What happened with Turkic migration? How did it impact the world? did the populations that go to Europe assimilate into Europeans? Did Turks do a mass migration into Anatolia in history? Are Amerindians related to Turks?
Both "when did the first man step into america" and "what was the first turkic people to move out of their homeland in modern mongolia" are tricky questions we can't really awnser. The both generated a lot of debate, and I'm not knowledgeable about the subject to take part on it. That's why I just said hundreds as in "a lot".
But yeah, I could've said thousands.
No. Mongols are more related to turkic peoples, them both originating from the same place and having similar cultures and languages. Too much time separates them both from amerindians to claim they're related, it wouldn't be truer than saying amerindians are related to the chinese.
It's more complicated. There was indeed a lot of turkic groups moving into certain parts Anatolia (and Azerbaijan, by the way). It's just that nomadic peoples are rarely big enough in numbers to replace the locals, often they just assimilate and rarely they manage to get their language to become the dominant one (like it happened in this case). Genetically those peoples of azerbaijan and turkey share more with the non-turkic peoples who lived there in ancient times.
So was Central Asia (i.e the area of the modern *stans) genetically white before the Turkic migrations? I know that the area was the historical homeland of the Indo-European/Iranian tribes, but was there already some mixing going on before the Turkic languages and culture started expanding post AD?
>but was there already some mixing going on before the Turkic languages and culture started expanding post AD?
Yeap. Ancient Chinks noted it. (i.e. Yuezhi. Some cunts looked white, some didn't).
>Did Turks do a mass migration into Anatolia in history?
Unless you see the establishment of the Sultanate of Rum and other states as some sort of rebellion against central authority by a population that had been Muslim, Turkish and pastoralist for an unspecified time before Manzikert, the only reasonable conclusion is that there in fact was a mass migration of Turks into Anatolia that brought a radical transformation to all aspects of Anatolian life over the course of the 12th and 13th centuries.
>I thought the Yuezhi were Tocharians, who were portrayed as tall, red haired blue-eyed barbarians?
Tocharians were in around what is now the Tarim Basin
Yuezhi were from the North of that and migrated southwards into Bactria following them being buttfucked by the Xiongnu Altaics.
Here's the basic model that's emerged out of population genetics on the last few years:
>25K BC, basically four Eurasian populations: north (siberia), south (india and se asia), east (china and surrounding areas along the pacific), west (middle east and europe)
>~22K BC, ancient north eurasian (ANE) expansion begins, driven by improved blade making; they intermingle with various other populations and no longer exist as a distinct group
~12-10K BC ANE+east-asian mixed population (very roughly 50-50) settles the americas. american indians descend from them.
indo-europeans form in the south of russia as basically a european caucasoid group with ANE admixture. the origins of uralics, turks, mongols are a little more unclear, but they seem to be mostly east asian plus some indo-european affinity
ca. 3K BC: indo-european expansion, massive population replacement in europe, especially the north and east. IEs also move into central asia, basically from the caspian to xinjiang and western mongolia. early indo-iranics are one branch of this expansion, probably coming from the corded ware culture that is also ancestral to balto-slavic peoples and languages.
ca. 500 AD--turkic-speaker expansion into central asia. modern turkic central-asian people form, basically a 50-50 mixture of IE and east asians.
He probably did that to include hungarians, maybe even finns, into the equation.
He probably should have said something like "steppe nomads", that sounds less proffesional but also includes the iranian migrators.
Not him but most land that used to be dominated by celtic peoples (spain, britain, france) are genetically distinct from north and east europe (the parts where he says the replacement happened).
Not saying he is right (or wrong) though.
The word for horse in Finnish hepo/hevonen is indeed Indo-European, however most of the other horse-related words like hoof and some of the equipment names seem to be Proto-Germanic loaned in and around Finland.
I thought it might be more of a basal IE word, but actually, on second thought, it seems to also come from an archaic Germanic source.
So, linguistically there is no real support for any early steppe nomad culture for Uralics.
It kinda makes sense considering where most of them they lived. While people associates East Russia with steppes, that's false. It's mostly Taiga, specially the parts historically inhabitated by the ancestors of the finns.
Forests and marshes are not the best place for a horse nomadic culture to be born, to be honest.
Today's Hungary is a big plain, Anantolia is more montainous actually
There are still pockets of Indo-European people in Central Asia, but it's too few for what was once their own homeland.
That's Pakistan/Afghanistan. The population there is still more Caucasoid than Mongoloid.
The Tajik people of Tajikistan is also Indo-European. In fact, they used to be numerous in other Central Asian countries too, where most urban dwellers identified as "Tajiks", until the Soviets decided that this was anti-revolutionary and it would be better if the urban dwellers of the Soviet republics identified with the general population of the republic, so the Tajiks of Uzbekistan where forced to become Uzbeks.
That's the kind of cultural genocide that gets a pass because the perpretators are communists, and communists always have the sympathy of academic historians for whatever they do.
Genetic studies from the last few years have shown a clear population replacement in the Late Neolithic favoring populations related to the Yamnaya Kurgan and Corded Ware cultures. See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n751Gimbutas' more far-out stuff about muh peaceful matriarchy has been thrown out, but the Steppe Hypothesis of IE origins has basically been confirmed.
One of the first products of the invasions was the formation of the Bell Beaker Culture in Central Europe. The Italic, Celtic, and Germanic languages, which seem to form some sort of subfamily within IE, are probably descended from the Bell Beaker language. The Kurganid admixture in Basques, the source of the predominant R1b1a2 Y-DNA lineage, probably also ccomes through the Bell Beakers. The Corded Culture produced the Balts and Slavs, as well as the invaders that brought IE to India and Iran. The Germanics, particularly in Scandinavia and eastern Germany, had a clear Corded Ware substrate genetically and culturally, but Germanic languages are most likely from a Bell Beaker source.
Greeks, Armenians, and Albanians are IE but harder to pin down beyond that.
Finns/Karelians/Estonians look to be mostly Corded Ware genetically and there seems to be some old IE linguistic influence that's not from Germanic.
Plenty of ethnic groups have had far worse done to them and no one gives a shit, I don't know why you're so angry at Soviets. Also it's odd that Tajiks despite being the easternmost of the Iranian people speak a language related to Persian, a Western Iranian language. Goes in hand in hand with the co-existence of Dari with Pashto, I suppose.
They look exotic from a Western perspective because they have a somewhat rarer phenotype (at least in the cultural consciousness) that looks like a mix between lighter Nordics and darker Mediterraneans.
Cool thread guys!
Actually yeah we do. Thank god that I live in an area which has hills and forests. The steppe part of the country would drive me crazy. No trees, nearly no houses, just flatness and grass. Made me feel dizzy when I went there. But also its fuckin beautiful at the same time.