ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 18, 2007 22:58:00 GMT -5
Hello Turkish neighbours again! I am Bulgarian and 4 days ago I passed through Istanbul while going to another country and since I had like 15 hours till my next flight I decided to go and see the city, instead of staying at the Attaturk airport. I really liked it. First thing, I thought you werent that religious (maybe because the Bulgarian Turks arent that religious)! I saw quite alot women dressed in muslim fashion. The men look like the other Bolkanian people. There were of course European dressed ladies. However its striking how the religion is fighting back to come back again. I think its best if you follow Attaturks lead. Second, I hope I dont start war or smth, but i think Turks in general look like the Greeks=dark hairs, dark skin (typical Medditerenian people)! I ve been in Greece and there is striking similarities especially with the Greeks around Athens. So, my question is: we know before the Turks come to Istanbul, it was a Byzantines capital. Byzantine was a multiethnic empire, however its almost 100 percent sure the Anatolian people were hellenized and they probably thought they were Greeks (or Romanoi). So do you think u are heirs mainly of the Greeks? And if so, why the both countries do not come along on the big issues?(though they ve been quite helpful to each other recently) Do u really think you are genetically the Turks (Central asian tribe)? Of course culturally, linguistically you are (though the Byzantine culture have played vital part too I think), but what about genetically? Are you closely related to the Greeks?
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Dec 19, 2007 2:07:52 GMT -5
Hi! To be honest with you don't take Istanbul as en example of Turks for yourself. That city is the biggest and most cosmopolıtan city. People from all over Turkey have migrated there. Try going to the Istanbul Islands to see true Istanbulians. My sisters fiancee came to Turkey this year and told me how suprised he was to see so many 'white Turks' Also you dont see hardly any people with headscarves here in Ankara.
As for who we are related to... well look at it this way. There are Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Laz, Arabic, Cherkez, Arnavut, Ethnic Turks and so on all under the name of Turkish. Over the years we have mixed so much it cannot be clear who is who. For example I have Egyptian, Bulgarian and Yoruk blood. My Bf has Tatar and Yoruk. Many people are really mixed up so I dnt think we are descended from Greeks 100% but we do have a percentage of Turks with Greek ancestors though I dont know how much.
Also It doesnt stop at that, In Turkey I have met Turks mixed with Italian(my cuz) English, Spanish, and much much more. Turks in Turkey are not a pure race. et there is a tiny percentage of pure Turks.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 19, 2007 3:57:39 GMT -5
Tnx for the response desire. I m aware that at this point there are no pure nations (including the Bulgarians) -especially on the Bolkans, this crossroad of so many people. And of course, I saw alot of people in Istanbul that looked quite different. However, most looked like pure meditarenians, just like the Athenians (dark hairs, dark eyes, dark skin). I instantly thought of all the Greeks that lived in Anatolia and thought to myself that probably those people had the biggest contribution to the Turkish nation (at least in Istanbul). I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 19, 2007 5:35:02 GMT -5
Tnx for the response desire. I m aware that at this point there are no pure nations (including the Bulgarians) -especially on the Bolkans, this crossroad of so many people. And of course, I saw alot of people in Istanbul that looked quite different. However, most looked like pure meditarenians, just like the Athenians (dark hairs, dark eyes, dark skin). I instantly thought of all the Greeks that lived in Anatolia and thought to myself that probably those people had the biggest contribution to the Turkish nation (at least in Istanbul). I could be wrong though. Racially speaking (since that is what you do), Greeks are related to the Armenians, Kurds and Iranians more than the Germans, British, or the Russians. I think you refer to some East Mediterranean features that exist in Greece, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Armenia, and even Azerbaijan. For example, I have Karachay, Balkar, Kumyk, and the Crimean Tatar ancestry, and I have not yet met many people around me who claim to have some Greek ancestry. As far as I comprehend, most distinctive ethnic elements in Turkey (excluding Turks) are Kurds, Zazas, Circassians, Laz (Georgian), Albanians, Bosnians, Chechens, Akbhazas, Pomaks, Romas, Iranians, Armenians, and Syrian Arabs.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Dec 19, 2007 6:50:17 GMT -5
Laz are not Georgian.
