Are the Hazara people unique, in looking racially distinct from the groups around them, in terms of the societies of Afro-Eurasia?

Apr 2017
1,180
U.S.A.
#21
One wonders if the Turks originally looked more like Kazakhs before they intermarried with Anatolia's population.
Turks, Kazaks and other Turkic peoples presumably all looked like mongols originally. The previous inhabitants of central asia were the Scythians/Saka people, some of which were said to be blonde. When the Turkic peoples began to move west they displaced and intermingled with them, which is why the central Asians have a mixed Asian appearance.
The Yakuts (or Sakha as they prefer) are a Turkic people in Siberia that look very east Asian in appearance. Alternatively you could argue they mingled with Siberian natives to gain that appearance.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,044
SoCal
#22
Turks, Kazaks and other Turkic peoples presumably all looked like mongols originally. The previous inhabitants of central asia were the Scythians/Saka people, some of which were said to be blonde. When the Turkic peoples began to move west they displaced and intermingled with them, which is why the central Asians have a mixed Asian appearance.
The Yakuts (or Sakha as they prefer) are a Turkic people in Siberia that look very east Asian in appearance. Alternatively you could argue they mingled with Siberian natives to gain that appearance.
Interesting information.

BTW, did the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz intermingle less with the previous Central Asian population than the Uzbeks and Turkmen did? Kyrgyz and especially Kazakhs look much more Mongoloid than Uzbeks and Turkmen look.
 
Apr 2017
1,180
U.S.A.
#23
Interesting information.

BTW, did the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz intermingle less with the previous Central Asian population than the Uzbeks and Turkmen did? Kyrgyz and especially Kazakhs look much more Mongoloid than Uzbeks and Turkmen look.
Presumably, yes. The areas that are now Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were once very prosperous trade cities, Samarkand, Bukhara, Tashkent and others were much more important than they were now. As a result the population would be larger by comparison than Kazakhstan (mostly open plains) and Kyrgyzstan (remote mountainous locale).
Edit: So more mingling and less Asian appearance.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,044
SoCal
#24
Presumably, yes. The areas that are now Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were once very prosperous trade cities, Samarkand, Bukhara, Tashkent and others were much more important than they were now. As a result the population would be larger by comparison than Kazakhstan (mostly open plains) and Kyrgyzstan (remote mountainous locale). So less mingling and less Asian appearance.
You mean more mingling for the Uzbeks and Turkmen, no?
 
Jul 2014
1,575
world
#27
Interesting information.

BTW, did the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz intermingle less with the previous Central Asian population than the Uzbeks and Turkmen did? Kyrgyz and especially Kazakhs look much more Mongoloid than Uzbeks and Turkmen look.
I have always wondered why the kirghiz stayed true to their roots and remained mostly nomadic compared to the Uzbeks who are also an old Turkic confederacy. Kazakhs are a relatively new tribal confederation and though they speak turkish their mongol heritage is very large. The Kazakhs and Kirghiz are perhaps have the only nomadic people left in Turkish ethnic group. The rest are settled people now.

Can anyone answer why Kirghiz remained nomadic and non islamic till late in history ? They are at least 1200 years old and still have many pagan rituals. They along with the Yugurs and Tuvans have the only Buddhist Turks among them.
 
Likes: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,180
U.S.A.
#28
I have always wondered why the kirghiz stayed true to their roots and remained mostly nomadic compared to the Uzbeks who are also an old Turkic confederacy. Kazakhs are a relatively new tribal confederation and though they speak turkish their mongol heritage is very large. The Kazakhs and Kirghiz are perhaps have the only nomadic people left in Turkish ethnic group. The rest are settled people now.

Can anyone answer why Kirghiz remained nomadic and non islamic till late in history ? They are at least 1200 years old and still have many pagan rituals. They along with the Yugurs and Tuvans have the only Buddhist Turks among them.
Islam was introduced to the Kyrgyz as far back as the 8the century but it didn't become dominant until the 19th century, a century after they had been driven to their current location, which was much more Islamic in culture.
 
Jul 2017
208
Neverland
#29
Hazar(hazer) in Persian means Thousand. Upon successfully exterminating the population of a city, the mongols will leave
1000 soldiers and 1000 of the prettiest girls of the destroyed city. The mongols were the rear guard, while the turks were the forward units in battle. Both mongols and turks were Asian looking.

Present day Northern Afghanistan is also known as afghani Turkestan, although they speak now east iranic dialect.
The original population were mostly iranic scythians(saka) with some greek admixture from Alexander's days.
The original population met its doomsday at the hands of Genghis' tyumens in 1220-1221.

Only one of the original ethnicities managed to establish a country, still in existence today by previous emigrations. Another scythians from former Bactria still reside in the Caucasus, although as an authonomous region.
 
Apr 2019
2
Brooklyn, New York
#30
Hazaras more than certainly are easily distinguished from peripheral groups. However, it is a motley. There are some Hazaras that can fit quite well with the local Iranic population (Pashtuns, Baloch, and Brahui). At least, the case in Pakistan is that they generally stick out from the aforementioned groups. In some areas of Afghanistan where there exists elevated mongoloid mixture, Hazaras may not be that odd at all.
 

Similar History Discussions