Hypothesis: The Vikings were a Caucasian/Proto-Caucasian speaking people who later became "Indo-Europeanized."

Some people might find this a silly hypothesis knowing that the Vikings were amongst the earliest Germanic speaking people, but I have a few strong points that come from new evidence on Viking history:

-In the year 1994, Norwegian anthropologist, explorer and writer Thor Heyerdahl discovered Viking inscriptions in the South Caucasian country of Azerbaijan.

-Many peoples of the Caucasus, especially from isolated areas resemble modern Scandinavians or even look identical to them; Lezgins being a prime example. I know that appearance is not always a correct method when comparing races, but there is more to it.

-According to Heyerdahl, a hypothetical Nordic/Viking migration from the Caucasus coincides with Viking mythology of an exodus to Scandinavia from a region far south east of it, which is no other than the Eurasian steppes and the Caucasus mountain region.

-The indigenous languages of the Caucasus are the native Caucasian language families, not Indo-European as in the case of most modern Scandinavian populations whom today mainly speak Northern Germanic languages, with Finnish and Lappish being amongst the main exceptions.
The non-Caucasian languages of the Caucasus mainly Altaic and Indo-European were brought through migration and possible conquest. Both haplogroup studies and cultural practices of the Caucasus attest to this.

-The strongest point I have is the presence of the Nordic Haplogroup I in the Caucasus region. What most readers may not know is that the haplogroup associated with Indo-European populations is Haplogroup R, not the Nordic Haplogroup I.

Aside from these points, there are a few other things that readers should know. Firstly, the finding of Haplogroup I in other parts of Africa and the Middle East are due to various conquests by Nordic peoples, most notably during the Crusades.
Even today many Arab speaking populations of North Africa and the Middle East can be found with Nordic features as a result of Nordic genes spread in those regions.

Though I'm not too familiar with Caucasian mythology (as in mythology of the Caucasus peoples), I found other possible cultural links between Viking/Germanic cultures and Caucasian cultures.

Compare the Georgian cross seen in Georgian culture which is most notable in the Georgian flag to the Viking cross.

Or compare this Viking sun cross with the Georgian symbol below it:





Their strong resemblance could be coincidental or maybe not. Due to genetic evidence and other evidence that I have mentioned above.

Based on all this, I want to go back to my original points:

-With the native languages of the Caucasus being non-Germanic, thus non-Indo-European and evidence of a Viking migration from this region, the only plausible answer would be that the Vikings in their earlier form were a Caucasian/Proto-Caucasian speaking peoples at some point in history before or after their migration to Scandinavia.

The most likely and plausible scenario would be that the Vikings were originally Caucasian speakers and bred with Indo-European populations which is where they may have picked up their Indo-European language(s).
Haplogroup R1A is actually very commonly found amongst Nordic populations present day. Even R1B in some Scandinavian areas actually appears to as much and sometimes even less than R1A. Haplogroup R1A is actually associated with Eastern European populations as well as Indo-European populations outside of Europe whereas R1B is designated as of West European origin.

-So far no evidence goes against this widely accepted hypothesis except for linguistic distinction. The only possibility is if a Viking-Caucasian connection is fully established, that indeed the Vikings were non-Indo-European speakers in the beginning and at some point adopted/developed the early Germanic dialects as a result of contact and/or integration with ancient Indo-European populations.

-Not all Scandinavian people speak Germanic languages most notably the Finns.
The Finns are most likely descendants of Viking tribes that integrated with early Finno-Ugric tribes which shows in some Finns having more Asiatic features (ie. higher cheek bones etc.) but the strongest trait is found in their Uralic language.

If one were to combine my points with the evidence, my theory seems like the only logical explanation as to why the people of Scandinavia speak non-Caucasian languages or why native Caucasian populations do not speak Germanic languages- unless further research in the future can construct an alternate scenario.

Here are some important links discussing the hypothetical Viking-Caucasian connection:

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/scandinavian_ancestry____tracing.htm

http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/31_folder/31_articles/31_thorazerconn.html

http://www.donsmaps.com/gobustan.html

Confusing the terms "Aryan," "White," "Caucasian," and what their correct meanings are.

Many people have used White/Aryan/Caucasian simultaneously. Many white-wannabe's from Asia and some Neo-Nazi Europeans use these words in the same manner and even use them to describe all white-looking people with Caucasian skulls.
Even the people of the Caucasus are sometimes labeled "Aryan" or "White" (which they are as per skin, eye complexion and skull structure).

To understand why these words are used simultaneously, we must understand the different uses of each word.
First we start with the different uses of the word "Aryan" and it's roots.

Aryan:
-This word is derived from the Sanskrit word Aarya which meant wise/noble or honorable. This is the most correct and accurate term for the word. It has more of a tribal meaning than that of color. The Proto-Indo-Aryans who spoke Sanskrit and settled in Southern Asia around 1200-1700BC considered themselves of noble class over the darker skinned natives of the Indus Valley or so it is said.

The ancient Persian kings used this word to describe themselves, due to their royal position and heritage.
In my opinion, the best description of the word Aryan is when it is applied to the descendants of ancient Sanskrit speakers, mainly the Indo-Aryan speaking peoples of Pakistan who's ancestors were these Sanskrit speakers calling themselves Aarya and being the first to do so.

-Language group. This refers to people who today speak Indo-Aryan languages. It includes those of non-Indo-Aryan descent as well. Haplogroup R has been long associated with early Indo-European (IE) speaking peoples. The distribution of haplogroup R1A in the map below shows most Indo-European speaking people of South Asia going east onwards from the Ganges Valley are not originally of Indo-Aryan descent:




-Whiteness (people with white skin, light eyes, hair, Caucasian skull etc.). This is probably the most misleading reference of the word Aryan. When Adolph Hitler took power, he propagated the ancient Indo-Europeans to be blond haired blue eyed people. He was probably right in his observations since pockets of unmixed IE speaking people in isolated mountainous areas of Asia can show Celtic or even Nordic features.
But he was wrong to give all people with blond hair blue eyes the name Aryan, since no known records show other Indo-European speaking peoples migrating and settling in Europe (who remained white) referring to themselves as such.

Hitler twisted around the ancient Sanskrit meaning of the word to suit his own political agenda. In Hitler's terminology a person with white skin, blond hair, blue eyes and a Caucasian skull is a "true Aryan" regardless of what race she/he belongs to.



