|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 19:16:25 GMT -5
He's talking about e3b--you know, that perfectly caucasoid haplogroup that retards like to attribute to negroid admixture.
E(xE3b) != E3b
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 20, 2005 20:11:30 GMT -5
Yes...that haplogroup could be called the Berber Haplogroup and we all know that they are a bunch of SSA!
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 20, 2005 21:17:37 GMT -5
Did a little birdie tell you?
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Nov 21, 2005 5:20:40 GMT -5
Your statemants are according to head shape. You think that only brachsephalic people are turk( I am brachysephalic). This is wrong.I think brachsephalisation is the result of mongolian influance. Yes that's true most of turkic people brachsephalic but this isn't a rule. I suppose you were referring to the Central Asian Turks. Well, this rises the question about the Turkic homeland. I don't know much about this discussion, but I think it's controversial. However, the facts are: The earliest written mentioning of the designation "Turk" is from China, 6th century AD ("T'u-küe" or "Tür-küt"). The earliest known Turkic empire was the state of the Göktürks, which stretched out between the Chingan mountains in the East and Transoxiania in the West, thus mostly in the Mongoloid area. Is there any physical evidence about what they looked like? It seems very likely. I'd bet they weren't Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by reality on Nov 21, 2005 11:15:21 GMT -5
Yes...that haplogroup could be called the Berber Haplogroup and we all know that they are a bunch of SSA! not correct E3b 1 is what greeks have at 25% in their y chromosomes and that originated in Somalia-Ethiopia region...
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 21, 2005 11:43:57 GMT -5
I'd bet they weren't Caucasoid. Indeed, they were most likely Tungid Mongoloids. That just makes the most sense to me, considering that race's importance in the formation of the Central Asian Turanids.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 21, 2005 12:54:39 GMT -5
I can't find any study mentioning E3b 1 in relation to Greeks. Perhaps you can provide it. Maybe i'm not looking hard enough.
|
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Nov 22, 2005 10:32:37 GMT -5
I'd bet they weren't Caucasoid. Indeed, they were most likely Tungid Mongoloids. That just makes the most sense to me, considering that race's importance in the formation of the Central Asian Turanids. I am sure they were what they were. When they came to anatolia all of their enemies calling themselves as Turks as they call themselves. They were like what the modern anatolian Turks look like. If you go and see Ottomans' grandsons in Bilecik you will see the fact. There are chineese sources describing Turks different from Mongolian and Chineese much like caucasian.If you seek you can find. I don't say that Turks haven't mixed with local people. Especially agean part near the sea very a few in east black sea part(laz,georgians) and of course in southwest(kurds,arabs). You can see the differance of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 22, 2005 12:52:08 GMT -5
You're right, but I was talking about the proto-Turks that supposedly came into Turkestan from somewhere further east, in or around Mongolia. It would make sense considering all other Altaic languages originated with Tungid Mongoloids.
No doubt that the majority of Ottoman/Seljuk Turks that invaded Anatolia were Caucasoid, though. A few mixed-race Turanids, but mostly white Irano-Afghans.
|
|