Since consanguineous marriage was considered a crime in Turkish tribes, Turks had exogamous marriages. For this reason, the gene pool is very wide. It probably has the widest gene pool in the world. Until recently, no one cared about how dangerous consanguineous marriages were, but in Chinese sources and old Turkish stories, it is said that consanguineous marriages were a crime. If we want to know where a society comes from, we can only find it through archaeology. Their migration routes and the notes written on their behalf at that time, such as the Codex Cumanicus. Because we understand how accurately the societies that wrote about themselves , what other societies wrote about them.
My family and I have lived in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey for centuries, and we have a Turkic phenotype with slightly slanted eyes, high cheekbones, and a round head.
@@Ancestrallinguistsame here. I have very almond shaped eyes and we are South Eastern turks. Just because ppl are poorer in the South East and make not as much tests as in the balkanic western regions doesnt mean we are less turkish. The South East is a pearl, its a melting pot, so many people with jewish heritage live there and they don’t even know.
@@Ancestrallinguist Most of the Turks in Turkey already had a phenotype inherited from their ancestors. Most of them have a hybrid phenotype of the indigenous people and the Turkic conquerors.
Anatolian Turks took the most beautiful women of the countries they conquered as wives, DNA comes from the mother, so it is natural for them to have different genetics. Also Anatolian Turks are from the Oghuz tribe and do not have slanted eyes, the number of Turks in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Crimea, Gagauz, Cyprus etc. is 150 million.. the important thing is that we grow up with Turks and Turkish consciousness, therefore our genetics are not important. Turkey is the country that embraces Turkish consciousness the most in the world.
The story is not like this man 😂😂 the story goes that million of Grecoromans become Muslims to save themselves from persecution and discrimination The story also said that million of babies taken by force from the Anatolians to become slaves of the sultan in the harems and army The story also says that people like lies to have an normal life
You said it very well, I grew up in Anatolia and it is important to know your connection with your relatives and accept them as such. I love my nation in every way
Now add the fact that Turks ruled dozens of other nations/lands/People in 3 continents; literally for at least 1000 years. Gokturks, Seldjuks, Mamelukes, Mughals. Not just the Ottomans. What do you think the dominant rulers do to the DNA of the ones they ruled for 1000 years?
Since consanguineous marriages were forbidden even in the oldest known Turkish societies, Turks always had exogamous marriages and since they were nomadic, they must have the largest gene pool in the world.
Dont forget the central asians who were settled down in the South and East regions of turkey. We all have somehow connections to Asia. We are all somehow mixed.
Why are you taking Slab Grave ancestry as the litmus for "Turkicness" ? Modern Turkic populations with most prevalent slab grave ancestry are Kazakhs, Karakalpak and Krgyz, all three are historically attested to be mixed with Mongols in fact all three of them were Kypchak tribal unions with Mongolic tribes incorporated. Modern populations with most Slab Grave ancestry are not Turkic but Mongolic, Yeniseian, and Samoyedic peoples.
Turks are of Turkic ancestry, so says the ancient Turanic scripts.. Mongols are great and powerful people and western people would like to mix Mongols with Turks but it would be unfair to Mongols , their history and their dna belongs to them , and it would be unfair and untrue to Turks if Mongols to claim their history and their genetics. However every one on this earth comes from the same original animal who swam out of the sea and turned into a human being., we are all related.
Living as nomads in Middle Asia, Turks have traveled far distances and have mixed with many tribes. Mongols are just one of them. Because of our integration we see all as of our own. There is nothing wrong with it. It shows our strong bond with the rest of the world. They can call themselves anything they like. We respect it. We will always welcome them as one of our own.
Intermarriage between Turks and Greek, Armenian and Georgian natives of Anatolia was not unheard of, although the majority of these unions were between Turkish men and Christian women. The children of these unions, known as 'Mixovarvaroi', were raised as Turks and were of the Muslim faith (although there were some cases of Mixovarvaroi defecting to the Byzantines). It is likely that these unions played a role in the eventual diminishment of the Christian population in Anatolia and its transition from Greek/Christian to Turkish/Muslim. Vryonis Jr, Speros (1971). The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. California: Berkeley University Press. p. 176.
The thesis, which is widespread today and accepted by European scientists; The thesis is that the R1a subgroup is the 'common gene of the Indo-Europeans, and the R1b subgroup is the common gene of the Turks and other Central Asian peoples and Finn-Yuğra peoples. (1- Anatoly A. Kyosov, Journal of Russian Academy ogf DNA genelogy, 2010 vol. 3No 1 pp.3-58) However, the R gene is a single gene with all its haplogroups and is a 'Turkish gene'. The R1b subgroup is actually highly concentrated in Western Europe and moderately in Central Eurasia and Sub-Sharan in Central Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Central Asia. The R1b subgroup is 80% Irish, Scots and Welsh; 50-60 percent in Spaniards, Portuguese, French and English; 25-50% in Germans, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians; 25-40% in Italians; 25% in Sweden and Norway; 15% in the Balkan peoples; It is found 10-15% in Poles, 10% in Russians and Ukrainians, 10-15% in Anatolian Turks (25% in Black Sea and Eastern Anatolia regions and 15-25% in Kyrgyz. Rb1 ratios in Central Asian Turks and Fin-Yuğra peoples are very low or there is none. The Rb1 subgroup is quite high among Celtic, Germanic, and Latin peoples who have assimilated Proto-Turkic Peoples such as the Iberian and Aquit peoples in Spain and France, and Finns further north at a low level. This ratio is around 60-80% in the British and Irish islands, for example. In Scandinavian peoples who have heavily assimilated the Finnish peoples, the R1b rate is relatively low, such as 25%. Rb1 is as low as 10-15% in Slavic and Balkan peoples. For Russians, Ukrainians and Polish peoples, this rate is at a very low level, between 0-10%. In Hungarians, this rate is between 0-10%. This subgroup is also between 0-10% in Croats of European Avars origin and Bosnians of Pecheneg origin. R1a is a haplogroup with a high rate in Turks. R1a, 50-70% Central Asian Turks, 50-60% Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Sorbs (Slavs in Germany), 50-60% Afghans, Pakistanis and North Indians, 20-60% Hungarians; 52% Ashkenazi Jews, 15-30% Scandinavian peoples, 30% Finns, Estlers, Lapps, Baltic people, 15-20% Italians and some areas in northern Spain (this includes the Basque region) 25-60% Dravidians, 10 percent -15% in Tibetans, 15-20% in North Chinese, 15-30% in Germans, 30-40% in Balkan peoples, 20-30% in Caucasian, Anatolian and Iranian peoples. The genetic compositions of today's Turkic peoples are quite different from each other and show a genetic unity. Anatolian Turks also have C, H, I, J, K, O, Q, T chromosomes besides R1a and lesser R1b. The highest gene among Turkic peoples is R Y-DNA. (R1a and R1b) Next comes J Y-DNA. J Y-DNA is a gene carried by Arabs and Semetic Jews, which emerged in the Arabian peninsula about 30,000 years ago, and is divided into 2 subgroups as J1 and J2. This rate is as low as 20% in Ashkenazi Jews of Turkish origin, and they got this gene by mixing with Semetic Jews. There are J2 subgroups at the rate of 10% and 20% among the Anatolian Turks. The genetic composition of Azerbaijan's Iranian Turks is similar to that of Anatolian Turks. In Turkmens in Turkmenistan, on the other hand, R1a is higher and J chromosome is lower than Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turks, while O and Q chromosomes are higher. Among the Turkic peoples in Central Asia, the highest rate of R1a is found in the Kyrgyz Turks with 70 percent. 50-60% of that. KazakhTurks, UygurTurks, and UzbekTurks, MongolTurks and TibetTurks, this rate is around 10-15%. All Central Asian peoples have C, I, J, K, O, Q chromosomes, but the J chromosome is very low in these peoples. However, C Chromosome is found at very high levels in KazakTurks, MogolTurks, KirgizTurks, UygurTurks and UzbekTurks. Other peoples carrying this chromosome are Tunguses, Koreans and Japanese. Tibetans also carry about 40% of the D chromosome. This chromosome is found in other Central Asian Peoples at very low rates. Another people who carry this chromosome at a high rate like the Tibetans are the Aynos, the oldest people of the Japanese islands. The issue that confuses European scientists is that the R1a subgroup is found in Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Pakistanis; It is very high in Afghans and north Indians. This is quite natural actually. The lands where these peoples live are the old lands where the Turks have established strong lands for centuries. If we look at the maps of these Turkish states, it can be easily seen that these maps overlap with the R1a maps. This is the only reason why these populations have high levels of R1a. The Turks living in these lands became new peoples by mixing with other peoples who did not migrate from these lands when their states were disintegrated. It is not known on what the European scientists base the thesis that the R1a subgroup is the common gene of 'Indo-Europeans' and the R1b group is the common gene of Turks and other Central Asian peoples and Finn-Ygra peoples (Fins, Estonians, Lapps), but it is found in Turkish and other Central Asian peoples and Phoenician peoples. the higher gene is not R1b, but the R1a subgroup. R1b is at very low levels. This 'strangeness' is explained by European scholars as 'the Turks carry a high rate of R1a because they assimilated the Iranian Peoples in Central Asia in the 4th and 11th centuries' (2 origins, age, spread and ethnic association of European Haplogroups and subclades) However, there is no record that the Turks erased the 'Central Asian Iranians' from history in the 4th and 11th centuries. If one can show records, evidence, etc., of course, it would be very appropriate. In addition, R1a is high not only in Turks, but also in Caucasian peoples living in the Caucasus and Dravidian peoples living in southern India. Also, if R1a is a Turkish gene, why is it 60-80% found in British, French, Spanish, and Celts? It must be Ahhuns (Sakalar, Kushans or Ak Sakalar) or Tagars (Tohars) that European scientists mean by Iranians in Central Asia. The Tağars established a powerful state in the present-day Shanxi and Kansu provinces of China between 300 BC and 20 BC. However, European historians claim that the Tagars were 'Indo-European'. No 'Indo-European' state was established in Central Asia, neither in 300 BC nor in the following centuries. There are no archaeological findings proving this. there are only dry claims. There was only a small number of people of Indian origin, who spread to present-day Southern Turkestan (Afghanistan and then to East Turkestan, and then melted down among the Uyghurs) around 500 AD. The descendants of this people are texts written in Brahmi script from the period between 500 AD and 700 AD. It is understood that they spoke an Indian language that has become extinct.European historians and archaeologists have found thousands of years old in central Asia. They claim that they were descended from 'Indo-European tohars' because their mummies were auburn-blonde and their clothing resembled those of the Celtic peoples. However, the People of Indian origin, whom they call the Tohars, are not brown-haired, but a dark people like today's Indians, and their migration date to Central Asia is very late. These mummies are from the Turks. In addition, it is natural that these oldest clothes of the Turks are seen in the Celts, an early Turkish people. It is not surprising that the Turks were brown-blonde before mixing with other peoples.
Could you please send me the sources of the pages you got this information from, I want to examine them. I had many questions on my mind about this issue. Maybe they are hesitant to update history, especially the Sumerians cannot be subjected to any race and they are hesitant to call them Turks, even though they are close to the Turks. This means that they are literally hiding the people and making distorting theses for their own interests
@@Alrtrn613 HYDE CLARKE entitiled "THE TURANIAN EPOCH OF THE ROMANS, AS ALSO OF THE GREEKS, GERMANS, AND ANGLO-SAXONS, IN RELATION TO THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE WORLD", published in "the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society", Vol. VIII, 1880, p. 172 -222. Let me cite just one paragraph from the research of Hyde Clarke: "My own researches, as laid in detail this year before the Philological Society, fully establish the character of the Etruscans as a Turanian language, belonging to one great group, or family of families, allied to the languages of all the nations of early culture, the pre-Hellenic, Thracian, Phyrigian, Lydian, Carian, Georgian, Canaanite, the Akkad of Babylonia, and Egyptian. Among modern languages the analogues are with Basque, Ugro-Altaic, Georgian, many languages of India and Further India, Japanese, Coptic, and the languages of higher culture of Central, Western, and Southern Africa, and many languages of North, South, and Central America." This revelation is a mouthful. Here we observe that the writer Hyde Clarke also referring to many Indian Languages being from the family of Turanian languages. Both the historians and linguists should take note of it. It is surprising to see that the worlds historical and linguistic writers ignored this Turanian fact of the ancient world so far and in fact intentionally buried it into darkness. In view of the above citing, when I say that the ancient world was a "House of OGUZ", I am absolutely correct! After all, I base my conclusions of my studies on a lot of different sources as I have indicated in my writings. Polat Kaya. archive.org/details/sim_royal-historical-society-london-england-transactions_1872-1880_8/page/172/mode/2up
@@Alrtrn613 The book brings a fresh perspective into a stagnated view of the Turkic nations and their past. Primarily based on the genetic findings, backed by the archeological, historical, linguistic facts and testimonies of the ancient scholars, historians, and geographers, this work reveals breaking new evidence about the biblical origins of the Turkic nations who were related to the ancient Akkadians, Sumerians. It unshrouds the Turkic pedigree of the Germanic nations, the natives of ancient Media, and the Scythians. The deciphered cuneiforms of the Behistun inscription in Persia, along with their detailed lexico-grammatical analysis shed light on the revolutionary facts about the Turkic origin of the Medes and their language. A large portion of this volume is devoted to the Scythians and most of their derivative tribes, including those located in Scythia and beyond, such as the As, Sacai, Parthians, Bactrians, Huns, Sarmats, Getai, Celtic, Iberian, Gallic, Germanic, and Thracian tribes - the Trojans with a detailed classification of the related tribes, including the most renowned Illyrians, Spartans, Phrygians, Etruscans, Pelasgi. The in-depth lexico-grammatical analyses of the languages of two major Thracian nations - the Etruscans and the Phrygians ascertain their Turkic origin. The book also demystifies the history of the ancient Armenians who were a Phrygian colony, sets them apart from the modern Armenians, and gives a chronological, historical account of the modern Armenian people, also known as the Hays, under the authority of their first historian Movses Khorenatsi. The comparative analyses of 20 ancient alphabets reveal their (Armenians) common Turkic root. Crucial archeological, cultural, political, linguistic, and genetic evidence points to the Turkic beginning of many Native Americans. Among the numerous quotes from the ancient statesmen and reputable scholars, Dr. A. Sanducci brings forward the statement made by the father of Swedish Historiography prof. Sven Lagerbring: "Our ancestors are Turks who are comrades of Odin. We have got enough evidence on this subject... Odin and his comrades were Turks... We, the Germanic people, are in origin, are Turks. We must not be ashamed of this fact. The Turks are a very honorable and proud people." ............................... Sanducci, A. Having an extensive academic background in Turkic Studies, a former visiting professor to UC Berkeley, USA, Dr. A. Sanducci - the author of the research "Ancient Scholars about the Turks and the Turkic Nations", as well as of many other educational books and articles, gave speeches and lectures in many prestigious Universities worldwide, including Stanford University and UC Davis. Sanducci, A.
@@Alrtrn613 Migrations of Proto-Turks and Turkish in the Light of Genetic Science.. oldest people of Europe were Turks Prof. Anatoli Alekseyevich KLYOSOV; Russian Academy of Sciences "As a result, according to me, the "Turkish-speaking" haplogroup R-1b was formed 16000 years ago in Southern Siberia, in the direction of the middle flow of the Itil-Volga River (old well-kurgan) by jumping from the lands of archaeological civilizations, from the Caucasus and Anatolia (6000 years old). before), the Near East (5300 years ago), and North Africa (3800 years ago), included (Spain) the Pyrenees (3700 years ago) and then Continental Europe up to the British Isles (3300 years ago). The way Prototurk languages passed from Prienes to Continental Europe is the way of Kelter and italics (Etruscan) ancestors, and it is the age of processed painted ceramic civilization."(.....) "Try-Caucasian" language instead of "Proto-Turk" or whatever it is called (erbin) It seems that the archaic version of that language brought to the Americas by ancient immigrants and are now called Na-Dene (native American) languages. " Thus, Klyosov puts forward this idea based on haplogroup data, that From the IV-III millenniums BC until the end of the 1st millennium AD, the dominant language of Europe was the Turkish language. *** Article (An important riddle in the interrelationships of Indo-European and Turkic language families and an attempt to solve it by means of DNA genelogy) “Milletcilik” Newspaper, 29 October 2010 Azerbaijan Original : Haplogroup R1b as a carrier of Proto-Türkic languages, aka Dene-Caucasian languages, aka Erbin, that is a non-IndoEuropean language in its dynamics during 16,000 to 3,000 years before present Anatole A. Klyosov
@@Alrtrn613 Qurban Qurbanov THE ORIGIN OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE Until recently, hominion synanthropes were considered the ancient inhabitants of Europe. However, the genetic analysis of human remains found in archaeological excavations showed that Semitic peoples lived in Europe until 8 thousand years ago and that Turanian tribes migrated to Europe from this date. Due to the great migration of the Huns from the beginning of the new era, the weight of Turkic-Turanian tribes in Europe increased significantly. At that time, Turks made up about half of the European population. Russian linguist Dmitriy Petrov says about this: "Turkish was a secular language, and a thousand years ago the whole of Eurasia spoke Turkish." "How did Christianity come about?" I mentioned in my article that Christianity appeared in the 13th century and spread in Europe in the 15th-16th centuries. In 1534, in Montmartre, near Paris, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Order of Jesuits, a male clerical order of the Roman Catholic Church. This order was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540. The representatives of the order consisted of fanatical Catholics, whose task was to spread Catholicism in the world. In 1559, Pope Paul IV signed the doctrine on the "Index of Forbidden Books". According to the doctrine, Arianism was declared blasphemy, and all religious books related to Arianism were ordered to be destroyed. These books could not be read, held, or even touched. Later, as a result of additions made to the "Index", it was forbidden not only to write the name "Turkish", but even to pronounce it. The punishment for those who did not obey could go as far as being burned at the stake. Inquisition courts were created to control the execution of the "Index". That's why the authors of that time, when talking about the Turks, called them barbaric and pagan, which allowed them to avoid censorship. Turks worshiped Arianism. This belief was created by Ari, a Turk from Alexandria, from the Garaman tribe, and was the main type of belief in Europe until the 16th century. Yu.N.Drozdov writes in his work "The Turkish-speaking period of European history": "The Roman Catholic Church began to actively penetrate the territories of Western, Central, and then Northern Europe. At the same time, Arianism, preached in the Turkish language, was banned everywhere and declared heretical. Heretics were subjected to severe persecution and repression. Since the Turkish language was related to Arianism, probably because of the fear of repression by the powerful Catholicism, the entire Turkic-speaking population began to switch to the languages of the local peoples... At the same time, all the books and other written sources in the Turkish language, probably as heretics destroyed. The main instrument of the Catholic Church in all this activity was probably the Inquisition, which was created for this purpose." The struggle against Turks and Arianism continued until the last Inquisition was abolished by Queen Isabella II of Spain in 1834. During the years of the Inquisition, the biggest Turkish massacres took place in Catalonia, Andalusia, the Bastille and Aragon. Turks were forcibly Christianized. As a result of the Inquisition, the Turks gradually changed their beliefs, but continued to speak their own language. Therefore, the Catholic Church Along with the spread of Christianity in Europe, he also began to solve the language problem. The Jesuits were engaged in this work. Yu.N.Drozdov writes that at the time of the spread of Christianity, there were more than 2250 peoples and ethnic groups in Europe. In order to make these peoples into a big community, the Catholic Church began to implement the concept of a single language and a single nation for each country. According to this concept, a common language should be created from the languages of peoples who speak different languages, and those peoples should be united around this language. The implementation of this concept was initially started in France. In 1635, during the reign of Louis XIII, Cardinal Jacques Armen Richelieu founded the French Academy. The Academy set itself the goal of creating a single French language from the languages of the peoples living in France and shaping the French people. A. Richelieu personally supervised this process. In 1978, Soviet philologist and French language expert S.D. Artamonov wrote about this in his work "History of foreign literature of the 17th-18th centuries": "The Academy contributed to the unification of terms, the speech expression of the language. Everything was moving towards the gradual change of the speech of the people... The Academy he had to compile a single dictionary of the French language, and then vigilantly control its purity and correctness. As a result of the reforms, the French language faded, lost its bright, original colors, but, in turn, became stronger. The strictest clarity, precision and logic were required." In 1694, the first French dictionary, containing 18,000 words, was compiled at the Academy. The latest edition of this dictionary, the 8th, was completed in 1935 and contained 35,000 words. Linguist Nikolai Ginov (Tatar) writes in his article "How Jacques Armen Richelieu Created French Literature": "When the reader reads the above... for some reason it seems to him that the French did not have a language before and they could not speak, communicate, write: they were dumb. and so on... and only Richelieu solved this problem... But I want to reassure my impatient reader. They had language, writing, literature; prose, poetry and everything else. But! Part 1
The inhabitants of today's turkey are just 10% turks, if you compare the population of 85 million with the population of greece, there is more greek dna in anatolia than in greece itself. there is therefore a difference between anatolian turks and turkic peoples. in the area of today's ukraine and russia from the north caucasus to the balkans there is more turkish dna than in turkey. in today's ukraine the pechenegs ruled for 150 years, the soviet union did not even exist that long
i am turkish my mother is from giresun father from kırşehir. i have %37 anatolian neolitic farmer, %23 cauces hunter gatherer, %14 zagros neolitic farmer, %9 european hunter gatherer, %7 natufian hunter gatherer, %5 amur river hunter gatherer, %3 yellow river neolitic farmer
My ancestry is; Ancient Anatolian native, Turkish, Albanian , probably North African due to Cyprus and those similar Baltic Slavs on my maternal grandmother's side... no matter how I blend in, no one can compare me to a nation 😂
Turkiyeliyim nedemek ucu acik kelime oyunlari turksen türküm dersin olur biter senin gibilerin ağzı son yıllarda moda olan bölücü ağzı PKK ypg ve bunları dostu kripto solcuların ağzı turkiyenin üniter yapısını bozmak Türklük kimligini sulandirmaktir bu ülkenin asli kimliği turklukrur ve sonsuza kadarda öyle kalacak alt kimlik kişiyi bağlar türk kimligi Türklüğü ve türk devletinin bolunmez butunlugunu bağlar ne mutlu türküm diyene Türkiye Türklerindir 🇹🇷❤️❤️❤️🤘🤘🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Known Turkish history begins with the Huns. Even on this issue, there is no consensus among historians. Because many European historians do not see the Huns as the ancestors of the Turks. According to these historians, the Saklar (Scythians) and Sarmatians have nothing to do with the Turks; they are Indo-Europeans who spoke an Iranian language. Unfortunately, the European historians who make these claims are unable to put forward any documents proving their claims. Although Turkish history started with the Huns, the Turkish history before the 3rd century BC is unknown. There is not even a history of the Turks before this date; they are a nomadic-barbarian people who have suddenly appeared on the stage of history. It has only one feature; good horse ride. For this reason, they occupied many places and destroyed the civilizations that were higher than themselves, and later adopted the cultures of these civilizations. The Asian Huns have always taken the cultures of the Chinese, European Huns, Romans, Seljuks, Persians, and the Ottomans, the Byzantines, as an example. This is the Turkish history known in the West and this history was imposed on the Turks as well. It is not known whether this view was accepted or not, many Turkish historians did not even feel the need to research Turkish history before the Huns. It has also become a taboo subject. Those who try to research the older history of the Turks and put forward theses are stigmatized as Turkist-Turanist racists. The fear of being stigmatized has tied the hands of many Turkish historians. Even the Turkish history thesis, which has no racist aspect, has not been spared from being stigmatized as racist. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the historians in the creation of the 1928-1930 Turkish History Thesis. The Turkish history thesis states that European civilizations were created by people coming from Asia as a result of migrations; It claims that all the sources/origin of Greek science, art and philosophy are actually in Anatolia. This thesis is based on the hypothesis that the origin of the white race is Central Asia. According to this, the peoples, whose ancestors were also the Turks, who spread to the world from Central Asia in various migration waves in different ages, established an important part of the world civilizations. When talking about races, he does not advocate the superiority of a particular race. It tells about the mixing of races as a result of migrations. According to the Turkish History thesis, BC. between 3000 and BC. Between 1200 B.C, the breakisefal people are the ancestors of the Turks. 'It is wrong to begin the beginning of world civilizations with the Greek civilization. The Hittites are an older civilization than the Greek civilization that lived in Anatolia. It is certain that the Etruscans went to Italy from Anatolia. The Turkish History Thesis is on the right track, although the team cannot prove its deficiencies and the theses it put forward, but it has not come to the end of the road. In fact, the mass migration of the Turks was much earlier; It took place in 7000 BC, and the Turks formed the basis and even created the civilizations not only in Europe, but also in China, India, Mesopotamia, Iran and Anatolia. But this history of the Turks, with the various historical theses produced, was stolen from them with falsehoods and owned by other peoples. Most of the foreign historians interested in Turkish history defined the Turks as a nomadic people and Turkish historians generally accepted this claim. First of all, it is necessary to make a clear definition about the concept of nomadism. Nomadism is the way of life of the masses, which has no homeland, and is a permanent nomad with its tents and animals. This type of nomadism is rarely encountered today. Bedouinism, for example, is such a way of life. However, Turks have created a settled city life since ancient times. In fact, the Turks are the first people to live in the settled city life. After the Turks found the stirrup in the 3rd century BC, a life style between the highlands and winter quarters emerged among the masses who made a living from animal husbandry, especially horse breeding, outside the city life. This way of life is not nomadic. Moreover, this way of life has never been a general way of life of the Turkish masses. On the contrary, the peoples that emerged as a nomad on the stage of History are Sinitic, Semitic and 'Indo-European' peoples and these peoples learned the settled city life and a civilization more advanced than their own from the Turks. The real history of the Turks begins at least in the 8th millennium BC, that is, 10 thousand years ago. This fact has now been revealed during the excavations in Turkmenistan. Turks started farming in Turkmenistan about 10 thousand years ago. They built the world's first cities here, found the first pictogram and the wheel here. This date is also the beginning of the great emigration of the Turks. Because the disappearance of the inland seas in Central Asia, which started to dry up, coincides with this period. The Turks, who started to migrate in masses in Turkmenistan, generally preferred to settle in the river streams (valleys) where they went. Because these people, who are agriculturalists, preferred wetlands for farming. These regions are Karun River in Iran, Euphrates and Tigris Rivers in Iraq, Indus River in Pakistan, Idyll and Özi rivers in the north of the Black Sea, Yellow River in China, Danube River in the Balkans, Arno and Tiber rivers in Italy and Kızılırmak, Green river and Gediz river in Anatolia. are similar regions. Turks established new cities and new civilizations on the riverbanks where they settled. The languages of these ancient civilizations, which arouse admiration even today, show great similarities to today's Turkish languages. Some of these early Turkish civilizations are Sumerian, Elam, Hatti-Hittite, Etruscan-Pelasgian, Lycia, Lydian, Phrygian, Carian, Trojan, Thracian, Macedonian, Hakhamani-Parthian civilizations. The Akkadian-Assyrian-Babylonian civilization rose above the Smer civilization, and the Ancient Roman and Greek civilizations rose above the Etruscan and Paleasg civilizations. The Iranian civilization was not only built on the Elam civilization, Iran was then ruled by the Turks for thousands of years. The Turks also laid the foundation of Indian civilization by establishing the first civilization in the Indus valley and ruled India until the end of the 19th century. Similarly, Türks established the Chinese civilization and ruled China for about 4000 years. From 2200 BC to 1644 AD. All of the first cities in the regions where Turks lived in the Eurasian continent were founded by Turks. Cities such as Athens, Isparta, Thessaloniki, Rome, Beijing, Xian, Izmir and Istanbul are just some of the cities founded by the Turks. The Turkish language has also greatly influenced most of the languages in the Eurasian continent. More than half of Akkadian is composed of Sumerian Words (words), and these early Turkish words were carried over to Semitic languages such as Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew, the successors of Akkadian. Elamite and later Saka/Scythian (Parthian) formed the basis of the Persian language. About sixty percent of Aramaic, Arabic, and Hebrew today are Sumerian words. Persian; It is a language based on early Turkic languages such as Sumerian, Elamite, and Parthian created by the Iranian Turkish dynasty in the palaces in the 9th century. Mandarin, which is spoken in Beijing, an old Turkish city, and declared as the official language at the beginning of the 20th century, is a language that has emerged in the last 400 years. In Europe, the Etruscan language formed the basis of the Roman language (Latin). Latin words later spread to other European languages. It is possible to find words of Turkish origin not only in English, which has been heavily influenced by Latin, but also in all contemporary European languages. Likewise, the Pelasg, the Old Turkic people, and the Thracian, the Old Turkic peoples, formed the basis of Greek. Among some researchers who noticed Turkish words in these languages, there was even a view that 'many words in world languages are derived from Turkish'. There is only one way to prove these theses; It is to prove that peoples such as Sumer, Elam, Hatti, Etruscan, and Pelasg, who founded the oldest civilizations, were early Turkic peoples. The only way to prove this is to document that the languages spoken by these peoples were early Turkic. Despite all efforts, the thesis that these peoples were 'Indo-European peoples' could not be proven by the European historians who defended it. The claim that they are ancient Turks is not even taken seriously. However, it is still argued that peoples such as Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian, Phrygian, Thracian, Macedonian and even Etruscan are 'Indo-Europeans'. Without any scientific basis. As you can see, there is a "I told you so" comfort among European historians who make these claims. Somehow, there is hardly anyone who opposes these arguments. There is no one who takes it seriously, even if there is opposition. Because the 'authority' is theirs. Moreover, those who oppose cannot prove their arguments linguistically. For some reason, no one seems to pay much attention to this point. But there is no other way. Because the thesis that these peoples were early Turkic peoples cannot be proven with archaeological findings other than written works alone.
