body and are more advanced than other "barbarian" (=non-urban) cultures. i don't think Celts and Sakas are the same but they might be related, though we then would have a ethnic group roughly stretching from the pyrenees mountains to the altai mountains and from the Scottish highlands to the Hindukush mountain. during these times the ancestors of Turkic and Mongol peoples must have occupied the area east of the altai, mostly Mongolia and perhaps Manchuria. then either the Turkic peoples pushed the Indo-eruopean steppe nomads westward, annihilating and assimilating them, or alternatively the Turkic and Mongol peoples always lived in those lands and eventually overthrew the rule of the Sakas establishing their own steppe confederations.
|
|
|
Post by wefone90 on Jan 16, 2007 21:37:37 GMT 3
1)The intricately designed cloth material that wore by the tarim mummies came from the sheep's wool, and its weaved pattern were identical to those Celtic cloth. Althought, no idea when does this tartan patterns starts to appear in central europe.
2)They are red-haired
Ancient chinese texts had left us almost nothing abt the nordic or mediterranean features for the city-states peoples in tarim. We only know from the texts that they had deep-set eyes and profuse beards and implied nothing on noridc features, and when they do, they often left out to mention their facial appearance, lighter hair and eyes color alone is about nothing to nordics. the saka art's pazyryk culture clearly does not belong to this catalogue, they are no blond, the pazyryk dated to abt 3 bc - 1 bc, which is about the same times a tribe called oguz roamed this area. From the historial context, saka did not entered the north parts of this area, even when their defeat to yüeh-chih, they chose to fled south, today we had a area in iran call sakastan.
|
|