It's seems Japanese grammer nearly same as Turkish. And both nation are tough soldiers. Funny but they say even the American natives are from the same origin. In the Türkish history...they left lake Baikal and came to Aral lake...some went to Anotolia south of the lake and some to Hungary from north of the lake...then they went to Finland. Others took the east road...Korea then the Japan. And some from Bering...to Alaska and south.

Any expert ? Turk & Japan Brotherhood.

I always wanted to visit Japan but 1 week in Japan = 2.5 weeks in Bali or Thailand. Sad...

Kampai

Do you consider Koreans and Turks to be related? If yes then Japanese and Turks are probably related. Though they dont look like Turkic peoples there are linguistic similarities to suggest some sort of relationships.

Not sure about Turks and Japanese but I think Turks and Mongolians are very closely related.

Some scolars include japanese & korean in to the Altaic language family



that is a gay @$$ site

the turks in turkey today are so watered down as a race that i doubt more than a handful could genetically be traced back to central asia/jungaria/southern sibera

japanese/yayoi people branched off from the koreans.

The answer is .. no ,Turkic do not equate to Turkish ethnic.

Japanese are mostly of Siberian & Chinese 東夷 Eastern Barbarian origins.

Ancient Koreans ( Baekje & Koguryo ) were off-shoots of Chinese Dong-Yi ( 東夷 ).

Huimo ( Yemaek 穢貊 ) was formed by two peoples.One being Hui (穢) and the other being Mo (貊). Hui people used to populated around China's Shangdong peninsula and Mo people used to populated around the northern edge of China's Hebei and Shangxi provinces. Some branches of Hui (穢) people and Mo (貊) people migrated to Manchuria. After their arrival to the southern Mancuria and North Korea, some clans of Hui and Mo merged and evloved into a new tribal alliance of Huimo(穢貊) at the eastern side of North Korea. Some of Hui and Mo populated a large territory of southern and south-central Macnhuria. They did not merged into a single people initially and live independently in Southern Manchuria. Maybe I should change the wording of Huimo system into Hui-Mo system just to make a distinguishing from that single Huimo tribal alliace in the eastern North Korea.Later,established kingdoms of Koguryo & Puyo ( predesesor of Baekje or Paekche ).

koreans are mostly of a goguryeo origin, as well as northern han chinese. japanese are a mix of ancient chinese and korean. turks are pretty distant from japan and korea. however they are quite related to mongolian, who koreans are related to. koreans are mostly a tungusic and mongolic stock.

1 of modern day Turkish origins was of ancient Central Asian heritage most likely related to the Huns or Mongol-Xiongnu.

Since last year,I've been reading countless books on Japan & Japanese origin written by accredential academia Western historians.I would like share their knowledge here.


* Checked out Professor William Wayne Farris' "Sacred Texts and Buried Treasure". He has a very detailed, balanced, and respectable analysis of Korean-Japanese relations. I whole-heartedly recommend it.

Professor Walter Edwards (of Tenri University) is one of the top Western scholars on the evolution of the kofun. He also wrote a rebuttal to Gari Ledyard's article. "Galloping along with the Horseriders".He says that kofun found in South Korea resemble 5th century keyhole-shaped kofun. However, even in the Yayoi period, round burial mounds had annexed rectangular portions that are believed to have once held ceremonies for the dead. These evolved into the keyhole-shaped kofun that are so well known today in the late 3rd/early 4th century. Therefore, by the time of any supposed Horserider invasion, keyhole shaped kofun were already on their way in development. Edwards is no die-hard Japanese nationalist who posits a Japanese invasion of Korea (keep in mind he's an archaeologist--that's his evidence), but he believes that keyhole-shaped kofun were one example of a cultural aspect that moved from Japan to the peninsula. He makes no claim of a political rulership over Korea, but gives evidence of bilateral relations between Paekche and Japan (an anachronistic term, really) as making this claim possible.

Therefore, the more I read, the more I can't see kofun shape as supporting the Horserider Theory.

I've recommended it before and I will recommend it again: J. Edward Kidder, Jr.'s "Himiko and Japan's Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai" provides a *fantastic* view of Jomon, Yayoi, and Kofun period Japan.