@@muratbedir7139 Hun's and Han's Acknowledging that earlier "Chinese Dynasties" were founded by the Turks, some historians argue that the Han Dynasty was the first Han Chinese dynasty. Firstly; In the aforementioned century, there was neither an ethnic group called "Han Chinese", nor an ethnic consciousness among peoples other than Turks. The peoples called "Han Chinese" today are not a single ethnic group, but a large community made up of different ethnic groups. The nomenclature han evolved from the word kang in the 14th century and was used by ethnic Turks. However, later on, other Chinese peoples also adopted this name. Secondly; The territory of the Han Dynasty is roughly equal to the territory of the previous Qin Dynasty, which is also a Turkic dynasty; differently, some small lands are captured later in the south. Finally, and most importantly; The person who took over the state came from the Zhou tribe. In other words, we are talking about the Huns, the tribe that was first exiled to the north and called Xia and were the ancestors of the Xiongnu (Huns), who later defeated the Shangs and recaptured the state and changed their name to Zhou this time (!), but then was destroyed by the Qins. Actually nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the cover that cannot be matched to the "stolen minaret" in official Chinese history! It is only different Turkish tribes who have taken over the state. They did not even feel the need to change the name of the state. The name of the state is still Sang. Turkish culture still continues. State administration, army and all institutions and layers of society are Turkish. The Sang (Hun) unit is divided into two as Western and Eastern. One of the reasons for the division was that Huhanye, who was at the head of the Great Hun Empire, wanted to enter the sovereignty of the Han State, also showing the economic difficulties. Huhanye (58 BC - 31 BC) accepted the sovereignty of the Khans in 51 BC. Huhanye's brother Çiçi refuses to do so. Chichi (56 BC-36 BC), head of the Western Sang, soon failed in his struggle against the Han State. Chichi was killed in the war fought near the city of Taras in today's Kazakhstan. In 36 BC, the Western Sang (Hun) Empire collapsed. The wars between the Han State and the Hun State are actually somewhat overestimated by both Western and Turkish historians. In addition, Huhanye, who accepted the sovereignty of the Han State, is a "traitor" who surrendered to the enemy. The biggest reason for this is that the Turks and the Chinese are tried to be portrayed as each other's implacable enemies. However, there are no Turks and Chinese, there are Turks and Turks. Non-Turkish peoples have not yet migrated to present-day China. The bloodiest wars in their history were fought among themselves. This is actually natural; The only powerful states that existed at that time were the Turkish states. The Real History of the Turks Arif Cengiz Erman
@@muratbedir7139 turkcesi de var bende ve Kaşgarlı Mahmud o diarların hepsinin Turk oldugunu yazar. bu yazı tam acıklarlar.FALSE KNOWİNGS AND TRUTH'S ABOUT CHINA One of the most important places where Asian Turkish history started is the Yellow River coast and its surroundings in China. The Yellow River was one of the first settlements of the Turks, starting from 7000 BC, and the 'TURKS' founded the Chinese country. All dynasties, except the Manchu Jin dynasty (1115-1234), including the Xia (pronounced: Shia) ia (2070-1600 BC) Dynasty Ming 明朝 (1368-1644), are 'Turkish' states. 'All Chinese history' is a 'part of Turkish' history. Kaşgarlı Mahmut also wrote in the Divan-ı Lugat it-Türk that the Chinese country is a Turkish country and that the Tabgaçs, Continents and Tanguts living here are Turkish tribes. Chinese characters are also a script discovered by the Turks. According to the Chinese Language Specialist Qiu Gui Su (pronounced Çiu Güy Su), the Mandarin language emerged as the language of the ruling class in the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The language spoken in the Chinese court until 1421 is Turkish. Considering that even though Tabgaç moved to Beijing, the capital of the "Ming" Dynasty, they would have continued to speak their native language Tabgaç Turkish, we come to the conclusion that the Mandarin language emerged during the Manchular period. The languages that are the basis of the Mandarin language are Turkish, Manchu and Korean languages. During the Manchu Qīng Dynasty (1636-1912), this language evolved and came to its present state, with many words (words) entering it from the languages of many other non-Turkish peoples in China. Mandarin is an artificial language that lacks logic and rules and is based on abbreviations. Most of the last syllables of the words (words) taken from Turkish, Korean and Manchu languages are tried to be molded and the remaining parts of the words undergo radical phonetic transformations. For this reason, the pronunciation of the words is constantly changing and the same word can be said in several different ways. Hence, Mandarin is a language whose spoken is constantly changing and transforming and whose end is unknown. Even people whose mother tongue is Mandarin today have difficulties understanding each other and having communication difficulties. Writing this language not with a sound alphabet, but with sign characters, which are logograms, facilitates and accelerates this change-transformation process as much as possible. During the 275 years of ruling China during the Qing Dynasty, the Manchus not only destroyed their own languages and ethnic identities, but also the languages and ethnic identities of Tabgaç, the Continent, Tangut, and other Turkic peoples in China. "Could something like this happen in such a short time?" There may be those who oppose. However, the Iranian example should not be forgotten. After the Azerbaijani Turk Reza Shah, who took over Iran in 1925 with the help of the British, a significant portion of the Turks lost their language and ethnic identity and quickly became Persian in the last 95 years, and if assimilation continues at this rate, there will not be many Turks in Iran in the next hundred years. During the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, the Tabgaç and other Turkic peoples were made to forget their language and culture, and their Turkish character was removed. Although the Manchu dynasty fell in 1912, it was the Manchus who ruled the Republic of China, which was established in its place. The "Han Chinese" who rule China today are mostly Manchus. The unidentified Manchus began an attempt to create a new ethnos after 1912 under the name "Han Chinese". In China, which has a population of 1.5 billion today, 1.2 billion people are called "Han Chinese" by the Chinese government. Of the 1.2 billion people who are called "Han Chinese" by the Chinese administration and claimed to speak Guanhua (Mandarin), 120 million of them are Canton, 120 million Hakka, 115 million Min, 100 million Sichuan, 90 million Wu, 75 million Jianghuai, 60 million Gan 40 million are Hunan and 5 million are Tanka peoples, and they speak distinct languages. These languages are not the language of Mandar. All of these peoples live in the south of China. Those who live in northern China and speak Guanhua (Mandarin) are the Shandong people of 100 million and the Hebei peoples of 75 million people. These are the descendants of Tabgaç, Kıtay and Tangut Turks assimilated by the Manchus. The total number of assimilated Turkic peoples, together with the Muslim Circles (Hui) transformed from Turks, is 200 million, if we add the Manchus, and they live in the north of China. Their native language is Guanhua, now known as Mandarin. Today, the Manchus are conducting a terrible assimilation policy based on repression and violence in order to keep dozens of different ethnic groups in China together. The regions that the Chinese administration wants to assimilate with pressure and violence are East Turkistan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia. The Manchus have already been assimilated. According to official numbers, there are some 11 million Manchu living in China today, but only a few thousand of them know Manchu. The main language of the rest is now Mandarin. The Mongols in Inner Mongolia under the People's Republic of China have not yet been fully assimilated. According to official numbers, there are close to 7 million Mongolians in China today. There is a violent assimilation policy in Tibet. East Turkistan, on the other hand, is the most important region in the target of the Chinese administration today. According to the official numbers of 2010, there are 10 million "Uyghurs", 1.5 million "Kazakhs", 190 thousand "Kyrgyz", 10 thousand "Uzbeks" and 3500 "Tatars" in East Turkistan. However, this number is exaggeratedly small. Today, around 40 million Turks live in East Turkestan, and the Chinese administration implements a policy of assimilation at the level of physically destroying Turks. The enemy is not the Chinese people, but the fascist gang running the Chinese state. This fascist gang is also digging its own grave with this tyrannical system it continues. China is a prison of peoples and is doomed to disintegration. From book introduction to Turan History
@@alisarikaya6327 unfortunately I don't agree and tbh you don't have any prove and you can not prove that too. First time you can see Turks after collapsing of Xiongnus (Mongolians five barbarians)
Known history 2 but now this understanding needs to be broken. Information about the peoples speaking these most ancient languages is already available. The important thing is to put this information on a correct date. In this respect, this book is a thesis of history. Therefore, this book contains many dictionaries. In the appendix, I present about a thousand similar words in terms of meaning and phonetics in my encounter between Sumerian and Turkish dialects. This number is about half of the Sumerian vocabulary and is the root words that form the backbone of the Sumerian language. Some of them are words derived from root words and which are no longer Turkish today. Based on this, it would not be wrong to make the following judgment without hesitation: Sumerian is one of the oldest known forms of Turkish
Western authors give additional details about mixed marriages and the children born into such unions. The Latin historians of the Crusades noted in Anatolia a specific group of the Turkopouli (that is, 'the children of the Turks') who were born of a Greek mother and a Turkish father.53 For the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Catalan soldier and chronicler Ramon Muntaner reports that the Turks of western Anatolia married girls from noble Greek families. It is especially interesting that the male children of these mixed marriages 'became Turks and were circumcised', while for female children the choice of religion was free. The same difference between the religious affiliation of boys and girls was reported by Ludolf von Suchen in the middle of the fourteenth century. Von Suchen maintains that when the Turks married Christian women, the boys of the mixed marriages followed the Muslim religion of their fathers while the girls maintained the Christian faith of their mothers.54 However, as we have seen in Byzantine canonical texts, boys also could be baptised by their mothers. These reports confirm that, firstly, mixed marriages between Muslims and Greek women were common throughout the centuries, and, secondly, that the children of both Muslim and mixed marriages were baptised according to Orthodox Greek rites. The popularity of mixed marriages in Muslim lands has been very clearly demonstrated by a passage from the Byzantine historian of the fifteenth century, Doukas, who, with considerable arrogance, made the following observance about the Ottoman Turks: The people of this shameless and savage nation, moreover, do the following: if they seize a Greek woman or an Italian woman or a woman of another nation or a captive or a deserter, they embrace her as an Aphrodite or Semele, but a woman of their own nation or of their own tongue they loathe as though she were a bear or a hyena. 55 The predominance of Greek women at the Seljuk harem thus seems to have been merely a royal variation of a common practice in Muslim Anatolia. Greek women were valued as the most prestigious marriage partners among all strata of Muslim society. It was Greek women who guided their Muslim husbands and masters into the refined Byzantine way of life and the world of Byzantine luxury, introducing among other things new cuisines and ways of structuring the household. Although the information on Seljuk marriage policy in the eleventh to twelfth century is scarce, it seems highly probably that the Seljuk harem was modelled along similar lines as other strata of Muslim Anatolian society, with a preference of marriage to Greek women who in turn acted as mediators to the old world of the 'empire of the Romans'. Peacock, A. and Yildiz, S., 2012. The Seljuks of Anatolia.
Turkish women were dominant. A Byzantine historian writes about Seljuk men: "It is incomprehensible that these men, who were like tigers on the battlefield, were serving their wives at home." On Seljuk tiles, there are men pouring tea for their wives. This is why marriages in the Ottoman Empire were made with foreign women. Turkish women's families also had a say in the administration. Historian Ceren Sungur said, "There are better intrigues in this book than Games of Trones" about the Selcuk University teacher's doctoral thesis titled Seljuk women.😂
I know a few Turkish people, two are Kurdish , 1 family is very European looking , fair in colouring with European features, and another he has very Asian eyes and black hair, we are all such a mixture like in the UK us white ones are Celt and Saxon .
Your analysis is grossly inaccurate. First, it assumes that the original Turks were Mongoloid people from East Asia. Then, quoting the other false claim that 10% of modern Turkish DNA is from East Asia, you claim that modern (Anatolian) Turks are only 10% Turkic. Original Turkic homeland was between the Northeast Caspian and the Altay-Sayan mountains in Central Siberia, maybe extending as far away as Lake Baikal. They were mix of (Northern) West and East Eurasians from the beginning, and the East Eurasian portion was more Siberian than East Asian. Current Anatolian Turks have about one-third Central Asian Turkic DNA, which corresponds to 10% East Eurasian DNA among Anatolian Turks. The remaining two-thirds is mostly from Anatolian natives.
It's the paternal DNA that's tested not maternal. So the diversity of the turkish DNA is because Anatolia has been the battle ground of the Persians, Romans and Greeks for a long time and their men had children with the women of Anatolia
Most of the R1b found in Greece today is of the Balkanic Z2103 variety. There is also a minority of Proto-Celtic S116/P312 and of Italic/Alpine Celtic S28/U152. Z2103 could have descended from Albania or Macedonia during the Dorian invasion, thought to have happened in the 12th century BCE. Their language appear to have been close enough to Mycenaean Greek to be mutually intelligible and easy for locals to adopt. The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece, but their origins can be traced back through archaeology to the Catacomb culture and the Seima-Turbino phenomenon of the northern forest-steppe, which would make them primarily a R1a tribe. Greek and Anatolian S116 and some S28 lineages could be attributed to the La Tène Celtic invasions of the 3rd century BCE. The Romans also certainly brought S28 lineages, and probably also the Venetians later on, notably on the islands. Older clades of R1b, such as P25 and V88, are only a small minority and would have come along E1b1b, G2a and J2 from the Middle East.
Apparently you failed to mention that the people moving from Anatolia to Europe had nothing to do with the culture of today's Turkey. If people of Turkish origin have a far inferior and much younger culture to other civilizations preexisting in that land then iam afraid you have picked the wrong title to define your nation as the dominant.
First of all, a mistake made from the very beginning is to equate the Turkish phenotype with the Mongol phenotype. The origin of the Turks is still a very heated debate. Because nowadays, while the Scythians' DNA is compatible with the Central Asian Turks, it shows zero connection with the Iranian people. This makes the Turks a much older society in Anatolia. Since the Turks were a nomadic culture, they spread very quickly and had various phenotypes. So what is the Turkish phenotype? We don't know yet! There are some specific characteristics, but it is obvious that it is not limited to these. For example, the most populous Turkic people who have lived until today are the Cumans, and Cuman etymologically means blond person, and this name was given to them by the Germans. Today, they are a people who have assimilated in Eastern Europe, and genetic studies ignore the genetic heritage they left behind! Also, the Seljuks you showed in the video definitely did not have this phenotype. Because the Seljuk rulers, such as Kılıçarslan I and Süleyman I, who never intermarried with the Anatolian people, were red-haired and brown-haired people.
@@panagiotisterpandrouzachar7754 Haha, we’re not going to argue with a Greek deceived by esoteric stories about Turks. There is enough scientific data on the Turkish phenotype. Only small-minded nationalists and anti-Turkish Greeks like you would listen to your fallacies. Also, what are you even doing under a post about Turks? I guess you’re constantly following the Turks. You must be very angry 😃
The following book: The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century… pretty much explains how the Turkish nation emerged. The author Spyros Vryonis from Harvard University explains in detail the history of the region. I strongly recommend to read it. That will definitely shed some light on the DNA data.
Fun fact, "The Yassa (alternatively Yasa, Yasaq, Jazag or Zasag; Mongolian: Их Засаг, romanized: Ikh Zasag) was the oral law code of the Mongols, gradually built up through the reign of Genghis Khan. It was the de facto law of the Mongol Empire" in turkey still today yasa means law 😅
Thanks for the video. The DNA ratios in the video are similar to mine. I love all my genes. Both Anatolia and Eurasia are the homeland of my ancestors, my fatherlands.
A lot of Turks who are native to western Turkey, have Balkan ancestry….I only have 3% Anatolian dna ancestry…75% Balkan (Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece)…2% southern Italian, maybe 1-2% Central Asia…There’s even a Bosnian village from early migrants that still exists on the outskirts of Istanbul.
Attention: the two people above are r3tarded. Western Turks have the highest Turkic DNA in all Turkiye and these m0r0ns larping that Turks have Balkan ancestry and only 3% Anatolian🤦🏻♂️ Probably learned genetics from myHeritageDNA
I am a Western Anatolian Turk. According to my DNA result, Anatolian Neolithic Farmer 46.2% Zagros Neolithic Farmer 15.8% European Hunter-Gatherer 14.8% Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer 11.0% Amur River Hunter-Gatherer 10.8% Natufian Hunter-Gatherer 1.2% East Siberian Hunter-Gatherer 0.2%
One of my foreign friends once told that most of Turks have got their unique beauty. I depend it on the mixturing with the other nations' genomes. The more you have heterogeneity the more resilient and variety you'll have.
I am mostly Anatolian neolithic farmer myself with some Italian, Middle Eastern and Turkic DNA mixed in. I have no Greek unlike most who live in Turkey.
as I Turk I did a DNA test and what I found was complete Ottoman Empire map from 17th century with high amount of mixture of Central Asia and 2% of Innuit which is big surprise :D
A bit of inacurrate topic for propaganda, as till now turkic people does not have any similarities with Anatolian farmers DNA, or even if they have not in that percentage, Furthermore according to many DNA tests through scientists, Greek DNA are more in high percentage of Anatolian farmers than IE tribes... You can check them out in serious scientific sites.
@@matrixxx3662 Chaldean, Assyrian and Egyptian manuscripts and stone monuments are some of the oldest documents of human civilization, over seven thousand years old and that they contain mentions the name Serb. According to some scientific theories, the origin of human settlements is determined by different places at different times. According to others, it is considered that the first settlements were created in Central Asia, from where the peoples moved further over time. According to such an assertion, the Serbs are considered to be a branch of the Aryan, or Indo-European strain, to which the Romanic, Celtic and Germanic peoples also belong. The same language of all Slavic peoples, derived from the proto-Serbian language of Indo-Asian origin, is taken as proof. There is a large number of scientists who consider India to be the Serbian homeland
@@matrixxx3662 not only Mongols but other group of Turkic people Uzbek tadzik itc coz today Turkish language have a lot of Serbian words,retained and inserted into the Uzbek language as a consequence of that mix. Although the Serbs dominated Asia, the group of Turkic peoples became more dominant when it comes to language
@@matrixxx3662 The Autochtonist School advocates the theory that all peoples who lived in today's Slavic areas, as well as in the regions of Dacia, Thrace, the Balkans, in southern Russia and Central Europe, are different names of peoples of Serbian origin. This school, in addition to the Balkans and Central Europe, finds the homeland of Serbs in Italy, the Pyrenees, Brittany, Helvetia, Scandinavia, and even in North Africa and Asia Minor. The opponent of this school is the German Berlin- The Viennese School, which today triumphs in most departments of history and conducts science in a deliberate manner the wrong way, which corresponds to the interests of politics. Nemac dr. A. Hopfner says there are three separate ones schools that differ considerably in their attitude towards Serbs, namely: German-Berlin, Viennese and Swiss. In his essay on the Vedas, Emile Burnouff investigates the origin of the Indo-Europeans through the Vedas, which were created at the time of the "Aryan community". He finds that the Vedic families are based on sanctity of marital union, surrounded by faith and social traditions. He derives his evidence from family names, which have belonged to the common race of people since ancient times. And we know that family and family names in the Serbian language have retained features of archaicness and authenticity until today. Alekananda Miter is the granddaughter of the famous poet Tagore and is the chief director of India's largest Institute of Slavic Studies in Calcutta. She has been studying the Serbian language for more than thirty years, as he says: “Yet as a student of Slavic languages at Oxford, in the early fifties, I noticed a certain similarity between the Bengali language and Serbian, and later, when I was translating Serbian post-realist poetry into English, I became sure that a deep connection must exist between these two languages..." The Swiss researcher Adolphe Pictet wrote the work "Indo-European origin or the original Aryans", in which he writes: "In the ancient past, a race grew in the primordial cradle, gifted with wisdom, grandiose, strict in nature, and through work overcame the harsh material conditions of its existence. Then comes their development and patriarchal arrangement. That lush race she developed her own language, perfect and full of intuition for sublime poetry. Because of their large number, the morale of the court moved, and their language also changed with their migrations. Over the centuries, several nationalities arose from this people. These migrations took place in the millennia before Christ, from India to the Atlantic." He concludes that: "...that numerous people served as the basis for the development of many human groups that emerged from it." The Picts also claim that: "... the language of that people was the basis for many languages, which arose from it." The common bases of this language were found in Sanskrit and Zend (Old Persian). Hence the idea that all Indo-European peoples come from one trees". Of their language the Picts say that it was of uncontrolled freedom and he calls it "the language of the mother". The Picts also write, it was the language of the Vedas, rich in monosyllabic verb roots from which suffixes create an abundance of derivatives of all kinds. His voice system is simple and harmonious. It distinguishes between three genders and seven cases, thus clearly indicating the declensions. Pronominal endings for three persons and numbers allow us to distinguish nuances of time and manner. According to all previous descriptions of that language, it is closest to Serbian. Such consistency is not found anywhere except in the Serbian language.