If the above picture is what typically comes to your mind when one hears the word "Aryan" then this is a wrong understanding of the word.
Most peoples who settled in Europe with white features never refereed to themselves as "Aryan."
At best it can be used to refer to Proto-Indo-Aryan tribes (ie. Vedic peoples) and their descendants.

A note to add is not everyone with a Caucasian skull is of Indo-European origins. Most Arabs of the Middle East have Caucasian skulls but are not of Indo-European descent. Also people looking similar does not necessarily mean they are related. It's like comparing your average Pakistani to a Hispanic or Arab. They may look similar, but their genetic make up would be entirely different.

In short, Aryan is best described for early Sanskrit-speaking tribes who settled in Southern Asia and their decedents.

Caucasian:
-The most common usage of the term is for a person who resembles your average modern European.
This term is somewhat inaccurate because of the other two main usages of this word which are next to be discussed.

-The scientific reference to the Caucasian skull type. This is the correct and most accurate usage of the word. There are at least three major skull types amongst humans with Caucasoid being one of them.
Anyone with a Caucasoid skull is technically a Caucasian, regardless of skin, hair or eye color. It does not necessarily mean that people of Caucasian descent are directly related. In fact many theories state that some races with Caucasian skulls developed them independently from other Caucasoid races. They evolved separately from one another and developed a common Caucasian skull coincidentally or perhaps because they lived in similar environmental conditions.


Here is a sample of the Caucasian skull:


Compare it to the Negroid skull:


Or a Mongoloid skull:


This is what each skull would look like on a person today:


The person on the left is Caucasoid while the person on the right is Mongoloid.
Below is what a negroid person looks like:


By looking at the pictures of the three individuals, you can judge for yourself what skull type is yours. As mentioned, your skin, hair or eye color is irrelevant when coming to skull types. As an example the people pictured below are classify as Caucasian regardless of their relatively dark skin:


If you belong to none of these, then you are either mixed or belong to a small minority which belongs to none of these types. There are populations in remote parts of the world where there are skull types belonging none of the mentioned skull types.

A few more notes to add are that despite the terms Caucasoid or Mongoloid being used for two major human skull types, it does not necessarily mean anyone having either skull is of Mongolian descent or a native of the Caucasus.

-The other meaning of Caucasian refers to one who is a native of the Caucasus mountain region. In this case it is necessary for one to have a Caucasian skull to be a native of the Caucasus.
Important things to know about native Caucasian people is that they are not of Indo-European origins and neither are their languages; hence they are not 'Aryans' as some people label them out to be.

Though Indo-European genetic markers and languages are today found in this linguistically diverse region, it is due to invasions of ancient tribes who contributed to the genetics of the original Caucasian populations.

Despite Indo-European, Altaic and other influences on genetic and linguistic lines, the people of this region have maintained their unique culture and traditions.
Take for example the Azerbaijani dancer's pictures below:


Azerbaijanis. Religion: Shia Islam. Language: Azerbaijani, Western Oghuz Turkic, Altaic.




Compare their traditional costumes to that of Georgians.
Georgians. Religion: Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Language: Georgian, Karto-Zan, South Caucasian.



A similar comparison to Ossetians.

Ossetians. Religion: Christianity & Islam. Language: Ossetian, Northern Iranic, Indo-European.


Note despite their religious and linguistic differences (they speak un-related languages!) their clothes, dances and culture still look similar.

In short they are all Caucasians
1) Because they have Caucasian skulls regardless of skin color

2) Because they are the natives of the Caucasus region. Those who show Mongoloid or other features are due to mixing with foreign races who brought the non-Caucasian languages and genes into the region.

What they are not:
1) Aryan. Save for a handful of them who are mixed, most are not of Indo-European descent or in anyway related to Indo-Iranic peoples.

2) Europeans. Many people do consider the Caucasus to be geographically European territory so they may be 'geographically European' but their main gene pool (not counting those brought by invaders) differs from that of most modern Europeans.

The Indo-European haplogroup is R and it's subclades R1A, R1B, R2 etc. The main Caucasian haplogroup is said to be G and it's subclades.
Refer to the map below:


White:
-Referring to Europeans. This word has typically been synonymous with those of European descent. It doesn't matter what part of Europe, as long as a person or people are ethnically European from both sides of their families they are "white."

In some cases especially in racial nationalistic standards, the person or people must also be of Christian faith. By this standard people of European ethnicity cannot also be considered "white" especially if they are Jewish or Muslim. This means many European Muslims such as Albanians and Bosnians cannot be accepted as white due to their Islamic faith and the same is true for European Jews.

-The physical term is also commonly used. This people generally with Caucasian skulls and resembling Europeans especially in skin tone and perhaps also in light hair and eye color. The term white originates mainly in reference to skin tone.

Technically the white skinned people found in the Middle East and parts of Central/Southern Asia are "white" due to having these features.

To sum it up: All unmixed indigenous people of the Caucasus are Caucasian by skull type and Native Caucasian, but not all people with Caucasian skulls are Native Caucasians. Just as not all people with Mongoloid skulls are Mongolian.

-All people with Caucasian skulls are Caucasian regardless of color but not necessarily indigenous to the Caucasus mountain region.

-All prehistoric Aryans were Caucasians (and most likely entirely white like Europeans) because of their skull type but not indigenous to the Caucasus.
The Aryans settled in Asia, while their distant relatives settled into Europe who later became the Germanics, the Celts, the Proto-Romanic, the Proto-Illyrians, the Proto-Greek and the Balto-Slavics. The Tocharians were the best known non-Aryan Europeans to settle in Asia.

-All white Europeans are Caucasian (not counting mixed) because they have Caucasian skulls but are not Aryan or Native Caucasian.
Most Europeans are of Indo-European descent though people of the Caucasus are often considered Europeans by geography.

-Anyone with white skin and a Caucasian skull fits the physical category of "white" but not the European definition if that person is not of European descent.

-Anyone who is of European descent even such as a dark-skinned person from southern areas of Europe fits the definition of "white" as in referring to an ethnic European.

The Altaic language family does exist

The Altaic language family has been dubbed as a hypothesis called "The
Altaic hypothesis."
The reason behind all this is that the inclusion of Japonic languages and Korean inside this family are debatable.

The debate is not only scientific, but also carries political controversy with it. Research and sources also suggest a connection between Japanese and the Austronesian languages. I cannot comment on Korean in this case as I have read much less on it except for the fact that it does have agglutinative grammatical features like the Altaic languages. Such grammatical features are also common amongst many Native Siberian and Native American languages.

But even with questions and debates of weather Korean and the Japonic languages being Altaic or not or being a different form of Altaic, the general consensus remains clear: That the Turkic languages, alongside Mongolic languages and Tungusic languages do have a common origin and are established members of the Altaic languages family.

All the mentioned language subfamilies are genetically related to one another regardless of weather or not they are related to Japanese and Korean.
There are some sources that claim a closer relationship between the Turkic and Mongolic languages than with the Tungusic languages, but regardless they are accepted to be linked- and that's what most people seem to ignore.

Just because a few languages are not included in the family it does not mean the entire family is a hypothesis. So since Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic belong to one family what else do you call it if not the Altaic language family?

This is the mistake many people including linguists seem to be ignoring. A debate(s) weather to include one or more languages inside a larger established language family should not turn the entire language family into a "hypothesis."
The language family is there. Weather or not these mentioned languages belong to this family or not is a different issue all together and does not affect the already established language family.

Therefor I want to clarify this ongoing confusion that the Altaic language family does exist, but it is arguable weather Korean and/or the Japonic languages do actually belong in it.

This is the reason for the chart below to have a broken line when linking the Japonic and Korean languages to Proto-Altaic to clarify that the link is a supposed one but not definite (click on image to enlarge):

Conan the Barberian: The fantasies and realities behind the movie.

I admit I've never properly fully read the books by Robert E.Howard. However seeing the 1982 movie Conan the Barbarian and filming locations, I was able to analyze the themes of the film which were inspired by true events and places.
In the beginning we see Conan's village in a cold forested area where it is raided by the snake cult led by Thulsa Doom.

The scene of the raid and killing of the adults in Conan's village is most likely inspired by the ancient attacks by the Scythians on the Cimmerians.
The characters in the movie, including Conan himself, his friends and his enemies are entirely fictional. But the tribes and ethnic groups they belong to are entirely historical. Conan is clearly a Cimmerian according to the story and characters created by E.Howard. The filming location was somewhere in Germany to depict the Cimmerian homeland. The Cimmerians lived in the northern portions of the Caucasus mountain region which is heavily forested and has cold snowy winters as depicted in the movie.

For the size of an entire ethnic group, the population of the Cimmerians in the movie seemed relatively small. My guess is they were meant to depict just one tribe of Cimmerians and not the entire ethnic group. Just as the Scythian horsemen in Thulsa Doom's army is meant to depict one tribe of Scythians and not the entire race.

After the attacks the children, including Conan are taken as slaves. Conan's wizard friend and film narrator explains the children were taken north. It shows the children led for days in chains to a flat desert plain with rocks and grass. North of the Caucasus region where such a landscape can be seen are the northeastern coasts of the Caspian sea towards the borders of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.

Also an interesting observation in the movie is that most people have European features. The movie is set in a time period when Central Asia was still inhabited by Caucasian skulled Indo-Europeans prior to the Turko-Mongol migrations which occurred mainly in the fifth and sixth centuries AD.

If you look carefully at the slave "owner" in the scene, he could easily be an ancestor of the bearded Pakhtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We see this slave owner selling Conan off to another slave owner with red hair and a beard. According to claims I've read by Turkic people, Kyrgyzstan was once filled with red haired people. This is possible since the Tocharians who lived in the Tarim desert east of Kyrgyzstan in China were said to have been Celtic related red haired people.

After Conan is sold to a new slave owner and becomes a successful gladiator, we hear the narrator saying he was taken to the far east.
In the "far east" of the movie Conan is seen being trained by Han Chinese warriors. The far east in the movie is most likely northwest of China. A strong inaccuracy here was the way the Han Chinese warriors were dressed. I think there is little evidence to suggest the Han Chinese dressed in such fashion in ancient times. Their outfits look more like they were from the first millennium AD.

The rest of the filming locations were taken in southern Italy and Spain. It shows mostly grassland and desert. It even shows scenes of snowfalls in the desert. This is Central Asia, a landmass which is nothing more than grasslands and deserts with dry, cold winters.
We also see Conan befriend Subutai, the unnamed wizard and Valeria, who fits the description of a Sarmatian.

The Sarmatians were often mistaken for the Scythians due to their nomadic lifestyle and common Iranic language. However the main difference between the two was that Sarmatian women were trained to fight unlike Scythian women.
In fact according to historians, Sarmatian women were not accepted for marriage unless they killed a warrior of the enemy tribe.

King Osric, another character from the story is shown. He is most likely another Indo-European tribal leader as his costume depicts:

The rest of the movie shows Conan and his friends situated around a the sea in the middle of the desert. The actual filming location was on a coastal area of the USA but from what I can see in the story it is most likely the coast of the Aral Sea.

A scene also shows Conan journeying for days in pursuit Thulsa Doom that takes him across to a mountainous area which appears to be a depiction of the Altay mountain region.
The only error I can see here is the Altay mountains have more grass and less sand/stones. It is less of a rocky landscape and more of a flat grassland region with rivers which the movie doesn't show.

Amongst the more fictional elements of the movie was the snake worship in Thulsa Doom's cult. Though animal worship was a strong part of Indo-European spiritualities and cultures, it was not restricted to any single animal worship, but a wide range of animals which most likely included snakes.
And as the creators of the movie commented, the snake cult is fictional even though I notice their symbols are derived from actual historic Indo-European cultures such as the sun and the moon.

The other fantasy elements are of course the magical themes and folklore altered to reality within the movie's storyline.
The second movie Conan the Destroyer is less relevant as it is further out of touch with reality and has more fantasy themes and plot-lines more so than the first film.

The geographic settings in the second film are the only realistic elements which depict the semi-forests and grasslands. This is because the story was set more towards Europe than desert/grassland covered Central Asia.

I usually don't discuss movies in my anthropology blog nor intend to in the future unless they're historical or inspired by history. But Conan the Barbarian is accurate for it's historical depictions of Central Asia and the Indo-European nomads who lived there prior to the Turko-Mongol migrations.

I recommend this movie to anyone who seeks a physical depiction of ancient Indo-European peoples of Central Asia on video and what the region looked like demographically in ancient times.

Post update: This trivia contains more possible inspirations to the movie.

Indo-European genetic, cultural and linguistic influence on Altaic peoples

Though not yet common knowledge, it is becoming well known that Central Asia was inhabited by Caucasian skulled Indo-European speaking populations in ancient times.
In fact Indo-European speaking populations made it as far east as modern day China, Mongolia and Siberia.

The most notable Indo-European ethno-linguistic groups to roam the Eurasian steppes and grasslands were the Scythians and Samaritans who spoke languages belonging to the Iranic branch of the Indo-European language family.

Earlier I had assumed that Indo-European (IE) genes found in Central Asian Turkic and Mongolic populations was a direct result of the migration tides by Altaic peoples (which includes both Turkic and Mongolic peoples) across Eurasia and their forceful destruction/assimilation of the remaining IE peoples living there.

But according to a book I read on the Scythians written by Tamara Talbot Rice published in 1961, various Scythian graves excavated in Central Asia and the Eurasian steppes revealed a Mongoloid figure(s) placed next to the Scythian in the grave. The Mongoloid individuals revealed in the various graves next to the Scythians were probably spouses or slaves buried next to their "masters" to serve them in the next world.

There's another book on the Scythians that I am currently reading published in 1980 by Renate Rolle called the The world of the Scythians.
That book claims that excavations in the Kurgan reveal Scythians with more Mongoloid features.

This could be a clear indication that Indo-Europeans were mixing with Altaic populations as far back the first millennium BC.
The light skinned/haired peoples in Mongolia and Central Asia might be the result of this as opposed to Turko-Mongol tribes migrating into Central Asia and bringing back their IE mates to present day Mongolia. The Turko-Mongols never moved back to the Altay mountain region upon their migrations in the fifth and sixth centuries AD. They just kept moving West as far as the Black Sea region.

It was the Scythians who migrated as far as the Altay mountain region and left their genetic imprints there. This is the reason why I believe many Mongolian and Turkic peoples in Central Asia look like the blond Mongolian child pictured below:

Even the Haplogroup map below shows larger genetic inputs of Haplogroup R in Central and Eastern Asia: (click on image to enlarge)

It should be noted that Haplogroup R and it's subclades have been associated with early Indo-European speaking populations and their descendants. The map of the Scythian inhabited territories coincides with high frequencies in the exact same regions: (click on image to enlarge)


All this is clear evidence of race mixing occurring between the Indo-European Scythians and Altaic populations in ancient times.
The Indo-Europeans, more specifically the Scythians went as far as the Altay mountain region and brought back ancient Altaic spouses and/or slaves with them when journeying across Central Asia.

Scythian royal family member ("Golden man") excavated in Central Asia:

Then towards the end of the first millennium BC, the Scythians started to disappear. As Tamara Talbot wrote in her book, the Scythians disappeared from the pages of history as abruptly as they appeared.
As I stated earlier, I had presumed the disappearance of IE languages and peoples in Central Asia to be the result of Altaic nomads who swept across the Eurasian wastelands, spreading death and destruction everywhere and that might be partially true, but not the only reason.

Indo-European genetic imprints in Altaic populations today might not be only because of Turko-Mongol assimilation, but rather Scythian incursions into the East of Eurasia.
The early Turko-Mongols might have been already carrying IE genes in them upon their sudden arrival from the Altay. Clearly they have been influenced by the Scythians in ancient times to have such enormous imprints of Haplogroup R and for Scythian grave mummies to show signs of Mongoloid features.

Horse domestication and usage is found amongst the Altaic peoples up till present day most likely seems to have it's roots in contact with IE nomads who journeyed east into Siberia and the Altay mountain region.
Horse domestication has long been associated with Indo-European peoples and many even blindly claim it to be an Indo-European invention.

Though I do not believe that the prehistoric Indo-Europeans were the only peoples or even the very first ones to be behind horse domestication, I still believe that they were amongst the first to be involved in such a practice.
The discovery of horses and chariot-like designs in Indo-European archeological sites are strong evidence that the IE peoples were amongst the first inventors of this practice.

It has been widely accepted that the domestication of the horse and invention of the chariot is the reason for the Indo-European language family having been able to cover so much landmass.
Grave excavations, artifacts and inscriptions indicate how important the horse and the chariot were in Indo-European cultures. Greek and Roman mythology are good example of the horses importance to Indo-European cultures and spirituality. Germanic mythology also shows the importance of the horse and it's usage to the Indo-Europeans.

Below is a horse and chariot symbol possibly from Germanic mythology:

Many sources that I have come across also claim early IE dialects having several terminologies for horses and horse domestication.
Horses were also often sacrificed and buried with their "owners" in Scythian culture. This is probably to accompany their "owners" into the next world. It is the usage of the horse that gave the Scythians and just about the entire Indo-Europeans such mobility across Eurasia.

Such usages of the horse and mobile vehicles attached to them is not as well noted by other races and cultures in ancient times as much as the practice has been associated with Indo-European peoples.
Of course in more recent centuries we've seen other races adapt to this practice such as the Semites and the Turko-Mongols. This is a cultural imprint left behind on them from contact with Indo-European peoples, most likely the Scythians.

Though the Altaic language family is relatively small compared to the Indo-European family in terms of numbers of languages and native speakers, it is still very comparable to IE in many other ways.
The Altaic language family covers plenty of landmass much like the IE family does. It also spread in much the same way across the Eurasian continent adjacent to it's original homeland (the Altay mountain region) going in the opposite direction like the IE family, except IE has it's presence on two sides adjacent to it's original homeland whereas Altaic has only one known direction going West and Southwestward of it's original homeland.

Refer to the following maps. A map of the Altaic languages subfamilies and where they are spoken:

A map showing the spread of the IE languages:

The spread of the Altaic languages across the Eurasian continent, much like in the same manner as Indo-European was once again owed to mobility and transportation which was made available with the use of horses and chariots. Horse domestication and controlled breeding by Turkic peoples is described in this source.

The domestication and usage of the horses was a trait the Turko-Mongols most likely picked up from Indo-Europeans in ancient times.
Horse domestication and usage was also successful with the Mongols and their rise to power in the 12th century under Genghis Khan. According to a documentary I once saw, the Mongols also switched horses at checkpoints to be able to cover vast distances.

Depiction of Tatars on horses:

Sources on Indo-European cultures throughout Central Asia as well as the Eurasian steppes such as this book summary mention the importance of the horse to ancient Indo-European peoples.

Horse domestication and usage is most likely another cultural trait picked up by Altaic peoples from the Indo-Europeans.

I was recently watching a documentary on Genghis Khan and the Mongols (I haven't finished seeing it) and it discussed Mongolian customs during the great Khans. The burial of horses, spouses, jewelry and other possessions into an important Mongol leader's grave sounded like a carbon copy of those described in Scythian customs. All of this is too similar to be coincidental.

Blood bothering is another practice reported amongst the Scythians and was also commonly found in the twelfth century Mongols, including Genghis Khan himself.

Another strong comparable cultural trait between Altaic and Indo-European peoples are astronomical symbols found amongst both cultures/spiritualities.
Take for example the sun and moon symbols found on these crosses flags of Mongolia and Kazakhstan: (click on image to enlarge)

They bear striking resemblances to astronomical symbols used by Indo-European peoples. Take for example this sun symbol from Roman mythology:

The differences are obvious, but the directional design of the sun is almost entirely the same as the sun designs of Turko-Mongol peoples.

Here are other symbols used by Indo-European peoples. The mythological creature and sun in the background are traditional symbols found in the cultures of Iranic peoples such as Kurds and Persians in this case:

The moon is also a comparable astronomical symbol between the Turko-Mongols and the Indo-Europeans as both civilizations have them displayed in a similar crescent shape.
Take for example this Greek crescent moon symbol representing the moon goddess from Greek mythology:

Here are some historic and unofficial flags of Turko-Mongol peoples that have astronomical symbols very similar to Indo-European ones:

Click on image to enlarge:

I'm not trying to imply that Indo-Europeans were the first to practice sun and moon worship and that everyone else borrowed the practice from them. The worship of astronomical objects amongst humans is found in cultures throughout the world going back thousands of years.
This is only natural due to the fact that the living inhabitants on the surface of the planet Earth have been exposed to them since their very existence.

However the design of the sun and moon as well as other astronomical symbols in Indo-European cultures is depicted in a certain style more distinct from other cultures. If one looks at designs and depictions of the same objects in various unrelated cultures they vary and look very distinct.

For example if you compare the Valentine heart to that of ancient Egyptian depictions of the heart. The Egyptian depiction of the human heart is the same as the real heart, whereas the Valentine heart is imaginative and bears no resemblance to the actual heart.

Likewise there are cultures that depict astronomical symbols in different shapes and designs.
The similar directional designs in the examples I provided all seem to point to a common origin.

The presence of Indo-Europeans across the Eurasian steppes plus evidence of genetic influence alongside grave sites as far as the Altay is too big of a coincidence for the symbols of the Altaic peoples to resemble Indo-European ones.

The locations of such burial tombs are found in Kazakhstan and even further east in Siberia and Mongolia.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is a common source in such cultural practices in the peoples of the Altaic steppes, their relatives in Central Asia and those of the ancient Indo-Europeans.

On the linguistic side I have also found linkages. Many sources such as this one claim linkages between the Indo-Aryan languages and the Mongolic languages.
I've seen many comparisons between Hindi, an Indo-Aryan language, and Mongolian. I first presumed this to a another result of Scythian contact with Proto-Turko-Mongols since the Scythian language was an Iranic language.

The Iranic languages along with the Indo-Aryan languages as well the Dardic and Nuristani languages all constitute the Indo-Iranic language family.
The extinct Scythian language belonging to the Iranic subbranch of Indo-Iranic would technically be the closest language to modern Hindi spoken in the area of the Eastern Eurasian steppes.

But now it appears there is an even closer link which is not a Scythian source in this case. Sanskrit is described as "the mother of all modern Indo-Aryan languages."
Sanskrit has also been the sacred language of various cults/religions throughout much of South and Central Asia. It has often been the sacred language of Buddhism and the language of many spiritualities today dubbed as "Hinduism."

The vast majority of Mongolians today are Buddhist and Sanskrit appears to have been used for prayer by the Mongols for centuries. They might not use it today, but Indo-Aryan traces are found in Mongolian, most likely as a result of Sanskrit usage for religious services.

All of these are evidence of genetic, cultural, and linguistic influence of Indo-Europeans on Altaic peoples.

There's no such thing as a "mixed language(s)" except possibly in extremely rare cases.

I pointed out in one of my other blogs that almost every living language in the world carries words borrowed from another language.
Languages that are perceived to be "pure" as in not influenced by another language, weather in vocabulary or any other area are extremely rare assuming they even exist.

Such "pure" languages would be considered extraordinary along with their speakers as well as the locations and environments they live in.
And even if such languages are found, they may show traces of influence from an extinct language/languages, discounting their strict "purity."

Likewise having heavy or light influences from other languages does not make the influenced language an "off-spring" of the influencing languages.
Even if the language that has borrowed vocabulary is related to the languages it borrowed from, it still does not constitute what many mistakenly see as "language mixing."

The reason why you cannot have a mixed language is because languages are not simply words. They are a strict set of rules and patterns with few exceptions depending on the language.
Even when you mix words from a different language in your phrase or sentence and think that you're speaking two or more languages together, you are mistaken. If you pay attention to the grammar, you will realize which language you are actually speaking regardless of which words you use.

It's usually the word order and usages that determine it. And even if you speak with a word order alien to all the languages that you are supposedly "mixing," it is still only one of the languages you're speaking.
Certain components you are applying in your phrase or sentence will be most applicable only in one of the languages that you are speaking.

For example, if you were to try and construct a sentence of English and French, you can only use one of the two languages' grammars and/or other key components, particularly syntax. This is because French and English mostly have distinct grammars that cannot combine.

This is true for just about every spoken on Earth. Combining words is just as far as one can get. And even when combining words, one has to ensure there is no grammar conflict between the word or words being used and the language it is being forced into.

And when there is a grammar conflict, the language using it has to exceptionally modify it's grammar to accommodate the borrowing word or to give the word some sense.
When that is properly done, the language borrowing the word and possibly modifying itself is the language being spoken.
This may appear to many as what they call "language mixing" but they will realize it is not such when they actually analyze the "mixed sentence."

The only way to create mixed sentences of two or more languages is speaking at least one phrase from each language.
If the phrases are completed and spoken in the appropriate grammars of their respective languages, you can produce a mixed sentence. But again, you are not mixing the two or more languages as many would mistake this process to be.

I read it is common for Arabic speakers from former French colonies to mix French with Arabic.
The same is true for many South Asians fluent in English and those who use English in everyday life. When Arabs from Lebanon or other former French colonies mix their Arabic with French, they usually speak sentences with phrases from each language.

