Priscus at the court of Attila the Huns

[Soldier of Macedon]

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir "
M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia and they are Turkmen Yörük "
M. Kemal Ataturk

I doubt very much that Kemal was fully Turkmen. His mother was Macedonian by origin, his father was probably Turkish, Albanian or a combination of both. See below:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=457&page=8

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=457&page=9

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860057-2,00.html

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/ww1/blythe.html

[Ottoman]

You can doubt it all you want but he said those words.

[George S.]

SOM you are absolutely right,That's another myth busted by TM.The Father of All the Turks (who left no legitimate heirs) was born in 1881 in Salonika, then part of the Ottoman Empire, of a mild Albanian father and a forceful Macedonian mother.

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/ww1/blythe.html

He was of solid peasant stock of Albanian and Macedonian origins; he had pale blue eyes and light hair and coloring.

Just because he was the Father of the Turks does not mean he was ethnically Turkish. Another example of a "father figure" would be modern "greece's" own Rigas Velenstinlis who was a Vlach by ethnicity.

[Ottoman]

Ataturk was NOT Macedonian or Albanian, that are claims without any evidence, these are words spoken from Ataturks own mouth, several people witnessed these words.

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir "
M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia and they are Turkmen Yörük "
M.Kemal Atatürk

and according to Falih Rıfkı Atay, Ali Rıza's roots have come from Söke in Aydın Province. His mother Zübeyde is thought to be of Turkish and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, her roots have come from Turkoman (Türkmen) and in his family, there was roumor that they have come of Yörük.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26124 <<< read this link for more info.

YouTube - Proof: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was Yörük Turkmen! True Origins

Even if Ataturk was an Macedonian Albanian I ask myself this question; what has he ever done for your people? just nothing.

Ataturk declared himself as a Turk and he gave us Turks the greatest gift.

But as I posted many times before he is Turkmen, its just end of discussion for me.

[Onur]

It`s pointless to investigate Ataturk`s bloodline since he was born in a time and place where there was no difference between Macedonian, Albanian or Turkish muslims. This is even against Ataturk`s conception of patriotism and nationalism. He had never questioned people`s bloodline as long as they are Turkish in terms of ideas and this is still valid in today`s Turkey since there is no difference at all between myself and my Bosnian or Macedonian friends here in Izmir.

So, even if Ataturk would be Macedonian or Albanian, he served to Turkey in the end and he is more Turkish to me than someone with pure Turk blood from central Asia. There is no such a thing either since Turks never consisted of people with exact same bloodline even 1000+ years ago. Actually every society in the world is like that except some isolated tribes like Aborigines but they prefer to hide it unlike Turks. Turks doesn't hide cuz we are perfectly comfortable with it since big majority of Turkish people doesn't give any importance to bloodlines.

Racism never became an important factor among Turkish people throughout history and i believe this is the most advanced expression of nationalism unlike the primitive one with racism.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It`s pointless to investigate Ataturk`s bloodline since he was born in a time and place where there was no difference between Macedonian, Albanian or Turkish muslims........even if Ataturk would be Macedonian or Albanian, he served to Turkey in the end and he is more Turkish to me than someone with pure Turk blood from central Asia.

Ataturk was NOT Macedonian or Albanian, that are claims without any evidence, these are words spoken from Ataturks own mouth, several people witnessed these words..............Even if Ataturk was an Macedonian Albanian I ask myself this question; what has he ever done for your people? just nothing. Ataturk declared himself as a Turk and he gave us Turks the greatest gift.

Ottoman, perhaps Onur can teach you a few lessons in manners, because your messages are similar, but the way they are conveyed differ markedly. You're unreasonable and confrontational, unnecessarily. Don't mistake the general collective of members here as an enemy, but at the same time, remember that you are at a forum where Macedonians are a majority, so a bit of diplomacy on your part wouldn't be harmful either.