I really don't get the interest in turkish DNA nowadays. In every corner of youtube there is a video about this. There are many companies who offer this DNA Analysis, but they are scientifically nonsens. You will never be able to "read out" the nationality of a person from his DNA. For exemple: when I would sent my DNA to a laboratorium without any information, the only 100% information they will get is my gender. We Turks are turks. Nothing else, don't give this topic more importance then it is worth
@@birizos I'm the geopolitic of Türkiye, I'm future of Turkiye and so are 80 mil other Turks. Do you believe we will allow someone to tell us what we are and therefore we should give the land to them. During the History many schemes were invented for ward but this is plain ridiculous
@@LindaWeisstag Yes, I strongly believe that you will allow, under CERTAIN SEVERE conditions, someone to tell you what you are. I have seen it before in your history: Mustafa Kemal replaced the Ottoman identity with the Turkish one in 1923, remember? So, just as your ancestors allowed this, you will do the same in the future as well. This is exactly where the DNA testing fits in, to help someone else to give you a new identity.
@@birizos You cant decide the national idendity of your enemy. It is very illogical. We Turks know that we are heavily mixed but we dont care. We know about such divide-conquer plans and we fought against it for decades. If your main plan for stopping our advancement is to convert us to our enemy ethnicity and culture, you are very misguided. But still, it is is good sign for us because our enemies became really hopeless and terrified of our strong future.
l am Turkish from Amasya province haplogroup Q Y2052 欧洲 European: 60.86% 印度 India: 23.38% 鄂伦春 North Chinese Oroqen: 6.28% 美洲 American: 2.98% 非洲 African: 2.42% 彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 1.81% 日本 Japanese: 1.18% 华东 East Chinese: 0.91% 雅库特 Yakut: 0.17%
Im Turkish my dna results come back 74% Anatolian and cacosious, 9%greek, 2%Cyprus, 3%Italian, 1% Russian and European, 1% irland, 10% Iranian altogether 8 DNA mix
Thank you for your research and truth fact.İam orgin scyhtia Turc preslav Turc born in Germany ,live up in İzmir Smyrna like a Amazone Scytia women loves so much Horses and Animals etc.❤
what Armenian or Turkish ancestry, people have been mixing for milleniums, Armenian language close to Iranian, Turkish close to Japanese and Mongolian, but appearances differ a lot, don't waste your time you can only trace recent people intermixing, what about tens of thousands years before what happened,!!, even Neanderthals and Denisovan influence in peoples ancestry, every inquiry as such is just irrelevant..
Within the last milenium there is no official records that indicate large scale mixing of Oguz Turks with the local natives of Anatolia. Also the definition of Central Asian DNA is questonable. İs it the R1A haplogroup or Autosonomal DNA of current Central Asians or past populations. What ratio of past population was sampled. By analyzin a few or even hundred graves one cannot precisely determine the representative model of a population whic was at least hudreds of thousands of people. There is from statistical very much uncertainty in all these population distance comparisons.
@@murmurha2084 İt is not definition of DNA that varies from region to region it is the uncertainty in the codes with limited samples from a large population. With 18 Hun samples for exampke you cannot determine the Hun DNA.So many civilizations lived in Anatolia. How do you define Anatolian genome? What is the time span and space variation of samples? When you draw 30 samples from a populatiom of 300000 the variance whic reflects uncertainty is too much. This makes these claims questionable...
Turks has worst with conserving their ID. We marry any nation possible. is it good ? but that makes nation DNA weaker. I still call my self Turkish with have Cherkez Dad Side with Turk & Kurdish mixed mums side and I married first time with Azerbaijan Lady ( we have a Son16) and now I am married to a Turkish (dad) mixed Russian(mum) Lady.🥰
Fin-Ugric like Finnish and Estonian as well as Hungarians were better luck. They’ve mixed with northern European people and look now like Europeans mostly. Only the language has remained. Others from that ancient tribes from Siberia that didn’t move to Europe have stayed Asian with slotted eyes.
British most are i haplogroup Only south of england they have some r1a from the frigians that were from anatolia The vikings are i like scots Celts are or were in england r1b Most spain is not even celt except from some vascos Vasconia is from russia France has some r1,b We know r1a is ukrania anatolia russia greece long time ago J is more mesopotamia
I got 16% Slab Grave ( up to 21% Deer Stone Culture) and I am from Northwestern Turkiye. People in Antlanya, Denizli, Aydin, Giresun, Bolu, Mugla and so on have the same or even higher
All I can see is a lot of comments are trying to rewrite history. Anatolian people are originally Ancient Greek speaking people. A lot of the comments here say they didn't speak Greek. But had Greek alphabet but spoke Turkic..... yeah no worries. Before the invasion of Muslins it was Ancient Greek..... anyone else thinks otherwise is having wet dreams. Anatolia was and is heritage of Ancient Greece. If you think otherwise then you are from Mongolia.
Luvi, Lelek,Truva,Trak,Hitit, Urartu,Amozon...... bunlar mı yunan yoksa yunanın zulüm ettiklerimi Anadolu'da tutunamadınız çünkü Anadolu yunanı hiç istemedi , Türkleri istedi sevdi benimsedi,cahil
You don't have to be so bitter that you lost. It's life, empires rise and fall. Also, the Greeks never owned the place, they took it from the Hittites :) How far back do we go?
In Turkey, the Central Asian genetic heritage(which includes Turkish gene )is around 7%. 30% of Turkey's population is Kurdish. The rest are of either Georgian, Circassian, Pontic Greek, or Balkan origin. Turks have slanted eyes. Having slanted eyes is a genotypic characteristic. The entire genotype of a race shows similarities. For example, there isn't a single Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, or Korean without slanted eyes. However, some Turks, like Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and Uyghur Turks, have slanted eyes, and they are the real Turks. But most of those living in Turkey who call themselves Turkish do not have slanted eyes. This is because they are assimilated individuals from other nations that have been Turkified. However, they are raised with such a nationalist education system that it is very hard to make them accept this. Similarly, Azeris are not Turks, and they are an Aryan people. Genotypically, Azeris show about 50% similarity to Aryan peoples, 30% similarity to Caucasian peoples, and between 2% and 10% similarity to Central Asians, i.e., Turks. This shows that Azeris were also assimilated and later Turkified
The proto Turks were mongoloid race and have the DNA paternal C Just like modern Mongolians... Both ancient Proto Turks and Mongolians were same people their language is same but just different dialect.... However when this proto Turks invaded central asia they got intermix to the people there like Indo European and Iranic farmers.... But some didn't intermix thats why there are still many Kazakh have the mongoloids feature racial
Why you hate Greeks? Everything you have in Anaolia is Greek byzantine civilazation 😂 why you hate them ? This is what you learn in Turkey to hate Greece? But why they teach you like this think about it after all you took everything from then country homes even graves
Nice DNA History video, so precise.... I have a idea, how about the Yezidi and Kurds? No? Fackt that part of the modern Turkey was called Kurdistan and the Turks are one of the youngest people on this planet. Yezidi going back 7000 years. Yet you dont mention this ones. Anyways....have a good one.
I am from Turkiye west coast. I am almost %80 Greek / Italian. Only %8 central Asian, %6 Arabic, %3 European Jew, %3 Irish and some Scandinavian. No, we didn’t come from Asia. 😂
Because you are not a real Turk but a very mixed one. The oldest Turkic writing has been found In Mongolia. And the Ottoman Empire themselves came from Central Asia. Because most of your dna is Anatolian. Southern Europeans are originally Anatolians too.
And that comes from your mother side not father side. You have no paternal linages like R1a and R1b or C or Q. You have J2 which was brought over by Zagrosian farmers to Central Asia 8000 years ago.
@@oghuz_kaghan It's not BS. R came from Siberia. Siberia tribes spoke Altai languages. Indigenous Siberian look Mongolians. Oldes Turkic writings found In Mongolia.
@@matrixxx3662 ur calling me zagrosian Farmer Dude my mother is north east bulgarian Very close to the coast and very close to capital city of bolgar khanate and my father is from east anatolia and my father side all of them looks siberian or caucasian mostly white and have silgtly asian eyes and my looks is the closest thing to the ancient turks.
@@oghuz_kaghan Indigenous Siberian look East Asian not European or Caucasian. And Indigenous Siberian has highest dna of Ancient North Eurasians. You are European and Caucasian mix. Proto Turkic people look very similar to Mongolians. Because they also spoke and Altai language. Your language Turkish is just a very mixed version of other Altai languages. You have zero turkic dna. You only Immigrant that was ruled over by these Siberian tribes who migrated from Central Asia.
@@matrixxx3662 so? According to Herodotus everyone Thracians, Scythians or Hittites, Vends, Tribals and Illyrians are Serbs.... Chaldean, Assyrian and Egyptian manuscripts and stone monuments are some of the oldest documents of human civilization, over seven thousand years old and that they contain mentions the name Serb. According to some scientific theories, the origin of human settlements is determined by different places at different times. According to others, it is considered that the first settlements were created in Central Asia, from where the peoples moved further over time. According to such an assertion, the Serbs are considered to be a branch of the Aryan, or Indo-European strain, to which the Romanic, Celtic and Germanic peoples also belong. The same language of all the Slavic peoples derived, from the proto-Serbian language of Indo-Asiatic origin is taken as proof. There is a large number of scientists who consider India to be the Serbian homeland beside Balkan itc
Interesting thing here is....there is no one and only race (lets say race)....people are more mixed than you ll believe....like a soup of different groups ... Interesting is also that humans did (maybe still do) like to multiply with whomever they like...or whoever comes across.
But there’s black and white, brown and yellow. And there’s Slitted eyes and normal eyes. 🤔 of Course everything is attractive in its kind. But for sure there’s reasons for this differences.
Haha, not at all, my my assimiliated dude 😀. They assimilated all of you and made you believe you were Turkish 😀😀. Every one of you is either of Georgian, Circassian, Bosnian, Armenian, or Pontic Greek origin. You're all assimilated 😀."
Few thousands Turkish nomads mixed with million Grecoromans in Anatolia! Its a romantic fascist myth to believe that modern day anatolians are ethnic turks 😂 But people like to tell lies to themselves init?
few thousand nomads destroyed the eastern roman empire and turned millions of romans into turks, right? Then a few thousand turkish ancestors who came to anatolia must have f.cked all the romans and created millions of turks! After all, if your father is turkish, you are also turkish! Glory to those few thousand warriors, I am proud of them! Considering that millions of turks live in europe, it is very close for all of europe to become turkish. if you do not want to be turkish, i recommend you to wear iron underwear. actually titanium would be better, because the romans (or greeks) wore iron armors but it did not help them.
Dogru, bu her millet ve irklar icin de gecerli. Yüzde yüz olan bir insani ispatlasinlar bakalim, CÜNKÜ YOK. insanlari ayirmak icin güzel bir yöntem. Beyin virusu.😊
It was found that Germans and Anatolian Turks were equally distant to the Mongolian populations. No close relationship was found between Anatolian Turks and Mongolians despite the close relationship of their languages and shared historical neighborhood.
@@lt8558 I know. It was Innhabited by farmers 8000 years ago with no relation to East Asians and Europeans. They were purely West Asian origin or specifically middle eastern origin. Because their ancestor were also farmers who migrated In that region from the Levant and Zagros mountains. The farmers from Zagros also migrated to Central Asia and brought J2. Which is found In Central Asia today. The Turk themselves had other haplogroups that is not found among Turkish people In Anatolia today. Because they didn't mix with them. They just ruled over them and made sure they spoke their language. This why there is minimal linages of R1a,R1b, C and Q. Ironically R1a is most common among Kurds In Turkey than the Turk themselves. And R1b is mostly among the Armenians as well as Kurds again. These haplogroup belonged to the elites and the ruling class of that region.
@@matrixxx3662Türkler; japonyadan çinden kullanılan bir inşa sistemini bugünkü Türkiye ye getirmiştir. Sadece Türk olan köylerde bu yapı bulunur ve yok olmaya başlamıştır. Ken; bu yapıda kullanılan bir tanımdır. Bu insanlar yeşil gözlü kırmızı beyaz yüzlü orta asyalı görünümlü adamlardır. Bu orta asyalı görünüm bugün ki orta asyadaki görünüm değildir. Fakat evliliklerle bu durum değişmeye başlamıştır.
Please do mizrachi Jew, I’ve done an extensive dna test and my results were quite similar the dna breakdown of your Palestinian video. I think especially during this time it would be beneficial show that we are related and come from the same place
ye well, 35% of turkey is Middle Eastern DNA cause of the immigration of arabs centuries ago to the south of turkey, which is why most of us look arab. but also carry 38% European DNA and 27% of not sure what.
The following book: The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century… pretty much explains how the Turkish nation emerged. The author Spyros Vryonis from Harvard University explains in detail the history of the region. I strongly recommend to read it. That will definitely shed some light on the DNA data.
Please like and subscribe 😊 leave any suggestions for new videos below!!!
We want also to know the dna history of italy spain marocco algeria france england
Russia
Please make a video about the dna of these countries peoples
Since consanguineous marriage was considered a crime in Turkish tribes, Turks had exogamous marriages. For this reason, the gene pool is very wide. It probably has the widest gene pool in the world. Until recently, no one cared about how dangerous consanguineous marriages were, but in Chinese sources and old Turkish stories, it is said that consanguineous marriages were a crime. If we want to know where a society comes from, we can only find it through archaeology. Their migration routes and the notes written on their behalf at that time, such as the Codex Cumanicus. Because we understand how accurately the societies that wrote about themselves , what other societies wrote about them.
My family and I have lived in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey for centuries, and we have a Turkic phenotype with slightly slanted eyes, high cheekbones, and a round head.
Interesting 🤔
@@Ancestrallinguistsame here. I have very almond shaped eyes and we are South Eastern turks. Just because ppl are poorer in the South East and make not as much tests as in the balkanic western regions doesnt mean we are less turkish. The South East is a pearl, its a melting pot, so many people with jewish heritage live there and they don’t even know.
True :)
@@Ancestrallinguist Most of the Turks in Turkey already had a phenotype inherited from their ancestors. Most of them have a hybrid phenotype of the indigenous people and the Turkic conquerors.
Anatolian Turks took the most beautiful women of the countries they conquered as wives, DNA comes from the mother, so it is natural for them to have different genetics. Also Anatolian Turks are from the Oghuz tribe and do not have slanted eyes, the number of Turks in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Crimea, Gagauz, Cyprus etc. is 150 million.. the important thing is that we grow up with Turks and Turkish consciousness, therefore our genetics are not important. Turkey is the country that embraces Turkish consciousness the most in the world.
The story is not like this man 😂😂 the story goes that million of Grecoromans become Muslims to save themselves from persecution and discrimination
The story also said that million of babies taken by force from the Anatolians to become slaves of the sultan in the harems and army
The story also says that people like lies to have an normal life
*more than 200 million turkic language speakers exist
*DNA comes 50% from Mom and 50% from Dad
You said it very well, I grew up in Anatolia and it is important to know your connection with your relatives and accept them as such. I love my nation in every way
Not myself. I am from Türkey but not Türkish, will never feel Türkish
@@ferahsudenazulusoy4553 NE GUZEL BIZDE SENI ZATEN KABUL ETMIYORUZ DEFOL GIT! KIMLERDENSEN ONLARA GIT. !
Now add the fact that Turks ruled dozens of other nations/lands/People in 3 continents; literally for at least 1000 years.
Gokturks, Seldjuks, Mamelukes, Mughals.
Not just the Ottomans.
What do you think the dominant rulers do to the DNA of the ones they ruled for 1000 years?
Since consanguineous marriages were forbidden even in the oldest known Turkish societies, Turks always had exogamous marriages and since they were nomadic, they must have the largest gene pool in the world.
the original turk were barbaric nomads
çok eksiğiniz var. Türklerin tarihi Nuhun torunu Tur ile başlar. 18. yüzyıldan önceki kaynakları araştırınız.
@@scstatic1876 kişi kendi gibi bilir işi demiş Mevlana. çok doğru söylemiş.
😂😂😂😂😂 @@ucbeyi9051
Altay is Turkic Motherland 🈴
Dont forget the central asians who were settled down in the South and East regions of turkey. We all have somehow connections to Asia. We are all somehow mixed.
Why are you taking Slab Grave ancestry as the litmus for "Turkicness" ? Modern Turkic populations with most prevalent slab grave ancestry are Kazakhs, Karakalpak and Krgyz, all three are historically attested to be mixed with Mongols in fact all three of them were Kypchak tribal unions with Mongolic tribes incorporated. Modern populations with most Slab Grave ancestry are not Turkic but Mongolic, Yeniseian, and Samoyedic peoples.
Join the discord in the description. Help with the videos
Turks are of Turkic ancestry, so says the ancient Turanic scripts.. Mongols are great and powerful people and western people would like to mix Mongols with Turks but it would be unfair to Mongols , their history and their dna belongs to them , and it would be unfair and untrue to Turks if Mongols to claim their history and their genetics. However every one on this earth comes from the same original animal who swam out of the sea and turned into a human being., we are all related.
Bu dediğiniz şey Moğolların Türklerle karışmasıyla alakalıdır. Moğollar "West Liao River" kökenli.
Living as nomads in Middle Asia, Turks have traveled far distances and have mixed with many tribes. Mongols are just one of them. Because of our integration we see all as of our own. There is nothing wrong with it. It shows our strong bond with the rest of the world. They can call themselves anything they like. We respect it. We will always welcome them as one of our own.