Georgian is Gurcu.
Laz speak a different language perhaps from the same family of Georgian.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Dec 19, 2007 10:45:41 GMT -5
I can`t understand how you people can trace so many ancestries. I traced my family tree to 1700 and something and they all come from two regions that I marked with pink on that map of the Carpathian mountains. And they were all Christian Romanian speaking people.
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Dec 19, 2007 12:20:56 GMT -5
I can`t understand how you people can trace so many ancestries. I traced my family tree to 1700 and something and they all come from two regions that I marked with pink on that map of the Carpathian mountains. And they were all Christian Romanian speaking people. Diur as i see your ancestors lived in montainous areas, i guess in small isolated villages. if they lived in cities they could meet with different ppl and mix with them. Also if your ancestors were greek orthodox or greek catholic (i guess) its not likely they mixed too much with Saxons (mostly Lutherans) or Huns (mostly roman catholic or calvinist) because until the 19th century (at least) it was not too accepted in the society there to marry to somebody from other christian sect. Only Serbs were nearby who were also orthodox and maybe a few greek catholic among them. I guess desire's and Janissary's ancestors of different ethnicities met with each other in bigger cities or there were muhajir (muslim refugees) settlements nearby and there was no religious barrier between them. but i dont know. I have ancestors from at least 5 different ethnicities, I'm a true Budapesti
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Dec 19, 2007 13:36:56 GMT -5
Diur as i see your ancestors lived in montainous areas, i guess in small isolated villages. Well, the ones from the Apuseni Mountains (western carpathians) were indeed isolated. But the ones from the f*garas Mountains (meridional carpathains) would often descend from the mountains and go in Sibiu, Brasov and other cities to sell their products (wool, cheese, woodcrafts etc.) so they were not that isolated But maybe you are right about the religious barrier. I guess desire's and Janissary's ancestors of different ethnicities met with each other in bigger cities or there were muhajir (muslim refugees) settlements nearby and there was no religious barrier between them. but i dont know. As I recall it, Janny was also born in a village. I don`t know if it was secluded also. The thing is that muslims were always more united than christians. While an orthodox would never marry a lutheran and vice-versa, a muslim sunni would easily marry a shia.... I think. I have ancestors from at least 5 different ethnicities, I'm a true Budapesti Is this specific for Budapestians? PS: What ethnicities are those?
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Dec 19, 2007 14:23:23 GMT -5
Turks seem to gravitate towards Russians. A number of Turks I've met are of part Russian ancestry and Turkish guys go nuts for Russian girls...
I have yet to see a real "Turkish face". I can spot an Alb from a mile away; as well as, although to a lesser extent, a Greek. But I've never seen two Turks have similar features. One is dark, the other light, one looks native to Anatolia, the other looks like they came straight from the steppe, one looks Balkan, another Kurdish, one looks Afghan, another Russian.
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Dec 19, 2007 14:23:43 GMT -5
I don't think there is any pure Hungarian, there are areas where more Hun-Slavic mix occured, other areas where more Hun-German mix other where Hun-Cuman and so but Budapest is the biggest melting pot in Hungary, ppl migrated here from almost every corner of the old country during the centuries. Magyar, German, Croat, Cuman, Czech ancestors are certain in my familytree, most were roman catholics and a few calvinists.
|
|
arize
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by arize on Dec 19, 2007 15:02:50 GMT -5
Hi Desire, how are you related to those 3 who in your family came from where? I am Bulgarian and I noticed you said you have Bulgarian blood !? I have never been to Turkey but I would like to visit some day because it looks like a nice place.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Dec 21, 2007 19:02:17 GMT -5
Actually, there are about 70 different ethnic grous, including ppl with so called "Balkan" ancestry - BG, former YU, AL and even ppl from Russia and Ukraine. In a Swedish documentary it was mentionned about some groups of Scandinavian vikings, who came and settle in the nort-western parts of TR - already in 14th/15th century. They were crossing rivers through Russia and Ukraine which resulted at the end that they reached the Bosphorus (via Black Sea). Another percentage of local ppl who have been living in the western part of the country for thousands of years have Thracian ancestry. The European part of TR (still called as Trakya is one example).