For example, it is common for them to greet one another by saying "Kif Haq. Bein?"
Kif Haq= How is it going in Arabic.
Bein= Good/fine in French.

So the sentence consisting of a French and an Arabic phrase would come out as a mixed sentence. But the two phrases are complete and independent of one another. The Arabic phrase starts and ends with it's full message before the French phrase begins. This is an example of constructing sentences from two separate languages.

But the languages did not intermingle. They are very different in grammar and in key fundamentals. Language is more than just putting together words. It's the method of putting the words together. Those methods vary in each language. One cannot speak a language by memorizing their words and meanings but also by understanding their usages, how to correctly combine them and their exceptions.

Examples of appropriating a word(s) from a foreign language into the one you speak is when English speaking South Asians fit in English words into their sentences. This is true especially for many speakers of Sindhi, Punjabi and Hindustani (which is counted as both Hindi and Urdu).

At many times Westernized speakers of these languages tend to fit in English words into their sentence when speaking their language.
But even still they are using Indo-Aryan grammar upon the word they are using.

An example of using the English word "throw" in Urdu would be "Uos Ko throw kar low."
This technically translates to "throw that" or "throw it."

In English grammar the word throw is enough to be considered a verb form as a word on it's own. This is not possible in Urdu which requires the root word to combine with the meaning of doing something to create a verb. "Kar low" or "kar dow" literally mean do do it.
So when saying "Ous ko throw kar dow" or "Uos ko throw kar low" the person actually really speaking Urdu but adding an English word and slightly altering the grammar to give it meaning to the English word which would make no sense at all on it's own if used in Urdu.

As already mentioned, Hindustani cannot use a word in verb form simply on it's own. If the Urdu word for throw p/hayk, (pronounced p-h-ache) is used, then kar would not be used and the phrase would be "Uos ko p/hayk dow."

This again is not mixing languages, but simply adding words from one language into another. Two distinct languages cannot be combined or mixed.

In that way linguistics is very much like genetics. Genetics is also language but in a more physical form. This is why genetic relationship is the term used in comparative linguistics.

Two or more languages are distinct from one another as two or more species are from one another. The possibility of combining two languages into a "mixed" or "hybrid" language is as probable as mating two distinct species to produce a hybrid off spring(s).
If one were to try to combine English and German into one language, it would be like trying to mate a lion and a tiger. Both English and German are closer relatives than other Germanic languages as they belong to the Western Germanic subfamily.

Likewise lions and tigers are much closer to one another than they are to other cats such as lynx or domestic bobby cats.
I've briefly read and heard of cases of closely related species mating such as leopards with cheetahs or mules with donkeys. From what I learned, the offspring(s) was not very developed genetically. For instance they were unable to reproduce. That would be likely for most offsprings of inter-breeding amongst distinct species.

Their senses would likely be undeveloped. Their eyesight and reproducing functions would be weak. In short they would not be fully stable creatures with regular functionaries than of a normal off-spring of any species. The only chance of an inter-bred creature having the same characteristics as other normal beings is through mutation.

That almost never occurs. And if it does, it is not always positive. Likewise, it is very difficult construct a "mixed language" out of two distinct languages. One can combine certain areas of corresponding grammar but no more than that.

French and Urdu have certain areas of corresponding grammar. French adds the sound "er" to it's root words to create a verb(s) of imperfect present tense. Urdu similarly adds the sound "naa" to it's root words to create imperfect present tense as in "caat-naa" which means to cut.
In that case you could add the Urdu suffix for the French root word and vice versa. However, only people familiar or fluent in both languages would be able to make sense out of them if they were shown the comparisons.
That would probably be the closest thing to "language mixing." In many other areas French and Urdu grammar hardly correspond.

Going back to mixing two closely related languages like English and German, the result would be just like mixing the mule and donkey or lion and tiger. The "mixed language" would be highly undeveloped.
It's speakers would be able to have limited communication amongst themselves let alone outsiders. Though English and German have much in common grammatically, their differences are far too great for them to merge.

German has vowels such as Ö which is alien to English. English also has similar vowels alien to German speakers. Their grammars also differ in far too many areas. As an example "Sprechen sie Duestche" (pronounced "shpreken-zee-Dauitch") is a formal way of saying in German "Do you speak German?"

If "Sprechen sie Duestche" was literally translated into English word for word, it would translate to "Speak thy German?" in old English. Even in old English, that word order would make little sense. In modern English it would translate to "Speak you German?"
Technically an English speaker would understand the question if analyzed properly and the same is true for people speaking a "mixed language(s)."

But then the problem gets worse. Like the off-spring of two separate species, this "mixed language" would have no proper set of rules and would unlikely be sustainable.
It's speakers would have to constantly struggle in areas of speech that they have not touched before. They will be left guessing and trying to make up rules for this undeveloped language. This would make their situation only more difficult.

When they try to combine the same phrase or sentence from English and German, they will have difficulty deciding which languages' grammar to apply. Applying both will not work. The results would be something like "Sie sprechen Duestche" "Sie speak German" "Do Deutsche sprechen sie" or "Speak you German?"

Such phrases will make sense in neither languages. And even when the speakers of this "mixed language" manage to create any standardized grammar, it would still be limited to a few areas of conversation.
That's what happens to any "mixed language" when two or more distinct languages are applied. A language has a clear set of rules. Some languages have rules that limit their flexibility and thus are often considered unsophisticated or at least less sophisticated than other languages.

But regardless, each individual language has a strict set of rules. Once the speakers of a language (which is usually infancy in the case for native speakers) grasp the rules, they will be able to use the language in all areas of conversation. Even when learning new words the speakers learn can automatically determine their usages because the rules have automatically been established in their minds.

Such would be impossible when trying to combine languages into a "hybrid language."
Speakers would be left constantly trying to guess on the usages of words, phrases and sentences.

Another great example would be trying to mix Persian and Hindustani, both Indo-Iranic languages. Persian belongs to the Iranic subbranch while Hindustani belongs to the Indo-Aryan subbranch.

Hindustani distinguishes gender through verbs, tenses and possessive pronouns, while the concept of gender distinction does not exist in Persian or even in other Iranic languages such as Baloch.
So when expressing a verb using Persian and Hindustani grammar, the speaker will be stuck trying to determine weather to use the Hindustani gender distinctive verb or trying to use neutral gender in the case of Farsi.

If it is one or the other, then the phrase or sentence's grammar will come out as one language or the other. The speaker cannot pick both or neither.
Combining the two related but distinct languages will be as possible as mating a whale and a dolphin.

Languages again are just like species. Related languages are like related species. Similar, yet unable to fully reproduce with one another.

The only possibility of combining two or more languages is if their grammars are identical. It would not matter if the languages are related or not. If their grammars correspond in all fields, mixing them would not be as challenging. The only challenge would be deciding which words of which parent languages to use in which sections of the hybrid language.

Though I doubt the existence languages with identical grammars, especially unrelated languages and the process of combining them, theoretically it is possible.

The various Arabic dialects of the Middle East and North Africa are very distinct in pronunciation and vocabulary. However, they are still considered Arabic, so they may be able to combine with one another with little or no grammar conflict.

The same could be said for Yiddish and German and Hindi and Urdu. But in this case it is not as improbable since all the mentioned languages and dialects are from a common single language and closely related to their comparable counterparts.

In this way different dialects of the same language are like different races or breeds of the same species. We have many breeds of domestic cats, dogs etc.
Just as we have different races of humans who are still able to mate.

The same could be true for the Turkic languages of Central Asia that vary mainly in vocabulary and pronunciation, but more or less are the same in grammar. This is where linguistics and genetics contradict each another. While in linguistics you can theoretically combine two closely languages/dialects and create a sustainable off-spring, in genetics it would lead to disaster.

An inbred off-spring in any living species is unlikely to survive. And if it or they do, it wouldn't last for more than a few generations at the most.

The misconception of being able to mix languages or the existence of "mixed/hybrid languages" exists worldwide. Many ignorant and uneducated people believe in such phenomenon without realizing the actual circumstances of such a process.
The idea of mixed languages is also strong in politics and is often a tool for political propaganda.

English suffers from such misconceptions due to it's influence from Greek, Latin, French and other languages.
Most people don't pay attention to English loan words in French or in modern Greek. This is mostly out of sheer ignorance or also due to the fact they do not understand the concept of borrowed vocabulary.

However, English does not suffer as badly as Urdu in this case. Many Arab and Iranian racists have propagated Pakistanis to be culturaless Muslims with no language of their own. They see Urdu as nothing more than an "off-shoot" of their own languages. The same is true for Dari/Tajik speaking Afghans. The same propaganda comes out of provincial ultra-nationalists in Pakistan who claim Urdu to be nothing more than an artificial construct of Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian and Turkish.

They see it as a young and new language that is a predator in their homes. They see their languages as the older and more respectable languages and Urdu nothing more than a young, artificially constructed language and a weapon of the Punjabi elites who are conspiring to eliminate them and their cultures.

Never do these ignorant people stop to think of the thousands of Arabic and Persian loanwords words in Baloch, Sindhi and other languages of Pakistan.

There are even some but few Hindutva fundamentalists in India who see Urdu as a carbon copy of Hindi just by using vocabulary from Persian, Arabic and the Turkic languages using Perso-Arabic script.
They do not realize that much of the Persian, Arabic and Turkic vocabulary in Hindi was artificially removed by their leaders. Urdu actually stands in closer proximity to the original Hindustani language of the Mughals due to retaining most of it's vocabulary.

Even modern Hindi is often incomprehensible to many Indians, which is why Urdu is often used, but called Hindustani to avoid public backlash caused by the sensitivity. Sometimes both Hindi and Urdu are jointly used in the Indian media, but again called by the name Hindustani to keep it neutral.

Languages constantly borrow words from one another and evolve upon that, especially when they try to accommodate the words they are trying to assimilate.
And when they do not borrow foreign words, they often evolve on their own words. Very few languages have escaped evolution if any such languages still exist.

Languages often evolve both independently and under influence from outside words by trying to accommodate borrowed words into their grammar. But the misconception of "mixing languages" is all over due to these processes which are misinterpreted.

Very few people really mention the English influence on French or the Sanskrit influence on Arabic. Many Sanskrit and Phoenician words in European languages have been passed onto them through Arabic.
Yet nobody calls Arabic a "mixed language" or the European languages such as Spanish and English borrowing these words as "language mixing."

It all takes us back to politics and preferences. Languages that are seen as enemies or spoken by people disliked by another group of people, that other group of people then pull out the propaganda of "mixed language" as a way of discrediting that language and it's speakers.
But as explained, such a language does not exist and perhaps even never existed beyond theory.

Possible origins of the Hazara people of Afghanistan

Many differing theories on the origin of the Hazara people span across historians and anthropologists. The most well known theory is that they are descendants of Genghis Khan and his army. This has also been claimed by many Pakhtuns (more commonly known in English as Pashtuns) who see them as outsiders in Afghanistan and mostly regard them with contempt.

However, the theory of them descending from Genghis Khan's hordes is denied by many Hazaras. Even the current Turkic speaking population of Central Asia who are almost entirely Mongoloid by race are wrongly perceived by many to be derived from the twelfth century Mongols.

This perception is wrong. The Turkic speaking populations actually descend from Proto-Turko-Mongol nomads who migrated out of the Altai mountain region in present-day Northern China, Mongolia and South Eastern Siberia between the sixth and eleventh centuries AD.
This is where I believe the Hazaras descend from.

The Turkic people of Central Asia do share a common ancestry with modern Mongolians and the Turkic languages/dialects they speak also together belong with Mongolian inside the Altaic language family.
And as mentioned these people migrated out of the Altai mountain region as far back as the fifth and sixth centuries into modern Central Asia which is partially how the Turkic languages split away from the Mongolic languages of which Mongolian is one of.

Genghis Khan's army simply incorporated much of Central Asia into his empire during the twelfth century AD. So the common ancestry between Central Asia's Turkic population as well as their languages' distant relation to Mongolian is the source of their similarity to modern Mongolians, not Genghis Khan's military colonizations.

The main difference between Hazaras and Turkic peoples of Central Asia is that the Hazaras speak Dari, an Iranic language almost identical to Farsi.
Another but less noticeable difference is that the Hazaras are found mainly in Afghanistan as well as some in Pakistan and even fewer in Iran. The Turkic Uzbeks and Turkmens are also found in Afghanistan, but are only small minorities there and found mostly in Central Asia.