Intermarriage between Turks and Greek, Armenian and Georgian natives of Anatolia was not unheard of, although the majority of these unions were between Turkish men and Christian women. The children of these unions, known as 'Mixovarvaroi', were raised as Turks and were of the Muslim faith (although there were some cases of Mixovarvaroi defecting to the Byzantines). It is likely that these unions played a role in the eventual diminishment of the Christian population in Anatolia and its transition from Greek/Christian to Turkish/Muslim.
Vryonis Jr, Speros (1971). The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. California: Berkeley University Press. p. 176.
The thesis, which is widespread today and accepted by European scientists; The thesis is that the R1a subgroup is the 'common gene of the Indo-Europeans, and the R1b subgroup is the common gene of the Turks and other Central Asian peoples and Finn-Yuğra peoples. (1- Anatoly A. Kyosov, Journal of Russian Academy ogf DNA genelogy, 2010 vol. 3No 1 pp.3-58)
However, the R gene is a single gene with all its haplogroups and is a 'Turkish gene'. The R1b subgroup is actually highly concentrated in Western Europe and moderately in Central Eurasia and Sub-Sharan in Central Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Central Asia.
The R1b subgroup is 80% Irish, Scots and Welsh; 50-60 percent in Spaniards, Portuguese, French and English; 25-50% in Germans, Dutch, Danes and Norwegians; 25-40% in Italians; 25% in Sweden and Norway; 15% in the Balkan peoples; It is found 10-15% in Poles, 10% in Russians and Ukrainians, 10-15% in Anatolian Turks (25% in Black Sea and Eastern Anatolia regions and 15-25% in Kyrgyz. Rb1 ratios in Central Asian Turks and Fin-Yuğra peoples are very low or there is none.
The Rb1 subgroup is quite high among Celtic, Germanic, and Latin peoples who have assimilated Proto-Turkic Peoples such as the Iberian and Aquit peoples in Spain and France, and Finns further north at a low level. This ratio is around 60-80% in the British and Irish islands, for example. In Scandinavian peoples who have heavily assimilated the Finnish peoples, the R1b rate is relatively low, such as 25%.
Rb1 is as low as 10-15% in Slavic and Balkan peoples. For Russians, Ukrainians and Polish peoples, this rate is at a very low level, between 0-10%. In Hungarians, this rate is between 0-10%. This subgroup is also between 0-10% in Croats of European Avars origin and Bosnians of Pecheneg origin.
R1a is a haplogroup with a high rate in Turks. R1a, 50-70% Central Asian Turks, 50-60% Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Sorbs (Slavs in Germany), 50-60% Afghans, Pakistanis and North Indians, 20-60% Hungarians; 52% Ashkenazi Jews, 15-30% Scandinavian peoples, 30% Finns, Estlers, Lapps, Baltic people, 15-20% Italians and some areas in northern Spain (this includes the Basque region) 25-60% Dravidians, 10 percent -15% in Tibetans, 15-20% in North Chinese, 15-30% in Germans, 30-40% in Balkan peoples, 20-30% in Caucasian, Anatolian and Iranian peoples.
The genetic compositions of today's Turkic peoples are quite different from each other and show a genetic unity.
Anatolian Turks also have C, H, I, J, K, O, Q, T chromosomes besides R1a and lesser R1b. The highest gene among Turkic peoples is R Y-DNA. (R1a and R1b) Next comes J Y-DNA. J Y-DNA is a gene carried by Arabs and Semetic Jews, which emerged in the Arabian peninsula about 30,000 years ago, and is divided into 2 subgroups as J1 and J2. This rate is as low as 20% in Ashkenazi Jews of Turkish origin, and they got this gene by mixing with Semetic Jews. There are J2 subgroups at the rate of 10% and 20% among the Anatolian Turks. The genetic composition of Azerbaijan's Iranian Turks is similar to that of Anatolian Turks. In Turkmens in Turkmenistan, on the other hand, R1a is higher and J chromosome is lower than Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turks, while O and Q chromosomes are higher. Among the Turkic peoples in Central Asia, the highest rate of R1a is found in the Kyrgyz Turks with 70 percent. 50-60% of that. KazakhTurks, UygurTurks, and UzbekTurks, MongolTurks and TibetTurks, this rate is around 10-15%. All Central Asian peoples have C, I, J, K, O, Q chromosomes, but the J chromosome is very low in these peoples.
However, C Chromosome is found at very high levels in KazakTurks, MogolTurks, KirgizTurks, UygurTurks and UzbekTurks. Other peoples carrying this chromosome are Tunguses, Koreans and Japanese. Tibetans also carry about 40% of the D chromosome. This chromosome is found in other Central Asian Peoples at very low rates. Another people who carry this chromosome at a high rate like the Tibetans are the Aynos, the oldest people of the Japanese islands.
The issue that confuses European scientists is that the R1a subgroup is found in Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Pakistanis; It is very high in Afghans and north Indians. This is quite natural actually. The lands where these peoples live are the old lands where the Turks have established strong lands for centuries. If we look at the maps of these Turkish states, it can be easily seen that these maps overlap with the R1a maps. This is the only reason why these populations have high levels of R1a. The Turks living in these lands became new peoples by mixing with other peoples who did not migrate from these lands when their states were disintegrated. It is not known on what the European scientists base the thesis that the R1a subgroup is the common gene of 'Indo-Europeans' and the R1b group is the common gene of Turks and other Central Asian peoples and Finn-Ygra peoples (Fins, Estonians, Lapps), but it is found in Turkish and other Central Asian peoples and Phoenician peoples. the higher gene is not R1b, but the R1a subgroup. R1b is at very low levels. This 'strangeness' is explained by European scholars as 'the Turks carry a high rate of R1a because they assimilated the Iranian Peoples in Central Asia in the 4th and 11th centuries' (2 origins, age, spread and ethnic association of European Haplogroups and subclades)
However, there is no record that the Turks erased the 'Central Asian Iranians' from history in the 4th and 11th centuries. If one can show records, evidence, etc., of course, it would be very appropriate. In addition, R1a is high not only in Turks, but also in Caucasian peoples living in the Caucasus and Dravidian peoples living in southern India. Also, if R1a is a Turkish gene, why is it 60-80% found in British, French, Spanish, and Celts?
It must be Ahhuns (Sakalar, Kushans or Ak Sakalar) or Tagars (Tohars) that European scientists mean by Iranians in Central Asia. The Tağars established a powerful state in the present-day Shanxi and Kansu provinces of China between 300 BC and 20 BC. However, European historians claim that the Tagars were 'Indo-European'. No 'Indo-European' state was established in Central Asia, neither in 300 BC nor in the following centuries. There are no archaeological findings proving this. there are only dry claims. There was only a small number of people of Indian origin, who spread to present-day Southern Turkestan (Afghanistan and then to East Turkestan, and then melted down among the Uyghurs) around 500 AD. The descendants of this people are texts written in Brahmi script from the period between 500 AD and 700 AD. It is understood that they spoke an Indian language that has become extinct.European historians and archaeologists have found thousands of years old in central Asia.
They claim that they were descended from 'Indo-European tohars' because their mummies were auburn-blonde and their clothing resembled those of the Celtic peoples. However, the People of Indian origin, whom they call the Tohars, are not brown-haired, but a dark people like today's Indians, and their migration date to Central Asia is very late.
These mummies are from the Turks. In addition, it is natural that these oldest clothes of the Turks are seen in the Celts, an early Turkish people. It is not surprising that the Turks were brown-blonde before mixing with other peoples.
Could you please send me the sources of the pages you got this information from, I want to examine them. I had many questions on my mind about this issue. Maybe they are hesitant to update history, especially the Sumerians cannot be subjected to any race and they are hesitant to call them Turks, even though they are close to the Turks. This means that they are literally hiding the people and making distorting theses for their own interests
@@Alrtrn613 HYDE CLARKE entitiled "THE TURANIAN EPOCH OF THE ROMANS, AS ALSO OF THE GREEKS, GERMANS, AND ANGLO-SAXONS, IN RELATION TO THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE WORLD", published in "the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society", Vol. VIII, 1880, p. 172 -222.
Let me cite just one paragraph from the research of Hyde Clarke:
"My own researches, as laid in detail this year before the Philological Society, fully establish the character of the Etruscans as a Turanian language, belonging to one great group, or family of families, allied to the languages of all the nations of early culture, the pre-Hellenic, Thracian, Phyrigian, Lydian, Carian, Georgian, Canaanite, the Akkad of Babylonia, and Egyptian. Among modern languages the analogues are with Basque, Ugro-Altaic, Georgian, many languages of India and Further India, Japanese, Coptic, and the languages of higher culture of Central, Western, and Southern Africa, and many languages of North, South, and Central America."
This revelation is a mouthful. Here we observe that the writer Hyde Clarke also referring to many Indian Languages being from the family of Turanian languages.
Both the historians and linguists should take note of it. It is surprising to see that the worlds historical and linguistic writers ignored this Turanian fact of the ancient world so far and in fact intentionally buried it into darkness.
In view of the above citing, when I say that the ancient world was a "House of OGUZ",
I am absolutely correct!
After all, I base my conclusions of my studies on a lot of different sources as I have indicated in my writings.
Polat Kaya.
archive.org/details/sim_royal-historical-society-london-england-transactions_1872-1880_8/page/172/mode/2up
@@Alrtrn613 The book brings a fresh perspective into a stagnated view of the Turkic nations and their past.
Primarily based on the genetic findings, backed by the archeological, historical, linguistic facts and testimonies of the ancient scholars, historians, and geographers, this work reveals breaking new evidence about the biblical origins of the Turkic nations who were related to the ancient Akkadians, Sumerians.
It unshrouds the Turkic pedigree of the Germanic nations, the natives of ancient Media, and the Scythians.
The deciphered cuneiforms of the Behistun inscription in Persia, along with their detailed lexico-grammatical analysis shed light on the revolutionary facts about the Turkic origin of the Medes and their language.
A large portion of this volume is devoted to the Scythians and most of their derivative tribes, including those located in Scythia and beyond, such as the As, Sacai, Parthians, Bactrians, Huns, Sarmats, Getai, Celtic, Iberian, Gallic, Germanic, and Thracian tribes - the Trojans with a detailed classification of the related tribes, including the most renowned Illyrians, Spartans, Phrygians, Etruscans, Pelasgi.
The in-depth lexico-grammatical analyses of the languages of two major Thracian nations - the Etruscans and the Phrygians ascertain their Turkic origin.
The book also demystifies the history of the ancient Armenians who were a Phrygian colony, sets them apart from the modern Armenians, and gives a chronological, historical account of the modern Armenian people, also known as the Hays, under the authority of their first historian Movses Khorenatsi.
The comparative analyses of 20 ancient alphabets reveal their (Armenians) common Turkic root.
Crucial archeological, cultural, political, linguistic, and genetic evidence points to the Turkic beginning of many Native Americans.
Among the numerous quotes from the ancient statesmen and reputable scholars, Dr. A. Sanducci brings forward the statement made by the father of Swedish Historiography prof. Sven Lagerbring: "Our ancestors are Turks who are comrades of Odin.
We have got enough evidence on this subject...
Odin and his comrades were Turks...
We, the Germanic people, are in origin, are Turks.
We must not be ashamed of this fact. The Turks are a very honorable and proud people."
...............................
Sanducci, A.
Having an extensive academic background in Turkic Studies, a former visiting professor to UC Berkeley, USA, Dr. A. Sanducci - the author of the research "Ancient Scholars about the Turks and the Turkic Nations", as well as of many other educational books and articles, gave speeches and lectures in many prestigious Universities worldwide, including Stanford University and UC Davis.
Sanducci, A.
@@Alrtrn613 Migrations of Proto-Turks and Turkish in the Light of Genetic Science.. oldest people of Europe were Turks
Prof. Anatoli Alekseyevich KLYOSOV;
Russian Academy of Sciences
"As a result, according to me, the "Turkish-speaking" haplogroup R-1b was formed 16000 years ago in Southern Siberia, in the direction of the middle flow of the Itil-Volga River (old well-kurgan) by jumping from the lands of archaeological civilizations, from the Caucasus and Anatolia (6000 years old). before), the Near East (5300 years ago), and North Africa (3800 years ago), included (Spain) the Pyrenees (3700 years ago) and then Continental Europe up to the British Isles (3300 years ago).
The way Prototurk languages passed from Prienes to Continental Europe is the way of Kelter and italics (Etruscan) ancestors, and it is the age of processed painted ceramic civilization."(.....) "Try-Caucasian" language instead of "Proto-Turk" or whatever it is called (erbin) It seems that the archaic version of that language
brought to the Americas by ancient immigrants and are now called Na-Dene (native American) languages. "
Thus, Klyosov puts forward this idea based on haplogroup data, that From the IV-III millenniums BC until the end of the 1st millennium AD, the dominant language of Europe was the Turkish language.
***
Article (An important riddle in the interrelationships of Indo-European and Turkic language families and an attempt to solve it by means of DNA genelogy)
“Milletcilik” Newspaper, 29 October 2010 Azerbaijan
Original : Haplogroup R1b as a carrier of Proto-Türkic
languages, aka Dene-Caucasian languages, aka
Erbin, that is a non-IndoEuropean language in its
dynamics during 16,000 to 3,000 years before present
Anatole A. Klyosov
@@Alrtrn613 Qurban Qurbanov
THE ORIGIN OF THE EUROPEAN PEOPLE
Until recently, hominion synanthropes were considered the ancient inhabitants of Europe. However, the genetic analysis of human remains found in archaeological excavations showed that Semitic peoples lived in Europe until 8 thousand years ago and that Turanian tribes migrated to Europe from this date. Due to the great migration of the Huns from the beginning of the new era, the weight of Turkic-Turanian tribes in Europe increased significantly. At that time, Turks made up about half of the European population. Russian linguist Dmitriy Petrov says about this: "Turkish was a secular language, and a thousand years ago the whole of Eurasia spoke Turkish."
"How did Christianity come about?" I mentioned in my article that Christianity appeared in the 13th century and spread in Europe in the 15th-16th centuries. In 1534, in Montmartre, near Paris, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Order of Jesuits, a male clerical order of the Roman Catholic Church. This order was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540. The representatives of the order consisted of fanatical Catholics, whose task was to spread Catholicism in the world.
In 1559, Pope Paul IV signed the doctrine on the "Index of Forbidden Books". According to the doctrine, Arianism was declared blasphemy, and all religious books related to Arianism were ordered to be destroyed. These books could not be read, held, or even touched. Later, as a result of additions made to the "Index", it was forbidden not only to write the name "Turkish", but even to pronounce it. The punishment for those who did not obey could go as far as being burned at the stake. Inquisition courts were created to control the execution of the "Index". That's why the authors of that time, when talking about the Turks, called them barbaric and pagan, which allowed them to avoid censorship.
Turks worshiped Arianism. This belief was created by Ari, a Turk from Alexandria, from the Garaman tribe, and was the main type of belief in Europe until the 16th century.
Yu.N.Drozdov writes in his work "The Turkish-speaking period of European history": "The Roman Catholic Church began to actively penetrate the territories of Western, Central, and then Northern Europe. At the same time, Arianism, preached in the Turkish language, was banned everywhere and declared heretical. Heretics were subjected to severe persecution and repression. Since the Turkish language was related to Arianism, probably because of the fear of repression by the powerful Catholicism, the entire Turkic-speaking population began to switch to the languages of the local peoples... At the same time, all the books and other written sources in the Turkish language, probably as heretics destroyed. The main instrument of the Catholic Church in all this activity was probably the Inquisition, which was created for this purpose."
The struggle against Turks and Arianism continued until the last Inquisition was abolished by Queen Isabella II of Spain in 1834. During the years of the Inquisition, the biggest Turkish massacres took place in Catalonia, Andalusia, the Bastille and Aragon. Turks were forcibly Christianized.
As a result of the Inquisition, the Turks gradually changed their beliefs, but continued to speak their own language. Therefore, the Catholic Church
Along with the spread of Christianity in Europe, he also began to solve the language problem. The Jesuits were engaged in this work.
Yu.N.Drozdov writes that at the time of the spread of Christianity, there were more than 2250 peoples and ethnic groups in Europe. In order to make these peoples into a big community, the Catholic Church began to implement the concept of a single language and a single nation for each country. According to this concept, a common language should be created from the languages of peoples who speak different languages, and those peoples should be united around this language. The implementation of this concept was initially started in France.
In 1635, during the reign of Louis XIII, Cardinal Jacques Armen Richelieu founded the French Academy. The Academy set itself the goal of creating a single French language from the languages of the peoples living in France and shaping the French people. A. Richelieu personally supervised this process.
In 1978, Soviet philologist and French language expert S.D. Artamonov wrote about this in his work "History of foreign literature of the 17th-18th centuries": "The Academy contributed to the unification of terms, the speech expression of the language. Everything was moving towards the gradual change of the speech of the people... The Academy he had to compile a single dictionary of the French language, and then vigilantly control its purity and correctness. As a result of the reforms, the French language faded, lost its bright, original colors, but, in turn, became stronger. The strictest clarity, precision and logic were required."
In 1694, the first French dictionary, containing 18,000 words, was compiled at the Academy. The latest edition of this dictionary, the 8th, was completed in 1935 and contained 35,000 words.
Linguist Nikolai Ginov (Tatar) writes in his article "How Jacques Armen Richelieu Created French Literature": "When the reader reads the above... for some reason it seems to him that the French did not have a language before and they could not speak, communicate, write: they were dumb. and so on... and only Richelieu solved this problem... But I want to reassure my impatient reader. They had language, writing, literature; prose, poetry and everything else. But! Part 1
The inhabitants of today's turkey are just 10% turks, if you compare the population of 85 million with the population of greece, there is more greek dna in anatolia than in greece itself. there is therefore a difference between anatolian turks and turkic peoples. in the area of today's ukraine and russia from the north caucasus to the balkans there is more turkish dna than in turkey. in today's ukraine the pechenegs ruled for 150 years, the soviet union did not even exist that long
i am turkish my mother is from giresun father from kırşehir. i have %37 anatolian neolitic farmer, %23 cauces hunter gatherer, %14 zagros neolitic farmer, %9 european hunter gatherer, %7 natufian hunter gatherer, %5 amur river hunter gatherer, %3 yellow river neolitic farmer
Φίλε μου εσύ δεν είσαι Τούρκος,είσαι τορλου το αγαπημένο μου φαγητό λίγο από όλα .χιούμορ κάνω να είσαι καλά φίλε γεια σου.
@@ΧρηστοςΚωνσταντινιδης-τ6η nationality is not equal to ethnicity, i know i am not pure central asian turkish but i love my language and its turkish
Your DNA distribution is great, which shows that it belongs to Anatolia
@@koseku3"i know i am not pure central Asian Turk" 🤡 you have NO central Asian DNA at all, what purity are you even talking about
And that does not make you a Türkish. Which ancestry DNS test have you used!
My ancestry is; Ancient Anatolian native, Turkish, Albanian , probably North African due to Cyprus and those similar Baltic Slavs on my maternal grandmother's side... no matter how I blend in, no one can compare me to a nation 😂
Turks nice people🎉
Hi I'm from Turkiye. Very good effort good job! Totally scientific and objective work. Congratulations!
Thank you very much!
Turkiyeliyim nedemek ucu acik kelime oyunlari turksen türküm dersin olur biter senin gibilerin ağzı son yıllarda moda olan bölücü ağzı PKK ypg ve bunları dostu kripto solcuların ağzı turkiyenin üniter yapısını bozmak Türklük kimligini sulandirmaktir bu ülkenin asli kimliği turklukrur ve sonsuza kadarda öyle kalacak alt kimlik kişiyi bağlar türk kimligi Türklüğü ve türk devletinin bolunmez butunlugunu bağlar ne mutlu türküm diyene Türkiye Türklerindir 🇹🇷❤️❤️❤️🤘🤘🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Known Turkish history begins with the Huns. Even on this issue, there is no consensus among historians. Because many European historians do not see the Huns as the ancestors of the Turks. According to these historians, the Saklar (Scythians) and Sarmatians have nothing to do with the Turks; they are Indo-Europeans who spoke an Iranian language. Unfortunately, the European historians who make these claims are unable to put forward any documents proving their claims.
Although Turkish history started with the Huns, the Turkish history before the 3rd century BC is unknown. There is not even a history of the Turks before this date; they are a nomadic-barbarian people who have suddenly appeared on the stage of history. It has only one feature; good horse ride. For this reason, they occupied many places and destroyed the civilizations that were higher than themselves, and later adopted the cultures of these civilizations. The Asian Huns have always taken the cultures of the Chinese, European Huns, Romans, Seljuks, Persians, and the Ottomans, the Byzantines, as an example.
This is the Turkish history known in the West and this history was imposed on the Turks as well. It is not known whether this view was accepted or not, many Turkish historians did not even feel the need to research Turkish history before the Huns. It has also become a taboo subject. Those who try to research the older history of the Turks and put forward theses are stigmatized as Turkist-Turanist racists. The fear of being stigmatized has tied the hands of many Turkish historians. Even the Turkish history thesis, which has no racist aspect, has not been spared from being stigmatized as racist.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led the historians in the creation of the 1928-1930 Turkish History Thesis. The Turkish history thesis states that European civilizations were created by people coming from Asia as a result of migrations; It claims that all the sources/origin of Greek science, art and philosophy are actually in Anatolia. This thesis is based on the hypothesis that the origin of the white race is Central Asia. According to this, the peoples, whose ancestors were also the Turks, who spread to the world from Central Asia in various migration waves in different ages, established an important part of the world civilizations. When talking about races, he does not advocate the superiority of a particular race. It tells about the mixing of races as a result of migrations.
According to the Turkish History thesis, BC. between 3000 and BC. Between 1200 B.C, the breakisefal people are the ancestors of the Turks. 'It is wrong to begin the beginning of world civilizations with the Greek civilization. The Hittites are an older civilization than the Greek civilization that lived in Anatolia. It is certain that the Etruscans went to Italy from Anatolia.
The Turkish History Thesis is on the right track, although the team cannot prove its deficiencies and the theses it put forward, but it has not come to the end of the road. In fact, the mass migration of the Turks was much earlier; It took place in 7000 BC, and the Turks formed the basis and even created the civilizations not only in Europe, but also in China, India, Mesopotamia, Iran and Anatolia. But this history of the Turks, with the various historical theses produced, was stolen from them with falsehoods and owned by other peoples.
Most of the foreign historians interested in Turkish history defined the Turks as a nomadic people and Turkish historians generally accepted this claim. First of all, it is necessary to make a clear definition about the concept of nomadism. Nomadism is the way of life of the masses, which has no homeland, and is a permanent nomad with its tents and animals. This type of nomadism is rarely encountered today. Bedouinism, for example, is such a way of life. However, Turks have created a settled city life since ancient times. In fact, the Turks are the first people to live in the settled city life.
After the Turks found the stirrup in the 3rd century BC, a life style between the highlands and winter quarters emerged among the masses who made a living from animal husbandry, especially horse breeding, outside the city life. This way of life is not nomadic. Moreover, this way of life has never been a general way of life of the Turkish masses. On the contrary, the peoples that emerged as a nomad on the stage of History are Sinitic, Semitic and 'Indo-European' peoples and these peoples learned the settled city life and a civilization more advanced than their own from the Turks. The real history of the Turks begins at least in the 8th millennium BC, that is, 10 thousand years ago. This fact has now been revealed during the excavations in Turkmenistan. Turks started farming in Turkmenistan about 10 thousand years ago. They built the world's first cities here, found the first pictogram and the wheel here. This date is also the beginning of the great emigration of the Turks. Because the disappearance of the inland seas in Central Asia, which started to dry up, coincides with this period.
The Turks, who started to migrate in masses in Turkmenistan, generally preferred to settle in the river streams (valleys) where they went. Because these people, who are agriculturalists, preferred wetlands for farming. These regions are Karun River in Iran, Euphrates and Tigris Rivers in Iraq, Indus River in Pakistan, Idyll and Özi rivers in the north of the Black Sea, Yellow River in China, Danube River in the Balkans, Arno and Tiber rivers in Italy and Kızılırmak, Green river and Gediz river in Anatolia. are similar regions.
Turks established new cities and new civilizations on the riverbanks where they settled. The languages of these ancient civilizations, which arouse admiration even today, show great similarities to today's Turkish languages. Some of these early Turkish civilizations are Sumerian, Elam, Hatti-Hittite, Etruscan-Pelasgian, Lycia, Lydian, Phrygian, Carian, Trojan, Thracian, Macedonian, Hakhamani-Parthian civilizations.
The Akkadian-Assyrian-Babylonian civilization rose above the Smer civilization, and the Ancient Roman and Greek civilizations rose above the Etruscan and Paleasg civilizations. The Iranian civilization was not only built on the Elam civilization, Iran was then ruled by the Turks for thousands of years. The Turks also laid the foundation of Indian civilization by establishing the first civilization in the Indus valley and ruled India until the end of the 19th century.
Similarly, Türks established the Chinese civilization and ruled China for about 4000 years. From 2200 BC to 1644 AD. All of the first cities in the regions where Turks lived in the Eurasian continent were founded by Turks. Cities such as Athens, Isparta, Thessaloniki, Rome, Beijing, Xian, Izmir and Istanbul are just some of the cities founded by the Turks.
The Turkish language has also greatly influenced most of the languages in the Eurasian continent. More than half of Akkadian is composed of Sumerian Words (words), and these early Turkish words were carried over to Semitic languages such as Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew, the successors of Akkadian. Elamite and later Saka/Scythian (Parthian) formed the basis of the Persian language.
About sixty percent of Aramaic, Arabic, and Hebrew today are Sumerian words. Persian; It is a language based on early Turkic languages such as Sumerian, Elamite, and Parthian created by the Iranian Turkish dynasty in the palaces in the 9th century. Mandarin, which is spoken in Beijing, an old Turkish city, and declared as the official language at the beginning of the 20th century, is a language that has emerged in the last 400 years. In Europe, the Etruscan language formed the basis of the Roman language (Latin). Latin words later spread to other European languages. It is possible to find words of Turkish origin not only in English, which has been heavily influenced by Latin, but also in all contemporary European languages. Likewise, the Pelasg, the Old Turkic people, and the Thracian, the Old Turkic peoples, formed the basis of Greek. Among some researchers who noticed Turkish words in these languages, there was even a view that 'many words in world languages are derived from Turkish'.
There is only one way to prove these theses; It is to prove that peoples such as Sumer, Elam, Hatti, Etruscan, and Pelasg, who founded the oldest civilizations, were early Turkic peoples. The only way to prove this is to document that the languages spoken by these peoples were early Turkic. Despite all efforts, the thesis that these peoples were 'Indo-European peoples' could not be proven by the European historians who defended it. The claim that they are ancient Turks is not even taken seriously. However, it is still argued that peoples such as Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian, Phrygian, Thracian, Macedonian and even Etruscan are 'Indo-Europeans'. Without any scientific basis.
As you can see, there is a "I told you so" comfort among European historians who make these claims. Somehow, there is hardly anyone who opposes these arguments. There is no one who takes it seriously, even if there is opposition. Because the 'authority' is theirs. Moreover, those who oppose cannot prove their arguments linguistically. For some reason, no one seems to pay much attention to this point. But there is no other way. Because the thesis that these peoples were early Turkic peoples cannot be proven with archaeological findings other than written works alone.
@@alisarikaya6327 impressive narrative of bs
Huns is not Turkish, they are Chinese
@@muratbedir7139 Hun's and Han's
Acknowledging that earlier "Chinese Dynasties" were founded by the Turks, some historians argue that the Han Dynasty was the first Han Chinese dynasty.
Firstly; In the aforementioned century, there was neither an ethnic group called "Han Chinese", nor an ethnic consciousness among peoples other than Turks. The peoples called "Han Chinese" today are not a single ethnic group, but a large community made up of different ethnic groups.
The nomenclature han evolved from the word kang in the 14th century and was used by ethnic Turks. However, later on, other Chinese peoples also adopted this name. Secondly; The territory of the Han Dynasty is roughly equal to the territory of the previous Qin Dynasty, which is also a Turkic dynasty; differently, some small lands are captured later in the south.
Finally, and most importantly; The person who took over the state came from the Zhou tribe. In other words, we are talking about the Huns, the tribe that was first exiled to the north and called Xia and were the ancestors of the Xiongnu (Huns), who later defeated the Shangs and recaptured the state and changed their name to Zhou this time (!), but then was destroyed by the Qins.
Actually nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the cover that cannot be matched to the "stolen minaret" in official Chinese history! It is only different Turkish tribes who have taken over the state. They did not even feel the need to change the name of the state. The name of the state is still Sang. Turkish culture still continues. State administration, army and all institutions and layers of society are Turkish.
The Sang (Hun) unit is divided into two as Western and Eastern. One of the reasons for the division was that Huhanye, who was at the head of the Great Hun Empire, wanted to enter the sovereignty of the Han State, also showing the economic difficulties. Huhanye (58 BC - 31 BC) accepted the sovereignty of the Khans in 51 BC.
Huhanye's brother Çiçi refuses to do so. Chichi (56 BC-36 BC), head of the Western Sang, soon failed in his struggle against the Han State. Chichi was killed in the war fought near the city of Taras in today's Kazakhstan. In 36 BC, the Western Sang (Hun) Empire collapsed.
The wars between the Han State and the Hun State are actually somewhat overestimated by both Western and Turkish historians. In addition, Huhanye, who accepted the sovereignty of the Han State, is a "traitor" who surrendered to the enemy. The biggest reason for this is that the Turks and the Chinese are tried to be portrayed as each other's implacable enemies.
However, there are no Turks and Chinese, there are Turks and Turks. Non-Turkish peoples have not yet migrated to present-day China. The bloodiest wars in their history were fought among themselves. This is actually natural; The only powerful states that existed at that time were the Turkish states.
The Real History of the Turks
Arif Cengiz Erman
@@muratbedir7139 turkcesi de var bende ve Kaşgarlı Mahmud o diarların hepsinin Turk oldugunu yazar. bu yazı tam acıklarlar.FALSE KNOWİNGS AND TRUTH'S ABOUT CHINA
One of the most important places where Asian Turkish history started is the Yellow River coast and its surroundings in China. The Yellow River was one of the first settlements of the Turks, starting from 7000 BC, and the 'TURKS' founded the Chinese country.
All dynasties, except the Manchu Jin dynasty (1115-1234), including the Xia (pronounced: Shia) ia (2070-1600 BC) Dynasty Ming 明朝 (1368-1644), are 'Turkish' states. 'All Chinese history' is a 'part of Turkish' history.
Kaşgarlı Mahmut also wrote in the Divan-ı Lugat it-Türk that the Chinese country is a Turkish country and that the Tabgaçs, Continents and Tanguts living here are Turkish tribes. Chinese characters are also a script discovered by the Turks.
According to the Chinese Language Specialist Qiu Gui Su (pronounced Çiu Güy Su), the Mandarin language emerged as the language of the ruling class in the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The language spoken in the Chinese court until 1421 is Turkish.
Considering that even though Tabgaç moved to Beijing, the capital of the "Ming" Dynasty, they would have continued to speak their native language Tabgaç Turkish, we come to the conclusion that the Mandarin language emerged during the Manchular period.
The languages that are the basis of the Mandarin language are Turkish, Manchu and Korean languages. During the Manchu Qīng Dynasty (1636-1912), this language evolved and came to its present state, with many words (words) entering it from the languages of many other non-Turkish peoples in China.
Mandarin is an artificial language that lacks logic and rules and is based on abbreviations. Most of the last syllables of the words (words) taken from Turkish, Korean and Manchu languages are tried to be molded and the remaining parts of the words undergo radical phonetic transformations.
For this reason, the pronunciation of the words is constantly changing and the same word can be said in several different ways. Hence, Mandarin is a language whose spoken is constantly changing and transforming and whose end is unknown.
Even people whose mother tongue is Mandarin today have difficulties understanding each other and having communication difficulties. Writing this language not with a sound alphabet, but with sign characters, which are logograms, facilitates and accelerates this change-transformation process as much as possible.
During the 275 years of ruling China during the Qing Dynasty, the Manchus not only destroyed their own languages and ethnic identities, but also the languages and ethnic identities of Tabgaç, the Continent, Tangut, and other Turkic peoples in China. "Could something like this happen in such a short time?" There may be those who oppose.
However, the Iranian example should not be forgotten. After the Azerbaijani Turk Reza Shah, who took over Iran in 1925 with the help of the British, a significant portion of the Turks lost their language and ethnic identity and quickly became Persian in the last 95 years, and if assimilation continues at this rate, there will not be many Turks in Iran in the next hundred years.
During the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, the Tabgaç and other Turkic peoples were made to forget their language and culture, and their Turkish character was removed. Although the Manchu dynasty fell in 1912, it was the Manchus who ruled the Republic of China, which was established in its place.
The "Han Chinese" who rule China today are mostly Manchus. The unidentified Manchus began an attempt to create a new ethnos after 1912 under the name "Han Chinese". In China, which has a population of 1.5 billion today, 1.2 billion people are called "Han Chinese" by the Chinese government.
Of the 1.2 billion people who are called "Han Chinese" by the Chinese administration and claimed to speak Guanhua (Mandarin), 120 million of them are Canton, 120 million Hakka, 115 million Min, 100 million Sichuan, 90 million Wu, 75 million Jianghuai, 60 million Gan 40 million are Hunan and 5 million are Tanka peoples, and they speak distinct languages.
These languages are not the language of Mandar. All of these peoples live in the south of China. Those who live in northern China and speak Guanhua (Mandarin) are the Shandong people of 100 million and the Hebei peoples of 75 million people. These are the descendants of Tabgaç, Kıtay and Tangut Turks assimilated by the Manchus.