Personally, I am only interested in the historical side of the matter. I am not going claim that Kemal was "a" Macedonian, but he does appear to have a Macedonian heritage from his mother's side (she may also have been mixed with Turkish or Albanian), and that I will claim. In the quote that is provided above he speaks of his ancestors, but he doesn't refer to all of his ancestry. Part of the heritage of his father, mother or grandparents may very well have been Turkmen, however, given his life and origins in Macedonia and the sources claiming so, to discount the likely possibility of Kemal being part Macedonian is ludicrous. Of course, his actions were for the betterment of the Turkish people, and despite the discussion about his background, nobody here is disputing that he identified and lived as a Turk (which may suggest that the his father was Turkish and not Albanian, or mixed). Here is what Andrew Mango writes, as quoted in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa...rk#cite_note-4

Atatürk's parents and relatives all used Turkish as their mother tongue. This suggests that some at least of their ancestors had originally come from Turkey, since local Muslims of Albanian and Slav origin who had no ethnic connection with Turkey spoke Albanian, Serbo-Croat or Bulgarian* (or Macedonian: my note), at least so long as they remained in their native land., But in looks Ataturk resembled local Albanians and Slavs.[...] But there is no evidence that either Ali Riza or Zübeyde was descended from such Turkish nomads. page 28; It is much more likely that Atatürk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors.[...] But Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors.

[Ottoman]

Just find me something where Ataturk clearly states he has Macedonian roots, he doesnt mention this once in his lifetime, he may have Slavic roots because of his hair and eye colour, Ataturk was only educated in Macedonia, there is nothing else bonding him to Macedonia.

By the way Ataturk was against the Ottoman imperial house, he exiled the last sultan.

[Delodephius]

Good post Astibo, one thing I would note is that the group of languages should be named under the umbrella term of Ural-Altaic, as not all of them are Turkic.

In my opinion, the proto-people of the Ural-Altaic group were no doubt 'eastern-oriental' looking, for want of a better word. However, it is clear that there was an increase of inter-racial mixing with 'western-caucasian' looking people the further west they travelled. Once they integrated with the larger local populations of their current destinations in Anatolia, central Europe and Scandinavia, many, if not most, came to resemble the locals themsleves, while retaining some elements of their ancestry. Those that live between the old and new homelands share features of both to varying degrees.

Actually SoM, the presence of Uralic peoples in what is today Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia and almost entire European and part of Asian northern Russia precedes the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Europe. It is actually an established fact that Uralic people were the first people to settle these northern parts right after the Ice Age. There is no discontinuity in archaeological findings in Uralic speaking areas since at least the Mesolithic period. At the map I posted on the PBPBS threat the grey area above the coloured IE ones was inhabited by the Uralic peoples since the stone age. They were most likely the first settlers of Europe who moved north periodically as the glaciers retreated and the Indo-Europeans followed behind them from the south. The Proto-Uralic language can be reconstructed going back up to 7 millennium BC.

I was always curious why Uralic peoples are mostly blond or brown haired with blue eyes, but the stereotype of them being Asian looking came from biased sources linking them to the Turks. I would say that Uralic peoples are more European than the Indo-Europeans being here before them and all.

The Hungarians originally lived in the most southern part of the Uralic area and were the only Uralic people to adopt a nomadic life (well, except the northernmost Sami people who migrate with their reindeer), most likely under the influence of Iranic or Turkic peoples from the south. To my knowledge the Ural-Altaic theory has almost been completely rejected, and what remains of it is an idea in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic theories, but even there the Uralic and Altaic languages are not linked specifically just to one another but rather as a part of a macrofamily that includes other language families as well, like Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic and so on.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Actually SoM, the presence of Uralic peoples in what is today Scandinavia, Finland, Estonia and almost entire European and part of Asian northern Russia precedes the arrival of Indo-Europeans into Europe. It is actually an established fact that Uralic people were the first people to settle these northern parts right after the Ice Age. There is no discontinuity in archaeological findings in Uralic speaking areas since at least the Mesolithic period. At the map I posted on the PBPBS threat the grey area above the coloured IE ones was inhabited by the Uralic peoples since the stone age. They were most likely the first settlers of Europe who moved north periodically as the glaciers retreated and the Indo-Europeans followed behind them from the south. The Proto-Uralic language can be reconstructed going back up to 7 millennium BC.

Ok Slovak, I am open to the above as I haven't researched it as much as you have.

I was always curious why Uralic peoples are mostly blond or brown haired with blue eyes, but the stereotype of them being Asian looking came from biased sources linking them to the Turks.

Why do you think they were linked to Turks in certain sources?

To my knowledge the Ural-Altaic theory has almost been completely rejected, and what remains of it is an idea in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic theories, but even there the Uralic and Altaic languages are not linked specifically just to one another but rather as a part of a macrofamily that includes other language families as well, like Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic and so on.