J. Edward Kidder, Jr. (who released a 400+ page book on the history, archaeology, and mythology surrounding Himiko and the location of Yamatai ) covers the history of horses in Japan in his article "The Archaeology of the Early Horse-Riders in Japan". You can read it in "The Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan". He also provided some great evidence that discredits a few pillars of Egami's horseriders theory. Of course,every theory has aspects that reflect cultural/social/historical currents.


I recommend you guys checking out his article. I'll only lay out a few points he made in this post.

-The Kiso horse is indigenous to Japan, yet it's presently endangered. The horse that spread throughout the archipelago was imported from Korea.

-Horses began to be ridden widely in the 5th century.

-It was expected that aristocrats know how to ride horses.

-The native horses were from the Late Jomon period (1000 B.C.-300 B.C.)

-He gives 114.5 cm as an average height for the indigenous horses (measured up to the "withers")

-Yayoi horses are, on average, 132 cm (again, "withers")

-Jomon and Yayoi (300 B.C.-250 A.D.) sites don't imply the eating or sacrifice of horses. I believe Farris mentioned they were beasts of burden, however they apparently weren't ridden, yet.

-After the Yayoi period, horses began to be used in religious rituals. They were sacrificed. The Taika Reforms of the 7th century prohibited the sacrificing of horses (among other mourning practices after one's lord/leader had died).

-Horse sacrifice is actually a bit debated, as Kidder wonders why the Japanese would sacrifice the few horses that lived on the islands during the first years of the Kofun period.

-The use of horse haniwa around kofun seems to imply that the Japanese believed that horses were mediums or intouch with the spiritual world. 8th century rituals involving horse figures attest to this.

There's a lot more information in the short article. If you can get your hands on it, it'd go nicely with Walter Edwards rebuttal of Egami's theory. Both are from an archaeological standpoint.

Just to let you guys know, J. Edward Kidder, Jr. has done a new translation of the " 魏史 " Chinese history chronicle " Wei Zhi " section on the Wa ( 倭 ) in his recent "Himiko and Japan's Elusive Chiefdom of Yamatai" (2007). It's *very* well done.

His case for Yamatai being located in the Kinai is also very convincing and well-argued.

Huh .... why you think so ??


Modern day Koreans have a minority strain of Koguryo in their DNA and language .

http://www.pliink.com/mt/marxy/archives/20...o-japanese.html

One of the enduring mysteries of Japan is the origin of the language ... Indiana University-Bloomington linguistics professor Christopher Beckwith's relatively new tome Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives offers a fascinating and plausible solution to the enduring origin puzzle ... Based on the work of Gisaburo N. Kiyose, Beckwith proposes a somewhat radical immigration narrative for the Wa. He puts the original Koguryoic homeland in Liao-Hsi (present day Liaoning province in NE China ) on the coast of Northeast China ... Beckwith's theory pretty much puts the Japanese and Koreans as distant relatives.

Beckwith is on the right path in suggesting a much stronger affinity between Koguryo and the Japanese than can be established by modern Korean nationalists intent on claiming this long-estinguished kingdom as "theirs", but that Koguryoic contributed virtually nothing to modern-day Korean does not in any way establish either that its speakers were an insignificant portion of the ancestors of living Koreans or that Koreans and Japanese are therefore more distantly related than has been assumed.

Oh, and while we're on the topic of Koguryo, Korean-Japanese genetic relatedness to its peoples notwithstanding, I find it utterly absurd that modern-day Koreans should lay claim to the ruins of Koguryo which happen to lie behind China's borders just because what was left of the kingdom in its declining days happened to be conquered by Shilla. Such reasoning seems as tenable to me as the Danish laying claim to English ruins from the Danelaw period, and an Italian declaration of suzerainty over ruins left behind by the Romans in all of Continental Europe would have far more legitimacy to it than such Korean maneuverings:the nail in the coffin is that as Beckwith's work indicates, Japan would have an even stronger claim to ancient Koguryo's heritage than the Koreans themselves, even by the warped standards favored by Korean nationalists.

* Another iron-clad fact recorded in both Korean & Chinese history annals.

China's Tang Dynasty forced relocation of nearly 500,000 " Koguryo 高句麗 " subjects to central regions of China included Koguryo's warrior-general ' Yeongaesomun-淵蓋蘇文 ' and his son & grandson' burial mounds recently discovered in Luoyang city of Henan province ( China ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luoyang

10-30,000 probably went to Japan.Anyone with the surname of Koma in Japan are descended from Koguryo.

Silla took in 50,000 of defeated Koguryo population

ignore this dumbass chinaman troll that doesn't know jack.

To add my humble knowledge of China's Koguryo's descedants (who were born and raised in China under their Koguryo parents who moved into China by force or willing) after its Kingdom had collapsed, One of the most famous men was Lee Jung Ki -李正己-He was the 節度使 that governed 淸州 area (modern Shandong peninsula 山東半島 ) according to the 新.舊唐書 ( new & new Tang chronicles ).His son 李納 founded the independence kingdom of 齊 and it had lasted to the next two more generations by 李師古 and 李師道.

Most of the Koguryo were absorbed into China,not present day Korea.The Koguryo language was also quite divergent from present day Korean and ancient Shilla Korean,but looks much like ancient Japanese.

The belief is the ancestors of the Wa 倭,who populated Japan came from present day Liaoning 遼寧 province in NE China and their most closely related cousins lived in Koguryo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaoning


background of the author:

"Christopher I. Beckwith (born 1945) is a professor of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.

He received his Ph.D. degree from Indiana University in Uralic and Altaic Studies (1977).

He specializes in Asian language studies and linguistics, and in the history of Central Eurasia. He teaches Tibetan and Central Eurasian languages and Central Eurasian history."

sorry but most goguryeo people were in south korea (majority lived in pyonyang).

pyongyang was the capital of goguryeo, which is deep inside the korean peninsula

china has no elements of goguryeo culture left in the area

examples of goguryeo culture are korean shamanism, ancient goguryeo literature, paintings, murals and tombs.

most of goguryeo population and culture were absorbed in pyongyang and seoul, the largest cities of goguryeo






Goguryeo was absorbed into Goguryeo's successor, Goryeo

Most of Goguryeo legends and myths are taught to children

Key symbols of Goguryeo are depicted in modern korean society

Korean historical dramas often depict accurately Goguryeo clothing, culture

Goguryeo's capital, Pyongyang, was located deep inside the Korean peninsula, where most of the population was located

There is DNA evidence that Koreans are genetically consistent throughout the peninsula (north to south)

China knows nothing about Goguryeo and its customs,

sorry but your chinese brothers fake information in chinahistoryforum

this topic is bs lol. if anything it's only a vague linguistic connection that is barely noticeable

and also why do people always associate japan and korea with each other? i thought it was china and korea that were similar, and japan was the one that was different. i mean it makes sense two of em are on the mainland and the other is an island. plus korea is almost totally enveloped by china to the north anyway

Turkey and Japan are both Altaic
Whose origins are a bit archaic

While I'm reluctunt to answer to that troll(Bami), I will make an informative response nonetheless for other posters who may be interested in the subject.

First, I believe I have to clarify Beckwith's theory. Beckwith's theory is that, in the long past, southern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula, with the exception of the southeastern extreme, was dominated by a so-called "Buyeo language". This language was genetically related to the Japonic languages, but not the Korean language. Buyeo language's domination of Korea ended when Silla, which spoke a non-related language, became the dominant power.

This theory from Beckwith is controversial at best. For example, Vovin, a prominent expert on Japonic languages, argues that Beckwith's analysis is based on the least reliable evidence. Based on analysis of loanwords to languages of various regions around Korea, Vovin argues that all the three Korean kingdoms, Koguryo, Baekje and Shilla, spoke the same language, Korean. Using archaeological evidence, Vovin(or Unger, can't remember which) argues that southeastern Korea(Shilla & Kaya) was originally a Japonic speaking region, but with the establishment of the state of Shilla by northern migrants, Korean became the dominant language in that region as well.

And it seems many Chinese trolls like to rely on Beckwith's theory to claim that somehow Korea and Koguryo aren't related and tries to give more credit to Chinese claims on Koguryo. To put an end to this, I'll directly quote from Beckwith himself:

Unlike Northern Wei and Song, which were persistently buffeted by wars and other disturbances, Goguryeo was able to nurture a high quality culture, while enjoying peace. Indeed, Goguryeo culture exercised a significant impact on Baekje, Silla, and Japan.

After the fall of Goguryeo, many Goguryeo people tried to revive their country. And, after 30 years of trying, Balhae(Pohai) was founded in 698 by Daejoyoung, a descendant of Goguryeo. In official documents the king sent abroad, Balhae (698-926) used to boast itself as the successor of Koryo(Goguryeo). (In the latter half of Goguryeo Kingdom, people used to call their country "Koryo(Goryeo).") And, the kingdom of Koryo (or, Korea) (918-1392), which succeeded Balhae, resurrected the name of "Koryo," which was the state title of Goguryeo.

Balhae people including aristocrats (est. 1 million), led by the last Crown Prince Dae Gwang-hyeon (대광현), fled southward to Goryeo, the new self-claimed succesor of Goguryeo (934).

In 934, Dae Gwang-Hyun, the last Crown Prince of Balhae, revolted against their Khitan masters. After being defeated, he fled to Goryeo, where he was granted protection and the imperial surname.

The Goguryeo state continued with Balhae, which considered itself as the successor of Goguryeo; when Balhae was destroyed, its population dissipated into the Korean dynasty of Goryeo.

I maybe going out on a limb here ¬_¬ but I doubt it.

Christopher I. Beckwith theory is not generally accepted by NE Asian history scholars and archaeologists.

Actually the Northern Wei was a relatively prosperous time in Chinese history. It was actually one of the more stable and longer-lived dynasties during the age of division. It was during this period that Buddhism flourished and increased sinicization of the Tuoba people occured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Wei_Dynasty#Fall

Culturally, not at all.

Linguistically, there's perhaps a very very slight connection, but it's debatable.

Genetically, to put it simply, no, unless we shift the time frame to when human beings started migrating out of Africa, which in that sense, we're all related.

The connection between Turks and Japanese are about as similar as say Punjabis and Germans. Both trace linguistic heritage to the Indo-European family but culturally speaking, considering how far apart they are from each other.........yeah you get the point.

I think for the turks , kizz japanese azz is dumb .

Like one day a poor guy found a rich kid , and he insisted how "simlilar " in their resemblance of appreance . That they must be close kin . Man , those people who doing that is utterly sick and despicable .

Turks , dont envy Japan , you got to work your azz to create a nation as rich and prosper as Japan .

Fawning attitude is truly worthy of contempt !!!!

they're copletely different except linguistically, turks are caucasian, japanese are asian that's it, this is the truth!!

hello.

just a little observation here, i don't know if my observation is right or wrong but when i listen to turkish and japanese, i cannot really tell any similarity, to me they sound very different.

That because Turkish spoken in Turkey has undergone much persification and arabification and if that wasn't enough westernisation


Try Kazakh but that would sound more like Mongolian

you see the chain goes somewhat like this

Turks-Turkmen-Kazakhs-Mongols-Manchus-Koreans-Japanese

As you can see, they're on opposite ends of the altaic spectrum, both geographically and linearly so they wouldn't have that much visible similarity

accualy its (Turkish-Azeri-Turkmen-Uzbek/uygur-Kazakh/Kyrgyz-Tuvan) = Turkic -Mongolian-Tungustic-Korean-japanese

Why do Japanese harbour extremists?

Actually it falls like this.