The total number of assimilated Turkic peoples, together with the Muslim Circles (Hui) transformed from Turks, is 200 million, if we add the Manchus, and they live in the north of China. Their native language is Guanhua, now known as Mandarin.
Today, the Manchus are conducting a terrible assimilation policy based on repression and violence in order to keep dozens of different ethnic groups in China together. The regions that the Chinese administration wants to assimilate with pressure and violence are East Turkistan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia.
The Manchus have already been assimilated. According to official numbers, there are some 11 million Manchu living in China today, but only a few thousand of them know Manchu.
The main language of the rest is now Mandarin.
The Mongols in Inner Mongolia under the People's Republic of China have not yet been fully assimilated. According to official numbers, there are close to 7 million Mongolians in China today. There is a violent assimilation policy in Tibet. East Turkistan, on the other hand, is the most important region in the target of the Chinese administration today.
According to the official numbers of 2010, there are 10 million "Uyghurs", 1.5 million "Kazakhs", 190 thousand "Kyrgyz", 10 thousand "Uzbeks" and 3500 "Tatars" in East Turkistan. However, this number is exaggeratedly small. Today, around 40 million Turks live in East Turkestan, and the Chinese administration implements a policy of assimilation at the level of physically destroying Turks.
The enemy is not the Chinese people, but the fascist gang running the Chinese state. This fascist gang is also digging its own grave with this tyrannical system it continues. China is a prison of peoples and is doomed to disintegration.
From book introduction to Turan History
@@alisarikaya6327 unfortunately I don't agree and tbh you don't have any prove and you can not prove that too. First time you can see Turks after collapsing of Xiongnus (Mongolians five barbarians)
Known history 2 but now this understanding needs to be broken. Information about the peoples speaking these most ancient languages is already available. The important thing is to put this information on a correct date. In this respect, this book is a thesis of history. Therefore, this book contains many dictionaries.
In the appendix, I present about a thousand similar words in terms of meaning and phonetics in my encounter between Sumerian and Turkish dialects. This number is about half of the Sumerian vocabulary and is the root words that form the backbone of the Sumerian language. Some of them are words derived from root words and which are no longer Turkish today. Based on this, it would not be wrong to make the following judgment without hesitation: Sumerian is one of the oldest known forms of Turkish
😂
It is interesting to know but at the end of the day you are what you feel you belong to.
Western authors give additional details about mixed marriages and the children born into such unions. The Latin historians of the Crusades noted in Anatolia a specific group of the Turkopouli (that is, 'the children of the Turks') who were born of a Greek mother and a Turkish father.53 For the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Catalan soldier and chronicler Ramon Muntaner reports that the Turks of western Anatolia married girls from noble Greek families. It is especially interesting that the male children of these mixed marriages 'became Turks and were circumcised', while for female children the choice of religion was free. The same difference between the religious affiliation of boys and girls was reported by Ludolf von Suchen in the middle of the fourteenth century. Von Suchen maintains that when the Turks married Christian women, the boys of the mixed marriages followed the Muslim religion of their fathers while the girls maintained the Christian faith of their mothers.54 However, as we have seen in Byzantine canonical texts, boys also could be baptised by their mothers.
These reports confirm that, firstly, mixed marriages between Muslims and Greek women were common throughout the centuries, and, secondly, that the children of both Muslim and mixed marriages were baptised according to Orthodox Greek rites. The popularity of mixed marriages in Muslim lands has been very clearly demonstrated by a passage from the Byzantine historian of the fifteenth century, Doukas, who, with considerable arrogance, made the following observance about the Ottoman Turks:
The people of this shameless and savage nation, moreover, do the following: if they seize a Greek woman or an Italian woman or a woman of another nation or a captive or a deserter, they embrace her as an Aphrodite or Semele, but a woman of their own nation or of their own tongue they loathe as though she were a bear or a hyena. 55
The predominance of Greek women at the Seljuk harem thus seems to have been merely a royal variation of a common practice in Muslim Anatolia. Greek women were valued as the most prestigious marriage partners among all strata of Muslim society. It was Greek women who guided their Muslim husbands and masters into the refined Byzantine way of life and the world of Byzantine luxury, introducing among other things new cuisines and ways of structuring the household. Although the information on Seljuk marriage policy in the eleventh to twelfth century is scarce, it seems highly probably that the Seljuk harem was modelled along similar lines as other strata of Muslim Anatolian society, with a preference of marriage to Greek women who in turn acted as mediators to the old world of the 'empire of the Romans'.
Peacock, A. and Yildiz, S., 2012. The Seljuks of Anatolia.
Turkish women were dominant. A Byzantine historian writes about Seljuk men: "It is incomprehensible that these men, who were like tigers on the battlefield, were serving their wives at home." On Seljuk tiles, there are men pouring tea for their wives. This is why marriages in the Ottoman Empire were made with foreign women. Turkish women's families also had a say in the administration. Historian Ceren Sungur said, "There are better intrigues in this book than Games of Trones" about the Selcuk University teacher's doctoral thesis titled Seljuk women.😂
What?
Türk erkekleri Yunan kadınları ile evleniyorsa Türk kadınlarına ne oluyordu? Eşsiz mi kalıyorlardı?
I know a few Turkish people, two are Kurdish , 1 family is very European looking , fair in colouring with European features, and another he has very Asian eyes and black hair, we are all such a mixture like in the UK us white ones are Celt and Saxon .
Thanks for working on it and sharing 🎉
Ben oğuzboyundan gelen macedonyadan Türkiye’ye gelmiş bir türküm ,ailemin tamamı zümrüt yeşili ve mavi gözlere sahip
Your analysis is grossly inaccurate. First, it assumes that the original Turks were Mongoloid people from East Asia. Then, quoting the other false claim that 10% of modern Turkish DNA is from East Asia, you claim that modern (Anatolian) Turks are only 10% Turkic. Original Turkic homeland was between the Northeast Caspian and the Altay-Sayan mountains in Central Siberia, maybe extending as far away as Lake Baikal. They were mix of (Northern) West and East Eurasians from the beginning, and the East Eurasian portion was more Siberian than East Asian. Current Anatolian Turks have about one-third Central Asian Turkic DNA, which corresponds to 10% East Eurasian DNA among Anatolian Turks. The remaining two-thirds is mostly from Anatolian natives.
It's the paternal DNA that's tested not maternal. So the diversity of the turkish DNA is because Anatolia has been the battle ground of the Persians, Romans and Greeks for a long time and their men had children with the women of Anatolia
Most of the R1b found in Greece today is of the Balkanic Z2103 variety. There is also a minority of Proto-Celtic S116/P312 and of Italic/Alpine Celtic S28/U152. Z2103 could have descended from Albania or Macedonia during the Dorian invasion, thought to have happened in the 12th century BCE. Their language appear to have been close enough to Mycenaean Greek to be mutually intelligible and easy for locals to adopt. The Mycenaeans might have brought some R1b (probably also Z2103) to Greece, but their origins can be traced back through archaeology to the Catacomb culture and the Seima-Turbino phenomenon of the northern forest-steppe, which would make them primarily a R1a tribe.
Greek and Anatolian S116 and some S28 lineages could be attributed to the La Tène Celtic invasions of the 3rd century BCE. The Romans also certainly brought S28 lineages, and probably also the Venetians later on, notably on the islands. Older clades of R1b, such as P25 and V88, are only a small minority and would have come along E1b1b, G2a and J2 from the Middle East.
Apparently you failed to mention that the people moving from Anatolia to Europe had nothing to do with the culture of today's Turkey.
If people of Turkish origin have a far inferior and much younger culture to other civilizations preexisting in that land then iam afraid you have picked the wrong title to define your nation as the dominant.
First of all, a mistake made from the very beginning is to equate the Turkish phenotype with the Mongol phenotype. The origin of the Turks is still a very heated debate. Because nowadays, while the Scythians' DNA is compatible with the Central Asian Turks, it shows zero connection with the Iranian people. This makes the Turks a much older society in Anatolia. Since the Turks were a nomadic culture, they spread very quickly and had various phenotypes. So what is the Turkish phenotype? We don't know yet! There are some specific characteristics, but it is obvious that it is not limited to these. For example, the most populous Turkic people who have lived until today are the Cumans, and Cuman etymologically means blond person, and this name was given to them by the Germans. Today, they are a people who have assimilated in Eastern Europe, and genetic studies ignore the genetic heritage they left behind! Also, the Seljuks you showed in the video definitely did not have this phenotype. Because the Seljuk rulers, such as Kılıçarslan I and Süleyman I, who never intermarried with the Anatolian people, were red-haired and brown-haired people.
The original Turkish phenotype is Mongolian, just as their Ural-Altaic language is. Related to slanted eyed peoples.
@@panagiotisterpandrouzachar7754 Haha, we’re not going to argue with a Greek deceived by esoteric stories about Turks. There is enough scientific data on the Turkish phenotype. Only small-minded nationalists and anti-Turkish Greeks like you would listen to your fallacies. Also, what are you even doing under a post about Turks? I guess you’re constantly following the Turks. You must be very angry 😃
Turks have different appearances, sometimes they look European, sometimes Caucasian, sometimes Greek, sometimes Persian.
O. ANCA YUNANLILARDA OLUR BIZ SIZI 400 SENE SIKTIK SIZ DEGIL O YUZDEN SIZ KARISIKSINIZ
The following book: The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century… pretty much explains how the Turkish nation emerged. The author Spyros Vryonis from Harvard University explains in detail the history of the region. I strongly recommend to read it. That will definitely shed some light on the DNA data.
As a Turk I have to say very good video bro very unbiased and well explained I needed that video I waited for it for a long time thank you.
Without a doubt, I am 100% real Turk.
What is the percentage of modern-day Turkish people who have taken DNA tests? Where does this information come from?
Fun fact, "The Yassa (alternatively Yasa, Yasaq, Jazag or Zasag; Mongolian: Их Засаг, romanized: Ikh Zasag) was the oral law code of the Mongols, gradually built up through the reign of Genghis Khan. It was the de facto law of the Mongol Empire" in turkey still today yasa means law 😅
Thanks for the video. The DNA ratios in the video are similar to mine. I love all my genes. Both Anatolia and Eurasia are the homeland of my ancestors, my fatherlands.
A lot of Turks who are native to western Turkey, have Balkan ancestry….I only have 3% Anatolian dna ancestry…75% Balkan (Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria, Russia, Greece)…2% southern Italian, maybe 1-2% Central Asia…There’s even a Bosnian village from early migrants that still exists on the outskirts of Istanbul.
They are not real Turks. Everybody know this. They roots traces where the oldest Turkic writings were found. Which is located In Mongolia.
Attention: the two people above are r3tarded.
Western Turks have the highest Turkic DNA in all Turkiye and these m0r0ns larping that Turks have Balkan ancestry and only 3% Anatolian🤦🏻♂️
Probably learned genetics from myHeritageDNA
I am a Western Anatolian Turk. According to my DNA result,
Anatolian Neolithic Farmer 46.2%
Zagros Neolithic Farmer 15.8%
European Hunter-Gatherer 14.8%
Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer 11.0%
Amur River Hunter-Gatherer 10.8%
Natufian Hunter-Gatherer 1.2%
East Siberian Hunter-Gatherer 0.2%
One of my foreign friends once told that most of Turks have got their unique beauty. I depend it on the mixturing with the other nations' genomes. The more you have heterogeneity the more resilient and variety you'll have.
I am mostly Anatolian neolithic farmer myself with some Italian, Middle Eastern and Turkic DNA mixed in. I have no Greek unlike most who live in Turkey.
So you’re probably pretty dark then..?🤫
Thank you
as I Turk I did a DNA test and what I found was complete Ottoman Empire map from 17th century with high amount of mixture of Central Asia and 2% of Innuit which is big surprise :D
East Turkic groups Kazakh,Kyrgyz, have Mongol ancestry thats why they look more East Asian
A bit of inacurrate topic for propaganda, as till now turkic people does not have any similarities with Anatolian farmers DNA, or even if they have not in that percentage,
Furthermore according to many DNA tests through scientists, Greek DNA are more in high percentage of Anatolian farmers than IE tribes...
You can check them out in serious scientific sites.
The video is about Turkish, not Turkics. and Anatolian Turks have a significant amount of ANF genes because they mixed with native Anatolian peoples.
I’m turkish and i have;
Anatolian, middle eastern, Italian, baltic, East European, greek and 7 more ethnicity dna 😂
Point is Serbian old tribes were mixing with asia group of people and Turkish 👍 people born
@@vesnadjokic146 Not Serbian but Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan tribes mixed with mongols created Turks.
@@matrixxx3662 Indo-Iranian sre skitties or Hitties old Serbian tribe and Indo Aryan are Serbs and only Serbs
@@matrixxx3662
Chaldean, Assyrian and Egyptian manuscripts and stone monuments are some of the oldest documents of human civilization, over seven thousand years old and that they contain mentions the name Serb. According to some scientific theories, the origin of human settlements is determined by different places at different times. According to others, it is considered that the first settlements were created in Central Asia, from where the peoples moved further over time. According to such an assertion, the Serbs are considered to be a branch of the Aryan, or Indo-European strain, to which the Romanic, Celtic and Germanic peoples also belong. The same language of all Slavic peoples, derived from the proto-Serbian language of Indo-Asian origin, is taken as proof. There is a large number of scientists who consider India to be the Serbian homeland
@@matrixxx3662 not only Mongols but other group of Turkic people Uzbek tadzik itc coz today Turkish language have a lot of Serbian words,retained and inserted into the Uzbek language as a consequence of that mix. Although the Serbs dominated Asia, the group of Turkic peoples became more dominant when it comes to language
@@matrixxx3662
The Autochtonist School advocates the theory that all peoples who lived in today's Slavic areas, as well as in the regions of Dacia, Thrace, the Balkans, in southern Russia and Central Europe, are different names of peoples of Serbian origin. This school, in addition to the Balkans and Central Europe, finds the homeland of Serbs in Italy, the Pyrenees, Brittany, Helvetia, Scandinavia, and even in North Africa and Asia Minor. The opponent of this school is the German Berlin- The Viennese School, which today triumphs in most departments of history and conducts science in a deliberate manner the wrong way, which corresponds to the interests of politics. Nemac dr. A. Hopfner says there are three separate ones schools that differ considerably in their attitude towards Serbs, namely: German-Berlin, Viennese and Swiss. In his essay on the Vedas, Emile Burnouff investigates the origin of the Indo-Europeans through the Vedas, which were created at the time of the "Aryan community". He finds that the Vedic families are based on sanctity of marital union, surrounded by faith and social traditions. He derives his evidence from family names, which have belonged to the common race of people since ancient times. And we know that family and family names in the Serbian language have retained features of archaicness and authenticity until today.
Alekananda Miter is the granddaughter of the famous poet Tagore and is the chief director of India's largest Institute of Slavic Studies in Calcutta. She has been studying the Serbian language for more than thirty years, as he says: “Yet as a student of Slavic languages at Oxford, in the early fifties, I noticed a certain similarity between the Bengali language and Serbian, and later, when I was translating Serbian post-realist poetry into English, I became sure that a deep connection must exist between these two languages..." The Swiss researcher Adolphe Pictet wrote the work "Indo-European origin or the original Aryans", in which he writes: "In the ancient past, a race grew in the primordial cradle, gifted with wisdom, grandiose, strict in nature, and through work overcame the harsh material conditions of its existence. Then comes their development and patriarchal arrangement. That lush race she developed her own language, perfect and full of intuition for sublime poetry. Because of their large number, the morale of the court moved, and their language also changed with their migrations.
Over the centuries, several nationalities arose from this people. These migrations took place in the millennia before Christ, from India to the Atlantic." He concludes that: "...that numerous people served as the basis for the development of many human groups that emerged from it." The Picts also claim that: "... the language of that people was the basis for many languages, which arose from it." The common bases of this language were found in Sanskrit and Zend (Old Persian). Hence the idea that all Indo-European peoples come from one trees". Of their language the Picts say that it was of uncontrolled freedom and he calls it "the language of the mother". The Picts also write, it was the language of the Vedas, rich in monosyllabic verb roots from which suffixes create an abundance of derivatives of all kinds. His voice system is simple and harmonious. It distinguishes between three genders and seven cases, thus clearly indicating the declensions. Pronominal endings for three persons and numbers allow us to distinguish nuances of time and manner. According to all previous descriptions of that language, it is closest to Serbian. Such consistency is not found anywhere except in the Serbian language.
I really don't get the interest in turkish DNA nowadays. In every corner of youtube there is a video about this.
There are many companies who offer this DNA Analysis, but they are scientifically nonsens. You will never be able to "read out" the nationality of a person from his DNA. For exemple: when I would sent my DNA to a laboratorium without any information, the only 100% information they will get is my gender.
We Turks are turks. Nothing else, don't give this topic more importance then it is worth
Hahahaha very funny comment. You don't get the interest in Turkish DNA because you don't understand the region's geopolitics.
