Argentines with Armenian surnames

[drooperdoo]

Yeah,
Khazars are one component of the Crimean Tatars--which makes sense, as I said, because the Crimea shares a border with the Ukraine and is by Southern Russia. In fact, Russia fought the Crimean War to get it back in the 19th Century.

I read somewhere that Khazars were predominantly redheaded and that they even had a myth that a child born with black hair was an ill-omen. So this was very certainly not a "black-haired" race.

It's hard for us in the present to remember that "Turkic" back then didn't have the connotation it has today of half-Mongoloid people from the steppes.

The original Turkic peoples in Central Asia were fair--blue eyed, with high instances of blondism and rufism.

Central Asia wasn't really Mongolized until the time of the Golden Horde--which was extremely recent in terms of history.

So those original "Turkic" peoples looked more like Russians or Pontic types than like modern people in Turkmenistan today.

I wonder about these terms today--because I've seen the same groups counted as "Turkic" and "proto-Indo-European". Groups like the Scythians, for instance, are associated with the "Aryans" while Khazars are called "Turkic," but, if one does the least bit of research, one finds that the "Khazars" were related to the "Scyths".
They were the same friggin redheaded people from Central Asia, with swastikas and horse culture.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia's article on "Khazars": 'the Byzantines and Arabs, for example, called all steppe people "Turks"; before them the Romans had called them all "Scythians".'

On the article on "Ashkenazic," it says this: "The word "Ashkenaz" first appears in the genealogy in the Tanakh (Genesis 10) as a son of Gomer and grandson of Japheth. It is thought that the name originally applied to the Scythians (Ishkuz), who were called Ashkuza in Assyrian inscriptions, and lake Ascanius and the region Ascania in Anatolia derive their names from this group. The "Ashkuza" have also been linked to the Oghuz branch of Turks including nearly all Turkic peoples today from Turkey to Turkmenistan."

So we have people who are Scyths referred to variously as proto-Indo-European and "Turks".

Luckily we have their dna and skeletal remains, so we know that they were predominantly haplogroup R1a, and looked more like Russians than like any "Near Easterner".

So call them "Turk" if you like, or Aryan if the spirit moves you--they were the ancestors of the Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians, Southern Russians, etc.

[Yankel]

He looks "Near Eastern" to you???

Yes. He looks like he'd fit in nicely pretty much anywhere in eastern Mediterranean area, and at least some (I'm guessing most) of his ancestry comes from there, being part-Anatolian Turk.

And by the way, I harked back further than Slavs for him. I said that his ancestors were probably ethnically Cimmerian--you know . . . the Cimmerians--from whom the region "The Crimea" was named.

The reason I mentioned Slavs is because you claimed he would cluster with Ukranians, who are representative of typical Slavic Eastern Europeans. I find that unlikely, considering that even Crimean ancestry is largely Near Eastern/Mediterranean.

As to me saying that Yolas would probably cluster with Ukrainians genetically, and saying that his ancestors are like the Hungarians--insofar as being "Turkic" in language only--check out this gene-map. Direct your attention to the lower left corner, where "Ukranian" and "Hunagarian" are right next to each other.

What do Hungarians have to do with the price of tea in China? I'm aware of their origins, but we're discussing the claim that Crimean Turks cluster with Ukranians. In case you hadn't noticed, Hungary is several countries west of Crimea.

[yolas]

Hahaha i like being discussed about... here are more pics of me so you can decide better. Personally i think i look Turkish.

[tyrannos]

You appear like an Alpine and very European.

[Yankel]

Personally i think i look Turkish.

I agree. I've seen Greeks who look similar. Your features give me a Mediterranean vibe.

[drooperdoo]

Yankel,
You ask me why I bring up the Hungarians with respect to the people of the Ukraine and Crimea, and you say, "Hungary is several countries away".

Unfortunately, lines on maps are imaginary. And when we're talking about mass human migrations over eons of time, a few hundred miles is insignificant.

After all, the horseman culture of the Cimmerians, Scyths, Khazars, etc., already saw them travel thousands of miles--from the middle of Asia to the heart of Europe.