Aren't there some features that are only shared by languages in the suggested 'Ural-Altaic' theory, such as being agglutinative? Or do they not all share this feature? How would you explain the other similarities between Turkic and Hungarian, for example, in that comparative sentence that Onur has posted a few times?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Just find me something where Ataturk clearly states he has Macedonian roots, he doesnt mention this once in his lifetime.......

He doesn't have to mention it. A logical interpretation of the facts and sources would lead to this conclusion, in spite of your personal views.

.........he may have Slavic roots because of his hair and eye colour

No such thing as 'Slavic' roots, it's a language, not an ethnicity. And the Slavic-speaking peoples in Macedonia are the Macedonians. So you've just contradicted yourself.

Ataturk was only educated in Macedonia, there is nothing else bonding him to Macedonia

Testament of your ignorance.

[Delodephius]

Why do you think they were linked to Turks in certain sources?

Well the only Uralic people that have been linked or presented as Turks were the Hungarians, since like the Turkic peoples they were first nomads and had a somewhat similar culture and a sounding language like the Turkic peoples. But this only goes for the Hungarians. Other Uralic peoples, except maybe those who lived on the Turkic border have anything similar with the Turkic peoples.

Aren't there some features that are only shared by languages in the suggested 'Ural-Altaic' theory, such as being agglutinative? Or do they not all share this feature? How would you explain the other similarities between Turkic and Hungarian, for example, in that comparative sentence that Onur has posted a few times?

There are many agglutinative languages out there, like Dravidian languages, Sumerian, most Mesoamerican languages, etc. You'll need to read a comparative study of Uralic and Altaic languages. As for vocabulary, I've read that the only similarity that exists is with Hungarian and these are most likely borrowings. From the 200 or so reconstructed Proto-Uralic words that are common for all Uralic languages none of them have cognates in Turkic languages.

Which Onur's examples?

[Onur]

Well the only Uralic people that have been linked or presented as Turks were the Hungarians, since like the Turkic peoples they were first nomads and had a somewhat similar culture and a sounding language like the Turkic peoples. But this only goes for the Hungarians. Other Uralic peoples, except maybe those who lived on the Turkic border have anything similar with the Turkic peoples.

The other so-called Uralic peoples like Finns, Estonians migrated from Eurasia too but they were living close to Siberia, kinda separated from other Eurasian people like Turks, Hungarians who lived in southern side, around today`s Ukraine, Kazakhstan. But ofc they use similar language as ours and Turkic have few 100 common words with Estonian&Finnish language. Our grammar rules are already mostly same.


Turks and Hungarians have more common things cuz when the ancestors of Hungarians seperated from Khazar empire and migrated in to the Panonia, they were consisted of 8-9 tribes. It`s known that 3-4 of these tribes was Turkic like Szekely and Csango. Also, they created Hungary on top of the ~400 year old Avar Turkic state. Then in 13th century, Turkic Cumans and Pechenegs seek refuge in Hungary because of Mongol advancements of Ghengis Khan. They consisted about 30% of Hungary`s total population and they had autonomy inside Hungary from 13th century to 18th century named Kunsag, Cumania and their autonomy abolished after they fully integrated into Hungarian people and lost their original Turkic language. Today, they only know few songs with Turkic lyrics remained from their medieval day.

In a documentary for Turkish tv, they have gone to the Hungarian villages and recorded one of their old songs Cuman Turkic. Here it is, red one is Cuman Turkic, blue is Turkish. I can easily understand his Turkic;
YouTube - &#x202a;Hun-Kuman Prayer from Hungary (with Lyrics)&#x202c;&rlm;



Also, for about the first ~200 years of Hungary, these people was known as Turks and Panonia was named as Tourkia. Most lprobably, because their ruling core was Turkic while they were still Tengrist shamans. Only after most of them converted as christians, they started to be known as Magyars. If they wouldn't be Turkic speaking, why they would be crowned as "king of Turks and Tourkia"?? I`ve wrote a msg about this b4;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=100899&postcount=101

There are many agglutinative languages out there, like Dravidian languages, Sumerian, most Mesoamerican languages, etc. You'll need to read a comparative study of Uralic and Altaic languages. As for vocabulary, I've read that the only similarity that exists is with Hungarian and these are most likely borrowings. From the 200 or so reconstructed Proto-Uralic words that are common for all Uralic languages none of them have cognates in Turkic languages.