@@birizos I'm the geopolitic of Türkiye, I'm future of Turkiye and so are 80 mil other Turks. Do you believe we will allow someone to tell us what we are and therefore we should give the land to them. During the History many schemes were invented for ward but this is plain ridiculous
@@LindaWeisstag Yes, I strongly believe that you will allow, under CERTAIN SEVERE conditions, someone to tell you what you are. I have seen it before in your history: Mustafa Kemal replaced the Ottoman identity with the Turkish one in 1923, remember? So, just as your ancestors allowed this, you will do the same in the future as well. This is exactly where the DNA testing fits in, to help someone else to give you a new identity.
Your knowlegde is incomplete😂. And let it be our problem, thank you very much😊
@@birizos
You cant decide the national idendity of your enemy. It is very illogical. We Turks know that we are heavily mixed but we dont care. We know about such divide-conquer plans and we fought against it for decades. If your main plan for stopping our advancement is to convert us to our enemy ethnicity and culture, you are very misguided. But still, it is is good sign for us because our enemies became really hopeless and terrified of our strong future.
Why do u show Persian,Afgan and Kurdish folkloric clothes and hats as a Turkic people’s folkloric?For example 4:40 They looks like Afgan people.
It is AI generated fake pics
Please do french dna history
Of course :)
l am Turkish from Amasya province haplogroup Q Y2052
欧洲 European: 60.86%
印度 India: 23.38%
鄂伦春 North Chinese Oroqen: 6.28%
美洲 American: 2.98%
非洲 African: 2.42%
彝族 Southwest Chinese Yi: 1.81%
日本 Japanese: 1.18%
华东 East Chinese: 0.91%
雅库特 Yakut: 0.17%
Cingene misin
@@aliklc1970 Dna Türk gibi duruyor daha çok.
@@ordafles5360 tekrar bak o zaman
@@ordafles5360 orta asya sibirya emaresi yok
@@aliklc1970 Çin,Japon,Yakut
Ne mutlu TÜRKÜM diyene
Im Turkish my dna results come back 74% Anatolian and cacosious, 9%greek, 2%Cyprus, 3%Italian, 1% Russian and European, 1% irland, 10% Iranian altogether 8 DNA mix
Source?
Thank you for your research and truth fact.İam orgin scyhtia Turc preslav Turc born in Germany ,live up in İzmir Smyrna like a Amazone Scytia women loves so much Horses and Animals etc.❤
what Armenian or Turkish ancestry, people have been mixing for milleniums, Armenian language close to Iranian, Turkish close to Japanese and Mongolian, but appearances differ a lot, don't waste your time you can only trace recent people intermixing, what about tens of thousands years before what happened,!!, even Neanderthals and Denisovan influence in peoples ancestry, every inquiry as such is just irrelevant..
Within the last milenium there is no official records that indicate large scale mixing of Oguz Turks with the local natives of Anatolia. Also the definition of Central Asian DNA is questonable. İs it the R1A haplogroup or Autosonomal DNA of current Central Asians or past populations. What ratio of past population was sampled. By analyzin a few or even hundred graves one cannot precisely determine the representative model of a population whic was at least hudreds of thousands of people. There is from statistical very much uncertainty in all these population distance comparisons.
definition of DNA in almost every other locality, area or nation also questionable in this huge transtition zone - geography..!!
@@murmurha2084
İt is not definition of DNA that varies from region to region it is the uncertainty in the codes with limited samples from a large population. With 18 Hun samples for exampke you cannot determine the Hun DNA.So many civilizations lived in Anatolia. How do you define Anatolian genome? What is the time span and space variation of samples? When you draw 30 samples from a populatiom of 300000 the variance whic reflects uncertainty is too much. This makes these claims questionable...
Turks has worst with conserving their ID. We marry any nation possible. is it good ? but that makes nation DNA weaker. I still call my self Turkish with have Cherkez Dad Side with Turk & Kurdish mixed mums side and I married first time with Azerbaijan Lady ( we have a Son16) and now I am married to a Turkish (dad) mixed Russian(mum) Lady.🥰
Ask Serbs U show in map how from Balcan Serbian old 12000 gen was spreading 👍👍
Fin-Ugric like Finnish and Estonian as well as Hungarians were better luck. They’ve mixed with northern European people and look now like Europeans mostly. Only the language has remained. Others from that ancient tribes from Siberia that didn’t move to Europe have stayed Asian with slotted eyes.
British most are i haplogroup
Only south of england they have some r1a from the frigians that were from anatolia
The vikings are i like scots
Celts are or were in england r1b
Most spain is not even celt except from some vascos
Vasconia is from russia
France has some r1,b
We know r1a is ukrania anatolia russia greece long time ago
J is more mesopotamia
Turkics are Central Asians not East Asians.
@@ordafles5360 Central Asians are mix of Indo-Europeans and East Asians.
@@matrixxx3662 Your point is?
@@matrixxx3662 Im saying East Asians and Central Asians have different dna. The video narrator says Turkics are East Asians.
@@ordafles5360 Turkic dna is a mix of both. But more likely they looked more East Asian because East Asian have more dominant genes than White.
@@matrixxx3662 Yes
I got 16% Slab Grave ( up to 21% Deer Stone Culture) and I am from Northwestern Turkiye.
People in Antlanya, Denizli, Aydin, Giresun, Bolu, Mugla and so on have the same or even higher
Record is at Bolu with 25% East Asian but the average there is also very high at around 15-20%
Do a video on yellow people bro
Neden Türk çeye çeviri yok?
All I can see is a lot of comments are trying to rewrite history.
Anatolian people are originally Ancient Greek speaking people.
A lot of the comments here say they didn't speak Greek. But had Greek alphabet but spoke Turkic..... yeah no worries.
Before the invasion of Muslins it was Ancient Greek..... anyone else thinks otherwise is having wet dreams.
Anatolia was and is heritage of Ancient Greece. If you think otherwise then you are from Mongolia.
HAYIRDIR TERSTEN KALKMIŞ GİBİSİN LİSAN ETNİK ÖZELLİK DEĞİL .HALDLARIDA UNUTMAYIN
What low iq does to a mf
Luvi, Lelek,Truva,Trak,Hitit, Urartu,Amozon...... bunlar mı yunan yoksa yunanın zulüm ettiklerimi Anadolu'da tutunamadınız çünkü Anadolu yunanı hiç istemedi , Türkleri istedi sevdi benimsedi,cahil
You don't have to be so bitter that you lost. It's life, empires rise and fall. Also, the Greeks never owned the place, they took it from the Hittites :) How far back do we go?
It's Turkiye!
In Turkey, the Central Asian genetic heritage(which includes Turkish gene )is around 7%. 30% of Turkey's population is Kurdish. The rest are of either Georgian, Circassian, Pontic Greek, or Balkan origin. Turks have slanted eyes. Having slanted eyes is a genotypic characteristic. The entire genotype of a race shows similarities. For example, there isn't a single Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, or Korean without slanted eyes. However, some Turks, like Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmen, and Uyghur Turks, have slanted eyes, and they are the real Turks. But most of those living in Turkey who call themselves Turkish do not have slanted eyes. This is because they are assimilated individuals from other nations that have been Turkified. However, they are raised with such a nationalist education system that it is very hard to make them accept this. Similarly, Azeris are not Turks, and they are an Aryan people. Genotypically, Azeris show about 50% similarity to Aryan peoples, 30% similarity to Caucasian peoples, and between 2% and 10% similarity to Central Asians, i.e., Turks. This shows that Azeris were also assimilated and later Turkified
Throat singing intensifies...
The proto Turks were mongoloid race and have the DNA paternal C Just like modern Mongolians... Both ancient Proto Turks and Mongolians were same people their language is same but just different dialect.... However when this proto Turks invaded central asia they got intermix to the people there like Indo European and Iranic farmers.... But some didn't intermix thats why there are still many Kazakh have the mongoloids feature racial
The proto Turkic people didn't mix with them. Hence why they have no paternal linages that traces back to Central Asia or East Asia.
Ne mutlu Türküm diyene 💪
Please do Ethiopian/Somali DNA
In 6:50, it is clear that Anatolians only speak Turkish and are not Turks, their genetics are very close to Iranians and Greeks.
Which is normal. 😂 we are not inbreed nation. Greeks and iranians are not pure either. 😂 what is your point ?
Iranian😂 no we hava anatolian genetic but kurds have mesopotamian iran genetic
@@aliklc1970 Kurds are not even from mesopotamia. They have iranian gene.
Why you hate Greeks? Everything you have in Anaolia is Greek byzantine civilazation 😂 why you hate them ? This is what you learn in Turkey to hate Greece? But why they teach you like this think about it after all you took everything from then country homes even graves
@@aliklc1970Frygian anatolian people was Greek
Not thrue 👎🏼
im waiting for Circassians
Nice DNA History video, so precise.... I have a idea, how about the Yezidi and Kurds? No? Fackt that part of the modern Turkey was called Kurdistan and the Turks are one of the youngest people on this planet. Yezidi going back 7000 years. Yet you dont mention this ones. Anyways....have a good one.
They came from Mongolia.
I am from Turkiye west coast. I am almost %80 Greek / Italian. Only %8 central Asian, %6 Arabic, %3 European Jew, %3 Irish and some Scandinavian. No, we didn’t come from Asia. 😂
Yeah JOHNY you are a turk ı believed that
Actually the problem is not DNA, in reality people living in Turkey and people living in Greece have killed each other in the past
Myheritage azizliği.
Because you are not a real Turk but a very mixed one. The oldest Turkic writing has been found In Mongolia. And the Ottoman Empire themselves came from Central Asia. Because most of your dna is Anatolian. Southern Europeans are originally Anatolians too.
@@matrixxx3662 Learn when the term Anatolia emerged
Türkish ppl are only on average 30 turkic
And that comes from your mother side not father side. You have no paternal linages like R1a and R1b or C or Q. You have J2 which was brought over by Zagrosian farmers to Central Asia 8000 years ago.
@@matrixxx3662 you dont even know me lol what do you think who you are what made you think to comment such a bs
@@oghuz_kaghan It's not BS. R came from Siberia. Siberia tribes spoke Altai languages. Indigenous Siberian look Mongolians. Oldes Turkic writings found In Mongolia.
@@matrixxx3662 ur calling me zagrosian Farmer Dude my mother is north east bulgarian Very close to the coast and very close to capital city of bolgar khanate and my father is from east anatolia and my father side all of them looks siberian or caucasian mostly white and have silgtly asian eyes and my looks is the closest thing to the ancient turks.
@@oghuz_kaghan Indigenous Siberian look East Asian not European or Caucasian. And Indigenous Siberian has highest dna of Ancient North Eurasians. You are European and Caucasian mix. Proto Turkic people look very similar to Mongolians. Because they also spoke and Altai language. Your language Turkish is just a very mixed version of other Altai languages. You have zero turkic dna. You only Immigrant that was ruled over by these Siberian tribes who migrated from Central Asia.
free greek konstantinupolis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yunan diye bir ırk yok yunanistan denilen sözde ülke Türkiye toprağıdır siz orda işgalcisiniz
😂
keyboard man! free athens! great macedonia and albania!
sizin Türk olmadığınız ne malum,özüne dön , adam ol ,klavye ciceği
Hitti or Skitti was a old Serbian tribe bc
@@vesnadjokic146 No. Hittie were Indo-Europeans tribes.
@@matrixxx3662 so?
According to Herodotus everyone Thracians, Scythians or Hittites, Vends, Tribals and Illyrians are Serbs....
Chaldean, Assyrian and Egyptian manuscripts and stone monuments are some of the oldest documents of human civilization, over seven thousand years old and that they contain mentions the name Serb. According to some scientific theories, the origin of human settlements is determined by different places at different times. According to others, it is considered that the first settlements were created in Central Asia, from where the peoples moved further over time. According to such an assertion, the Serbs are considered to be a branch of the Aryan, or Indo-European strain, to which the Romanic, Celtic and Germanic peoples also belong. The same language of all the Slavic peoples derived, from the proto-Serbian language of Indo-Asiatic origin is taken as proof. There is a large number of scientists who consider India to be the Serbian homeland beside Balkan itc
Many.got Greek in them as well
And Turk in greeks as well
Interesting thing here is....there is no one and only race (lets say race)....people are more mixed than you ll believe....like a soup of different groups ...
Interesting is also that humans did (maybe still do) like to multiply with whomever they like...or whoever comes across.
But there’s black and white, brown and yellow. And there’s Slitted eyes and normal eyes. 🤔 of
Course everything is attractive in its kind. But for sure there’s reasons for this differences.
Haha, not at all, my my assimiliated dude 😀. They assimilated all of you and made you believe you were Turkish 😀😀. Every one of you is either of Georgian, Circassian, Bosnian, Armenian, or Pontic Greek origin. You're all assimilated 😀."
Few thousands Turkish nomads mixed with million Grecoromans in Anatolia! Its a romantic fascist myth to believe that modern day anatolians are ethnic turks 😂
But people like to tell lies to themselves init?
few thousand nomads destroyed the eastern roman empire and turned millions of romans into turks, right? Then a few thousand turkish ancestors who came to anatolia must have f.cked all the romans and created millions of turks! After all, if your father is turkish, you are also turkish! Glory to those few thousand warriors, I am proud of them! Considering that millions of turks live in europe, it is very close for all of europe to become turkish. if you do not want to be turkish, i recommend you to wear iron underwear. actually titanium would be better, because the romans (or greeks) wore iron armors but it did not help them.
They have more ancestral heritage than you, Greek troll.
Romantik bir ingilize benziyorsun. Türklerin asyadan kaç senede ve ne kadar kalabalık olarak geldiği hakkında bilgin yok.
So, it was actually the Greeks who destroyed your empire?😂
@@farukkonuralpeser2906 We have been here for 1000 years and we have created the real Anatolia
Xa xa turks dna .....mongolay ....
Turkish DNA ...........45% Greek...45% Kurdish The rest is no good!
There is no pure Turk most are mixed
there is no pure people
Dogru, bu her millet ve irklar icin de gecerli. Yüzde yüz olan bir insani ispatlasinlar bakalim, CÜNKÜ YOK. insanlari ayirmak icin güzel bir yöntem. Beyin virusu.😊
They are Mongols.
It was found that Germans and Anatolian Turks were equally distant to the Mongolian populations. No close relationship was found between Anatolian Turks and Mongolians despite the close relationship of their languages and shared historical neighborhood.
@@lt8558There is no such thing as Anatolian Turks. Anatolian didn't speak an Altai language unless you claim that Turkic is Indo-European language.
@@matrixxx3662 Anatolia is a region also known as Asia Minor.
@@lt8558 I know. It was Innhabited by farmers 8000 years ago with no relation to East Asians and Europeans. They were purely West Asian origin or specifically middle eastern origin. Because their ancestor were also farmers who migrated In that region from the Levant and Zagros mountains. The farmers from Zagros also migrated to Central Asia and brought J2. Which is found In Central Asia today. The Turk themselves had other haplogroups that is not found among Turkish people In Anatolia today. Because they didn't mix with them. They just ruled over them and made sure they spoke their language. This why there is minimal linages of R1a,R1b, C and Q. Ironically R1a is most common among Kurds In Turkey than the Turk themselves. And R1b is mostly among the Armenians as well as Kurds again. These haplogroup belonged to the elites and the ruling class of that region.
@@matrixxx3662Türkler; japonyadan çinden kullanılan bir inşa sistemini bugünkü Türkiye ye getirmiştir. Sadece Türk olan köylerde bu yapı bulunur ve yok olmaya başlamıştır. Ken; bu yapıda kullanılan bir tanımdır. Bu insanlar yeşil gözlü kırmızı beyaz yüzlü orta asyalı görünümlü adamlardır. Bu orta asyalı görünüm bugün ki orta asyadaki görünüm değildir. Fakat evliliklerle bu durum değişmeye başlamıştır.
😂😂😂😂
Tamamen yanlis bir video!!! Türkler hakkında hicbir şey bilmiyorsun!! Kaldır bu videoyu!!!!
Please do mizrachi Jew, I’ve done an extensive dna test and my results were quite similar the dna breakdown of your Palestinian video. I think especially during this time it would be beneficial show that we are related and come from the same place
We want to know the dna history of italy spain marocco algeria france england
Russia
Please make a video about the dna of these countries peoples
ye well, 35% of turkey is Middle Eastern DNA cause of the immigration of arabs centuries ago to the south of turkey, which is why most of us look arab. but also carry 38% European DNA and 27% of not sure what.
poor nigga thinking middle east = arab
Because the Turkic tribes never mixed with you. They just forced their language on you.
@@matrixxx3662 ngga wtf ı am ethnic türk and anatolian mix
@@genveon0 You ethnic Turk? You look Mongolian? You share culture with Mongols as well?
@@matrixxx3662 I bet you cant tell the difference from a Chinese and Japanese and the closest Turkic group to Mongols are Kazakh people.
The following book: The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: And the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century… pretty much explains how the Turkish nation emerged. The author Spyros Vryonis from Harvard University explains in detail the history of the region. I strongly recommend to read it. That will definitely shed some light on the DNA data.