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 22, 2007 19:02:03 GMT -5
Laz are not Georgian. Georgian is Gurcu. Laz speak a different language perhaps from the same family of Georgian. Linguistically and ethnically, Laz peoples are classified as one of the Georgian peoples of Caucasus. The Caucasian peoples are subdivided, like the Caucasian languages, into two northern branches and a southern branch. The southerners, comprising the Georgians, the closely related Mingrelians and Laz, and the Svan, make up the Republic of Georgia and live in western Transcaucasia (the Laz live in Turkish territory). www.britannica.com/eb/topic-230293/Georgian
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 22, 2007 19:40:19 GMT -5
I can`t understand how you people can trace so many ancestries. I traced my family tree to 1700 and something and they all come from two regions that I marked with pink on that map of the Carpathian mountains. And they were all Christian Romanian speaking people. I guess desire's and Janissary's ancestors of different ethnicities met with each other in bigger cities or there were muhajir (muslim refugees) settlements nearby and there was no religious barrier between them. but i dont know. I have ancestors from at least 5 different ethnicities, I'm a true Budapesti You are right, Yeniceri. My relatives ended up in bigger cities eventually, and of course, they all knew from where they emigrated.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Dec 26, 2007 11:41:40 GMT -5
Georgian is believed to have separated from Megrelian and Laz in the first millennium BC. Based on the degree of change, linguists (e.g. Klimov, T. Gamkrelidze, G. Machavariani) conjecture that the earliest split occurred in the second millennium BC or earlier, separating Svan from the other languages. Megrelian and Laz separated from Georgian roughly a thousand years later.
Mingrelian and Laz are closely related, and neither is intelligible to those who speak only Georgian; Svan is quite different and apparently diverged from the others at an earlier date. Mingrelians live in Georgia's western lowlands, and Svans in two valleys up in the highest parts of the Caucasus; both peoples now also speak Georgian. Despite their linguistic differences Mingrelians and Svans regard themselves as Georgians, and Mingrelia and Svanetia are counted among Georgia's provinces. Almost all of the Laz live just over the Turkish border in Artvin and Rize provinces; they sometimes consider themselves distinct from Georgians. Scholars have tried to relate the Kartvelian languages to the neighboring Northwest and Northeast Caucasian families, to Indo-European, and even to Basque, but this question remains open.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Dec 26, 2007 12:09:23 GMT -5
The reason many Turks look like Greeks is because many Turks are in fact Greeks. There was huge forced Islamization and Turkification exerted on the local populace. Also, many Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Magyaer etc. children were taken by the Jannisaries at a very young age and then raised as Turks, most of them never realizing their true identity and most of them (their ancestors) are "Turks" to this day.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Dec 26, 2007 12:17:38 GMT -5
forced Islamization? doubt that! Turkification lol.... thats why they all spoke there own languages.... Taken? or given? who knows... btw who cares they are proud Turks today
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 28, 2007 19:07:10 GMT -5
well,most people of Turkey are of Anatolian descent.
The Anatolians are rich in ethnic ancestry.They were assimilated over and over with various conquerors of many ethnicities throughout history.Phrygian,Lydian,Carian,Goth,Urartian,Hittite,Hatian and many others.Look at people of Turkey who have been living in a place that was once the center of the Lydians.Their ancestors were probably once ethnically Lydian and then ethnically Greek and Turk.
But under Byzantine Empire,large numbers of them became assimilated into Greeks.Speaking Greek,dressing Greek,Greek Orthodox etc etc.
Though ehtnicities survived such as the Armenians,Assyrians and Kurds.
Of course under Ottoman Empire,loads of Anatolians converted to Islam by various means,and throughout time started becoming ethnically Turkish.
The intresting thing about this is that as they became assimilated throughout the centuries,alot of their cultures were mantained.
Thats why,Turks of Turkey have so much cultural similarities with Greeks:food,dress,dance,many Greek words in Turkish language.
Not only to Greeks,but to Armenians and older Anatolian cultures,as well Arabic and Persian cultures brought over by the conquering Turks who largely Perso-Arabic in culture when they came to Anatolia and the assimilated locals followed the cultural ways of the ruling Turks while still practising their culture.
Of course not all Anatolians managed to become Turkish in ethnicity under Ottoman rule,thats why you have the Hamshenis Armenians,Pontic Greek Muslims and of course,the Kurds,who were already Muslims when the Ottomans took over which is probably why they stayed Kurdish in ethnicity.But much Anatolians who converted to Islam managed to become Turkish.
Then of course,with the lost of European territories of the Ottoman Empire,came waves of European Muslims of various ethnicites including:Crimean Tatars,Karachays,Balkarians,Chechens,Bosniaks,Albanians,Pomaks,Muslim Greeks,Circassians and others.
From my observations here,many of these ethnic groups married each other in Turkey.I think the reason for that is because they consider themselves Turks as in national identity,and they were probably pretty much assimilated into majority ways which was national.So in a way,they were alike which didnt give much of a problem.
So no suprise of hearing Turks of Turkey having Tatar and Anatolian Turkish,or Kurdish and Bosniak or Albanian and Greek etc etc
But from the hundreds of pictures Ive seen of people of Turkey,most look like Arabs,and then Greek and the remaining bit like typical European,though I have also seen a minority who look Central Asian.Could be a legacy of the original Turks or the ones who migrated from the Soviet ruled Central Asia in the last century.
Most Turks Ive seen in Malaysia look European Mediterranean and then typical European,and some Middle Eastern.
Even the Turkish ambassador to Malaysia is of Crimean Tatar,Bosniak and Greek ancestry,he told me.
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 1, 2008 18:32:20 GMT -5
Yep ... those Anatolians were all sorts of things including Greek - and the Asiatic / Turkic component was pretty small. Even Turkish scholars say so ... (Thanks to Dienekes site dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html ). American Journal of Physical Anthropology (online early) 10.1002/ajpa.20772 Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans Ceren Caner Berkman et al. In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 1, 2008 19:54:31 GMT -5
thanks BR for posting the link ---------- How Turkish are the Anatolians?posted by Dienekes on Friday, February 11, 2005 The Anatolians are the ethnic descendants of both the indigenous populations of Asia Minor who converted to Islam (and were thus spared from the genocidal campaign of the Ottomans and Kemalists during the early 20th century), and also of non-indigenous populations from the Balkans, the Middle East, and Central Asia. From Central Asia came the Turks, who were the main agent for the Islamization and during the last century Turkification of Asia Minor. To what extent are the Anatolians descended from Central Asian Turks? The study of Cinnioglu et al. (2004) discovered an occurrence of 3.4% of Mongoloid Y-chromosomal haplogroups in Anatolia (haplogroups Q, O, and C). According to Tambets et al. (2004) the occurrence of Mongoloid haplogroups in present-day Central Asian Turkic Altaic speakers (Altaians) is at least 40%, with an additional 10% which might belong to haplogroup O which was not tested in this study. According to Zerjal et al. (2002) this percentage is for various Turkic speakers: Kyrgyz (22%), Dungans (32%), Uyghurs (33%), Kazaks (86%), Uzbeks (18%). It is clear that the percentage of Mongoloid ancestry among the Turkic speakers is very variable, yet it is clear that the Proto-Turks must have been partially Mongoloid in lieu of the fact that all current Turkic speakers possess some Mongoloid admixture. The average of the six Central Asian population samples listed above is 38.5% and may serve as a first-order estimate of the paternal contribution of early Turks, who (judging by their modern descendants in Central Asia) were more Caucasoid paternally and more Mongoloid maternally. Using the figure of 38.5%, the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%. It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolians, but it is by no means negligible. link
|
|