My main reasons for them descending from ancient Turkic tribes is that the Turko-Mongols were in Central Asia and modern Afghanistan for over a thousand years.
Also the Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan were brought through conquest because since ancient times various parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan were under Persian rule starting with the Achmemenid Empire in ancient times and was reinforced during the Sassanid period in the third century AD.

The Persian language spread much throughout western Afghanistan all the way up till the Pamir Valley.
It is spoken in these areas till this day though in different dialects such as Tajik or Dari. As the ethnic map of Afghanistan pictures below, these are the areas the Hazaras inhabit in modern which would be my best explanation as to why the Hazaras speak an Iranic language today:



If the Tajiks living as far away as the remote Pamir Valley and beyond into Tajikistan are speaking Persian today, then the strongest probability of the Hazaras speaking it is due to direct contact with the Persian armies who occupied the region that they live in as the above map also shows.

But various Persian occupations of modern Afghanistan predate Genghis Khan's conquests by centuries. So there could not have been such a strong contact between Persians and Hazaras if the Hazaras came as late as the twelfth century AD.
This makes the case stronger for them being in Afghanistan at a much earlier period dating as far back as the sixth century.
Additionally, most portions of Afghanistan came under Turkic rule in the eighth century and again by Persian-Turkic Ghazvanids in the ninth century. All this happened centuries before Genghis Khan was even born.

I also want to touch more on the racial component. Though I am unable to find an accurate haplogroup map of Afghanistan or Central Asia, the appearance of Hazaras also show a closer affinity with Afghanistan and Central Asia's Turkic populations.

The Altaic peoples east of the Caspian Sea basin might be mostly or almost entirely Mongoloid, however they show significant European features in them.
It is well known that before the Altaic migrations started in the fifth and sixth centuries AD, much of Central Asia was inhabited by scattered white populations mainly of Indo-European (IE) descent though there is also the possibility of extinct peoples from the Caucasus. By white I mean white skin, light hair/eyes and Caucasian skull.

The best known Indo-European sub-races in Central Asia were the Scythians. Many tombs found in China, Mongolia and Central Asia contained these extinct IE peoples' bodies. The IE peoples migrated as far as the Tarim desert and the Altai mountain region where their graves and racially mixed descendants are still found.

These descendants are hybrids of the migrating Turko-Mongols mixing with the ancient white populations of Central Asia and that is why many of them have light hair and eyes.
This trait is commonly found in the Hazaras. The Hazara child pictured below is just another example of this:


I believe that this influence in the Hazaras are a direct result of ancient contact and mixing between IE tribes and Turko-Mongols. These IE sub-races were extinct far before the twelfth century, so the possibility of Mongols picking up this gene at that time would be close to impossible. I would not believe that these traits were a result of Hazaras mixing with whiter populations of Afghanistan such as the Nuristanis. Not on a large scale anyway. Otherwise we'd see plenty of or even most Nuristanis today with Mongoloid features.

Many Mongols also have this feature too since the IE Scythians had a strong presence in Mongolia as seen in this Mongolian girl pictured below:




This is most likely an isolated area in Mongolia. Most of the Mongolian population even today remains mostly isolated so it's likely those Mongolians with traces of IE genes did not mix with other Mongol tribes.
But such a trait save for the blond hair is quite common amongst the Hazara population as well as Central Asian Turkic peoples. Massive race mixing should have occurred in Central Asia to have these significant white traits till present day amongst mainly Mongoloid populations.

By the twelfth century, there was absolutely nothing left of Central Asia's white populations as far as I can tell save for their living descendants who are mostly Mongoloid.
So for Hazaras to be of twelfth century Mongolian descent and living in a multi-ethnic country like Afghanistan while still showing signs of white features, the Mongolian hordes would had to have been mixing with white populations. But the problem is the whites of Central Asia were extinct by then so where did they pick up these white genes?

My most reasonable explanation is that they did not descend from Genghis Khan's army. They may share a common origin with the Mongolians going back more than a thousand years- like Central Asian Turks, but definitely did not descend from them.

The word Hazir means a thousand in Persian similar to Hazar in Urdu. This is also referred to Genghis Khan's army of one thousand. If this was root for the name for Hazara, it is most likely that they served in Genghis Khan's army. Most of Central Asia was under Mongol rule in the twelfth century and had Turkic populations serving their armed forces, so the probability of the Hazaras serving in Genghis Khan's army is most likely.

Central Asia was the heartland of more pure breed IE racial types as opposed to the Iranian plateau or the Indus Valley in Pakistan where Iranics and Indo-Aryans were already mixing with native Elamites, Dravidians and others; thus altering their gene pools.
Only isolated areas of Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan show more pure breed IE sub-races.

Even this haplogroup map shows the IE haplogroup R and it's subclades at close to zero levels in the Mongolian population whereas Central Asian populations still have much larger traces of it.
Again, where did Hazaras suddenly pick up such a significant trace of IE genes in their gene pool if they descend from Genghis Khan's army?

Though there might have been a Mongolic language found in a few Hazara tribes towards Herat, this particular tribe may have picked it up as opposed to the rest of the Hazara population.
Mongolian influence may have occurred on the Hazaras but it also occurred on other populations such as the Pakhtuns as pointed out in this article. There are also Pakhtuns who exhibit Mongoloid influence in their physical appearance, though not that very many.

Even the light skinned and light haired Mongolians probably have these genes due to being isolated from the rest of the Mongolian population. Mongolia is a very sparsely populated country of nomads even today and has an extremely low birthrate, another sign of less race mixing.

In this post I want to conclude my belief that the most likely origins of the Hazaras are in the earlier waves of Turkic nomads who spread throughout much of Central Asia and dispersed much of it's white population and assimilating the remainders into their own race. They do not descend from Mongolian armies that came later in the twelfth century, much after the first Altaic migrations started and probably even ended. Due to Persian influence over Afghanistan prior to the Mongol invasions, the Hazara adopted the Persian language and eventually developed their own dialect.

If Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kazakhs can live in Central Asia for over a thousand years and show more European influence in their gene pool than the Mongolians do, then why can't Hazaras who live on the other side of the Mongolians with the Turkic people separating them by thousands of miles.

There are also theories that the Hazara descend from Chagatai Turks who lived more towards China. The Chagatai Turks were partially derived from the Tocharians, the lost IE people who settled in the Tarim desert in China and who's descendants amongst the Turkic Uighurs are very much visible today. I do not find that a very much credible theory either, though I do not rule it out.

Still, that theory is much more probable than Hazaras descending from Genghis Khan's army.