For Japanese and Ryukyuan

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Boyeo-Koreanic
Boyeo
Japonic
Japanese / Ryukyuan
East Japanese / West Japanese // Okinawan / Other Ryukyuan languages

For Korean

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Boyeo-Koreanic
Koreanic
Korean


For Manchu

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Tungusic
Southern Tungusic
Manchu


For Mongolian

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Mongolic
Eastern Mongolic
Oirat-Khalkha
Khalkha-Buryat
Mongolian


For Uyghur and Uzbek

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Turkic
Uyghuric
Western Uyghuric
Uyghur / Uzbek


For Kazakh and Kyrgyz

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Turkic
Kipchak
Southern Kipchak
Kazakh / Kyrgyz


For Turkmen and Khorasani Turkic

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Turkic
Oghuz
East Oghuz
Turkmen and Khorasani Turkic (Iranian Turks)


For Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Gagauz

Boreal
Western Boreal
Northwestern Boreal
Eurasiatic
Boyeo-Altaic
Altaic
Turkic
Oghuz
Western Oghuz
Turkish / Azerbaijani / Gagauz (Moldovian Turk)


Other language groups that fall under Eurasiatic:

Indo-Pontic / Uralo-Siberian
Indo-European / NW Caucasian // Yukaghir-Uralic / Eskimo-Siberian

Indo-Europeans

Greeks
Germans
Celts
Latinos or Italic People
Slavs
Baltics
Armenians
Albanians
Iranians
Indo-Aryans or simply (Northern Indians)

NW Caucasians

Circassians (They live in Southwestern Russia)

Yukaghir-Uralic

Yukaghirs
Finns
Hungarians
Estonians

Eskimo-Siberian

Eskimos
Aleuts
Inuits
Yupiks
Chukotkans
Kamchatkans
Nivkhs


The differences between Mongolian and Korean are the same between Circassians and Germans.

^ Interestingly, almost all of the Eurasiatic language families you've mentioned have origins in the Central Asian steppes.

Well it was somewhere close to Central Asia. It was basically North of the Black and Caspien Seas, and east of the Mediterranean, and west of the Gobi Desert.

haha than there is no connection or verry vague

because German is a Indo-european language and circassian is a caucasian Language (wich is Isolated)

LOL! You know nothing! It is Northwest Caucasian. Not Caucasian. You have three groups and some even list a forth group of Caucassians. None of them are related except for the Southern and Northwestern. And both of them have shown a distinct relation towards Indo-Europeans. While... Northeast Caucassians appear more closely related to the Basque, Sumerians, and even the Chinese I should even say.

By the way no language is truly isolate. In order to be isolate the people would have left Africa and had no relation with any other group of people. If they had any cousins that came out of Africa, they were swallowed up by Turks, Persians, Indo-Aryans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, English, or Arabs. The truth of the matter, we all left Africa together. The name of our greatest ancestor that left Africa is the same, because he is the same person.

That is a bunch of racial, unproven, antagonistic, discriminatory, zionistic, ethnocentralistic, needless, retarded, absolutely absurd, full of bull$hit ludocrous. All humans are no further related to each than 15,000 years. REGARDLESS of there being any humans that had left Africa before that time, might I even say without any shred of doubt.

You see your problem is that you want to take anything you don't know being serious without concrete evidence. The problem is that what you do know isn't even supported with concrete evidence. There has been evidence saying that Indo-Aryans for instance may been related to Iranians or not. There is evidence pointing to Iranians once living in Anatolia, even Greece, before they settled in South Asia, in Iran. There is also evidence that either Armenians and Greeks are related or they diverge through time and became so similar because they are located so close to each other. The same argument can be used between the Slavic and Baltic languages. Or between the Tibetan and Chinese. Even between the Japanese and Ryukyuans.

The truth of the matter, is that you are an uneducated moron that only follows what the majority say, flowwing down a river so to speak, not even bold enough to look at what is beyond the horizon to see or not see where this majority is going. THat is your problem and I'd consider you get some treatment for it until it becomes a bigger problem.

Alright now let me (a Taiwanese, not white, not Japanese, not Indian) show you what I've found out from my own research on linguistics. Okay... Can you handel that?

Alright....

What I've found is that virtually everyone that left Africa prior to the Boreals died out. What was left were the Boreals and the Equatorials. Those that live at the Equator and those that live just North in North Africa or the Sahara back when it was a beautiful forrest and grassland full of vegetation and food and a river that had once ran from the Egypt at the Nile to Western Sahara.

After so and such time, the Boreal people migrated out of Africa into the Middle East. There they seperated into two groups. One moved further east into the Himilayas and the other moved North into the Caucas region. The Eastern Boreals became the Chinese, Taiwanese, Filipinos, Tibetans, Dravidians, Sumerians, Basque, Northeast Caucassians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Hawaiians, Northern Native Americans like the Massachusetts, Southwest Native Americans like the Navajo and Apachu, and even Madagascarians (which live on the African isle of Madagascar. The Western Boreals soon seperated with much of them moving eastward become the other Native Americans, the Eskimos, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, White people or Indo-Europeans, Turks, Northwest Caucasians, Southern Caucasians, Etruscans, and other groups. This all took place due to migration patterns being disturbed by weather and such that cause some of them to constant move in a certain direction.

Let me make it clear to that white brain of yours, whitey, cause you act and think like some white person I know. There is evidence that Turks and Japanese people are related. There is evidence that white people and turks are related. Put the two together, okay?

I like Turkish foreign policy...declare a bond of brotherhood with the powerful nations of Asia, warm their hearts......unlike the American way

south caucasian language is called Kartaveli language or something it's a isolated language. have u ever heared someone speak Georgian or circassian? It doesn't sound anything like a indo-european language I have heared.



Explain your oh so ignorant and confusing last sentence

Your lack of education is killing me.



No it isn't. It isn't Isolate Language. South Caucasian is actually a language family. The most well known language is Georgian, the native tongue of the people of Georgia, just North of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

South Caucasian is divisible into five languages. Not one isolate language. Five related languages.

You have Georgian also known as kartuli. You have Judeo-Georgian. A close relative of Georgian and considered to be a dialect.

You have Megrelian, which is spoken by 500,000 people in Western Georgia.

You have Lazuri, which is a close relative of Megrelian. 220,000 speakers in Turkey and 30,000 in Georgia.

And lastly you have the Svan language of 15,000 speakers in the mountainous region of Georgia.





That doesn't mean anything. French and Spanish hardly sound similar. English and Irish are so distant in the manner that they sound, you could have sworn that Irish was an isolate language. Your little uneducated means of determining if a language is relative to another is outright ridiculous. Hell if Irish and English don't sound like they could have ever been in the same language family, then how do you suppose there would be any support of taking in Iranian and mixing it into that pot? As I've said... it pretty makes no sense. Technically all languages might as well be isolates, cause they sound nothing like each other. But... there are hidden cognatives and such that you of all person wouldn't be able to notice that supports the relativity of Northwest Caucasian with Indo-European. Anyways, we are talking about 6 to 7 thousand years ago. Certainly by that time period any sort of relation they once had is almost minimalized to the point that it becomes controversial to determine anything. But... hidden cognatives support the relation as far back as 5 to 7 thousand years ago.



I already did, but I bet my "ignorance" isn't ignorant enough for you to understand.

^all 'facts' you can look up on wikipedia


my family orginates from the south of the caucasus

Errrrrr..

Language doesn't prove anything about people origins.

Does modern day American Indians fluently speaks their own language?

If Mongolian can't speak single words of Mongolian but he speaks Chinese well, does this makes him Han Chinese?

People moves around and adopt different cultures/costume & languages as they needed to survive.

Nationality & language don't really tells about his/her DNA.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Turks & Japanese have the same genetic origins.

Korean and Japanese are completely different languages but the racial roots could be very close. Of course talking about a pure race or language is nowadays waste of time; cause you may very rarely find a language or nation isolated. All of us are from a same origin...and it could be approved someday that all languages are from a same root. I have once noticed something very interesting in Turkish and Persian: Blood in Turkish is "kan (qan)" and in Persian is "Khun". what about other languages.

No modern human can be trace to pure & single ancestors as people tends to move around alot. All modern humans can traces their common ancestors to Homosapiane originated from Africa.

Modern day Korean & Japaneses might sound differently due to isolation and nationalism. But they are the closest they can find from other races.