So to pretend that there was this imaginary wall between Eastern Europe and Hungary is silly--even more so since the tiny nation of Moldova is wedged between the Ukraine and Romania--and its home to so-called Christian-Turkic peoples, the Chuvash and the Gagauz.

So you have these Turkic peoples in a nation bridging the Ukraine and Romania. And where's Hungary? --Right next to Romania.

These--along with the Finnish, as well--are all purely European nations with so-called Turkic languages (imposed on them by elites). If you examine it dispassionately, you see a very discernable pattern.

My only point was: you can have fully European people claiming to be Turkic--a claim based more on language than dna.

[praetorian]

JESUS H CHRIST!!!

Droop, you have gone too far mayne....Hungarian isn't Turkish..it's Finno-Ugric! In the past people talked about the connection between Hungarian and Turkish, but it has beend debunked.
Turks aren't darker than Greeks, Southern Italians and Iberians...they are on the same latitude! Only their features are somewhat different, difference which gets smaller and smaller the further east you go, being pratically non-existant between Greeks and Turks. Saying that the ancestors of some Turks came from somewhere else doesn't matter, that's common to most people. Most turks are "turkified anatolians" who have been there for millenia. Crimea is just on the other side of the Black sea, and the Crimean Turks look different from Ukranians.
What's a fully European person? What's an European? Of course Turkic is a linguistic designation..and european is a geographical one...pretty much irrelevant when it comes to ethnicity and race.

Also much of what you say are myths, folclore tales and unproved theories. The phenotype of the original turks is not know, though most people bet on a mongoloid one, which was mixed with caucasoid after they invaded Central Asia? Is this true? I don't know...
Does this matter for the issue at hand? Certainly not. We are talking about Anatolians, as they are today.

[tyrannos]

The Huns and Magyars were a Turkic people. They mostly gave Hungary its current language.

[praetorian]

Magyars were NOT Turkic. Huns yes.

[drooperdoo]

Praetorian,
You're blurring two different things I've said, and mixing them up together.

In discussing Crimean Tatars, I'm not talking about Turkey whatsoever.

Two totally different nations, with entirely different backgrounds.

Crimea has zero connection to Anatolia or Anatolians.

But speaking of Anatolia---

I never said that Anatolians couldn't pass for Greek. In fact--if you'd read some of the other threads I've posted on--you'd have seen me call Greeks "ethnic Anatolians," because they are. Greeks emerged from Anatolia--and later moved to mainland Greece. Even within the modern era, most of their famous city-states [like Ephesus] were in Anatolia. The Battle of Troy--a war between two Hellenic peoples--also takes place in Anatolia. And, of course, all of Anatolia was once called "Phrygia," which is a branch of the Greek race.
So I never said that "Anatolians" couldn't pass for Greeks. In my opinion, they're the same people--Greeks are just "Europeanized Anatolians" and people from Turkey are "Turkified Anatolians".
In reality, if you strip away their superficial language-differences, you'll see that they're the same people.

But this brings me back to the wider phenomenon which I was discussing in relation to the other European peoples who were "Turkified". They're Turkic in language, but not in dna. This rule also applies to Turkey itself--it's an ancient Indo-European land [the land of the Phrygians, the Hittites, the Trojans] which has [within recent historical time] been brainwashed to view itself as "Turkic".

What do the genetics say? Do Anatolians cluster closer to Greeks or to Mongols?

I think we all know the answer--and I think we can all agree that the proposition that any of these nations are "Turkic" in anything but language is a bunch of hooey.

* Footnote: One must never lose sight of the Ottoman Empire as an explanation of the phenotypical differences between modern-day "Turks". If you have a man whose ancestors are from the Ukraine [when the Ottoman Empire stretched up that far] he's not going to look the same as, say, a man whose ancestors are Armenian, or Kurdish--or even Chechyn. These are all very different types--from Mediterranean, to Armenoid to Pontic. I happen to think that Yolas, for instance, bears a Pontic stamp. That makes sense when you learn that his ancestry lies in the Crimea.

[tyrannos]

Magyars were subdivision of the Turks,even in language.

[praetorian]

What do you mean no connection between Anatolia and Crimean?? It's right on the other side of the sea!!! A small sea might I had. More than once people whent from the coast of Anatolia to Crimea..like Greeks and Turks..So of course there are connections.

But really what's your point? You know this debate started when it was asked if those Armenians could pass as Turks. I am quite sure they can, and a Turk here says so.
You then said how Turks were dark and non-european. Which isn't really true.

[drooperdoo]

Praetorian's right about my calling Finnish and Hungarian "Turkic". That's what I get for reading 19th Century books, lol.

In any case, here's a cool language map:



Note the peninsula that sticks into the Black Sea in the north: that's the realm of the Cimmerians--the people who gave their name to Crimea. Crimson Guard was right about leaging them with the Thracians and Dacians. They populated the region that Yolas' ancestors came from. That's why I said that, in all probability, his ancestors were just Turkified Cimmerians.

[praetorian]

Again...people aren't sure what magyars were, but most scientists agree on them being Finno-Ugric and most of the evidence of them being hunnic/turkic is old legendary tales.

Yes, cool map indeed..But what's the time frame? Iberia wasn't like that...Iberian languages were in the south and Celtoid ones mostly in the north...Corsica and Sardinia also had relations with Iberian I believe.



And only some of yolas ancestors came from crimea..and they were turks..different from the Ukranians...the Cimerian blood they must have is most likely negligeble. Just because they gave their name to it, doesn't mean the place was swarming with them. Iberians only lived in a small part of the Iberian Peninsula.

It doesn't matter if Turks of today have many or few foreing ancestors, they all are Turks. And even the "original" ones are basically Meds with some Eastern influences (the hook nosed Capadoccian type), or Armenoid influences. A look you can find in some places of Europe, like Greece. Therefore it is "European".

[drooperdoo]

Praetorian,
You wondered at my statement that Crimea has zilch to do with Anatolia--and you said, "They're right across the sea from each other!"

But here's the hitch: You're still equating Anatolia with "Turkey". Anatolia is not Turkey, nor historically is it one iota Turkic.

Once you stop superimposing the present on the past, you realize that--across the Black Sea from the Crimea--youd be in an Indo-European land--the land of the Hittites, the Phrygians, the Trojans, etc.

Anatolia had nothing to do with anything Turkic.

That would come much, much later.

The differences between the people of the Crimea and Anatolia are even deeper when you realize that even the common denominator of "Turkic" peoples invading is skewed because Turkic tribes went west into Southern Russia and the Ukraine; and different--and unrelated--Turkic tribes [at a wholly different time-period] went into Anatolia, which then took to calling itself "Turkey".

So that's why I said that they were only superficially related in terms of modern historical times--and before then scarcely related at all.

* Footnote: A better case can be made for a common Hellenic identity. The Cimmerians, for instance, are related to the Thracians--a quasi-Greek culture. The Hellenic people called the Trojans are said to have descended from the Thracians. So the Black Sea was populated by proto-Hellenic people from before neolithic times--a connection bolstered even further with all the Hellenic colonization of the Black Sea in Antiquity. Likewise, Anatolia was "Hellenic," too--and had been for a far longer period than it was ever "Turkic". We're talking millennia stacked upon millennia. So--as I said--one could make a stronger case for a common Hellenic strain in Crimeans and Anatolians, a pan-Greek connection. The Byzantine Empire held sway over both places, too--which is why, for instance, the Russian Orthodox church is based on the Greek orthodox church, and why the Russian alphabet is based on the Greek. "Russian" names like Mikhail and Demetri are also or Greek provenance.
So this whole Black Sea/Southern Russian region was held together by a pan-Hellenic identity.
The Ottoman Empire supplanted the Byzantine, and held almost the same lands--from the Ukraine to the Mediterranean. So now all these lands have been stricken with amnesia, their Hellenic roots blotted out and effaced--much as an Egyptian king would deface the monuments of a predecessor and claim someone else's victory's as his own. It happened historically in the Ottoman take-over of the Byzantine world--and now the placard reads: Unified by a common Turkic identity, where once it read "Unified by a common Greek identity".