Which Onur's examples?

The similarities between Hungarian and Turkic is not only agglutinative suffixes. There are many more than that. Yes Hungarian has about ~4000 Turkic words today but these are not Ottoman era borrowings like in Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian. In Hungarian language, the words of some human body parts, organs, some animals, most of horse riding terminology, most of agriculture terms are Turkic. I mean, in Serbian language, there are borek, bahcha, musluk but in Hungarian language, words for vegetables like apple, barley, wheat are Turkic. You dont think like Hungarians learned the apple from 16th century Ottoman era, do you?

There are few 100 examples of common Turkic-Hungarian early medieval words here;

http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/turkic1.html

And this was my message here from last year, SOM was talking about this;

You took these words in Ottoman era like Serbs, Bosnians, Greeks did but there is one interesting fact about Hungarian language like this. There is a famous sentence to indicate similarity between Hungarian and Turkish;

English; I have a lot of small yellow apples in my pocket

Turkish; Cebimde cok kucuk sari elma var

Hungarian; Zsebemben sok kicsi sarga alma van


If you don't believe, copy&paste these and translate to English in google


It`s a striking example and ofc the word order is same in both languages. Hungarians didn't adopt these words from us in Ottoman era unlike you did. They adopted these words in era of the Hun Empire and/or Khazar Empire(4th to 9th century or earlier) because Ottoman Empire took control of Hungary at 16th century and it`s impossible that they learned these Turkish words for "apple, pocket" from us as late as 16th century. Also some grammatical suffixes and words like "who, whose, whom..." are similar too, so it cannot be 16th century borrowings. 16th century, Ottoman era adoptions in Hungarian language are quite same as yours like Boza, borek, charsi etc.

Also a lot of agriculture and horse riding terminology in current Hungarian language are Turkish words too.


English - Turkish - Hungarian
Whose book - Kimin kitabi - Kinek könyve
Who - Kim - Ki
Many - Cok - Sok
Little - kucuk - kicsi
With whom - Kiminle - Kivel

Apple - elma - alma
My apple - elma(m) - alma(m)
My apples - elma(larim) - alma(im)



http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/turkic1.html

If you read my message here. You can see same grammatical features as with Turkic-Hungarian in old Bulgarian language (NOT old church slavic but Bulgar Turkic);

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=63393&postcount=15

[Delodephius]

You dont think like Hungarians learned the apple from 16th century Ottoman era, do you?

Well, your entire article is following an underlying idea that I'm an ignorant pro-Westerner, so I'm just not going to answer.

[Onur]

Well, your entire article is following an underlying idea that I'm an ignorant pro-Westerner, so I'm just not going to answer.

No, i didn't imply that. That was only a question to you cuz you said that Turkic words in Hungarian can only be Ottoman borrowings just as in other Balkan languages.

I think you are using that as an excuse and you prefer not to respond cuz what i wrote here contradicts your mostly imaginary thoughts and ideas. Just like the map you`ve posted in other thread with pretty absurd claims like Germanic languages existed in Europe for 3000-5000 years and it wasn't the aglo-saxons who bring it first in England.

It`s obvious that you have some interest to these issues but i see that you ignore some historical facts if it`s not suitable for your own ideology and you start to create your own imaginary thoughts in place of those, like your claims of "existence of Germanic languages in western Europe for 3000-5000 years"!!!

[Delodephius]

No, i didn't imply that. That was only a question to you cuz you said that Turkic words in Hungarian can only be Ottoman borrowings just as in other Balkan languages.

Actually I didn't say that. I thought I was pretty clear saying Hungarian borrowings from Turkic languages were from before their arrival into the Pannonian plain.

I think you are using that as an excuse and you prefer not to respond cuz what i wrote here contradicts your mostly imaginary thoughts and ideas.

I prefer not to respond because I feel that it would be too exhaustive for me to debate something I'm only a bit interested in, and even less if the people who I'm responding to are someone I don't like.

"existence of Germanic languages in western Europe for 3000-5000 years"

I'm actually saying it's since the Mesolithic period, so about 10.000 years. You wouldn't understand why, since I already tested you on some of the key points you would need to know to understand it. You can however change that if you start with reading these in order:

http://www.continuitas.org

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com

http://www.proto-english.org

Call me arrogant, but I know from experience that one cannot debate with someone else if both don't understand the other's knowledge.