The supporters of the traditional historical science present Türks only as Mongoloids and from that deduct incorrect conclusions. For example, Altai or Central Asia usually is considered the ancestral home of the Türks. But some of them, finding in the most ancient layer of this region non-Mongoloid skulls, assert that ostensibly in these regions before the arrival there of the Türks also lived Indo-Europeans. It results in a paradoxical situation: the traditional historical science on one hand accords the Türkic ancestral home, and on another hand takes it away. As a result, because of labeling of the Türks as Mongoloids only, the Türks are left without a place of formation, as though they fell from outer space. In reality, the non-Mongoloid skulls found by archeologists in the most ancient layers of Altai and Central Asia only prove that the Türks from the very beginning were both Mongoloids, and non-Mongoloids.
Among the modern Türkic-speaking peoples non-Mongoloids are in incomparable majority. From this fact the traditionalists deduct that Mongoloid nomad Türks, moving into the territory of the settled peoples, quite quickly Türkicized them linguistically, but did not have time to transfer to them their Mongoloidness. For confirmation of this postulate the authors of this idea had even concocted a justification: it appears that Türkic language is very easy to master.
So, in the opinion of the traditionalists, i.e. the supporters of the Eurocentrism, in the Kazakhstan, Western Siberia, Central Asia, Ural-Itil region, in Caucasus and N.Pontic lived only Iranian-lingual Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans-Ases, Kwarezmians, Sogdians, Parthians (Pardes), Tochars, Kushans, Usuns, but in the 4th c. here came the Türkic-speaking Huns, in the 6th century came Türks, and by the 7th century the local Iranian-lingual peoples were linguistically assimilated. It comes out that the modern Türkic-speaking non-Mongoloid peoples of these regions are not successors of the ancient Hunno-Türks, but are descendants of the Indo-Europeans who changed their native language, under the influence of the Türks, to the Türkic. "Before the intrusion of the Huns' hordes into the steppe of N.Pontic and Caspian, in the Middle and Lower Volga region and in the steppes of Northern Caucasus undividedly dominated Indo-Europeans, the Sarmatian tribe, sounded the Iranian speech, - wrote Ya.A.Fedorov and G.S.Fedorov, and continue, - The movement of the Türkic-speaking tribes in the Huns' advance on the West, their partial settlement in the steppes, creation in the 6th century of the Türkic, and in the 7th century of the Khazar Kaganates put an end to the Sarmatian domination. The Türkic speech superseded Iranian and spread not only in the Azov-Caspian steppes, but also in Caucasus down to the foothills" [Fedorov Ya.A., Fedorov G.S., 1978, 6-7]. So, it turns out, appeared Bulgaro-Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Dobrudjian Tatars, Bashkirs, Nohays, Kumyks, Karachays and Balkars, all Türkic by language, but not Türkic by their anthropological type. Even the Turks, it turns out, appeared by forming as a result of Turkization by the Sekjuks of the local Indo-European tribes.
In a serious consideration becomes clear rather fast the wrongness of such concept of the formation of many so-called non-Mongoloid Türks. The history has plenty of examples when newcomers, i.e. not just the immigrants, but even strong conquerors who created states on the conquered territory, assimilate among local peoples. For example, the German-speaking Francs conquered the territory of Gallo-Romans, in the 11th century created the state of Francs, but soon assimilated among the local Gallo-Romans, and as a result created local French people with the German newcomer's ethnonym Francs.
In the 7th century AD the Türkic-speaking Bulgars came to one of Danube regions where by that time the majority of the population were Slavic-speaking tribes, and created the Bulgarian Türkic state, but in a few generations they assimilated among Slavs. As a result was formed the Slavic-speaking Bulgarian people. Similar examples show, that not the natives, but the newcomers undergo assimilation. Therefore we can confidetly tell that newcoming nomad Türks could not so simply and entirely assimilate the local, especially cultured, tribes and peoples.
Türkization of the local population could be only in the event when the "newcomers" Türks were a significant majority of the population. Then they could transfer to the local minority not only the language, but also their anthropological type.
The idea that Türkic "nomads" had such an extraordinary force which allowed them to migrate freely to various regions, occupying prevailing positions there and transferring their language very quickly to the natives is also erroneous. Apparently, the actually numerous Türkic tribes under various ethnonym names, even before the period of productive work or in its very beginning, settled almost in all regions of Eurasia. Wherever they lived, they had close ethnical and economical contacts between themselves. Simultaneously, they always struggled among themselves for prevailing position. Out of numerous Türkic ethnoses one or the other occupied the prevailing position. The ethnonym of the winner, prevailing ethnos was extended to other Türks, and even to the non-Türkic peoples who were in the zone of their control, and that name was recorded in the written documents of that time. Later, the prevailing was another ethnos under another name, and that also was recorded in the documents. The modern scientists, upon founding a new ethnonym in sources, instead of discerning the succession linkages of local Türks, hastened to declare that new tribes, not connected with locals, had come.
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm
