| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The People Of Anatolia
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The People Of Anatolia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The People Of Anatolia
    Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 02:31
Hey buddies
I wanted to know if the Anatolian people are a little bit related to the ancient people of Anatolia.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 03:06
If you read and speak Turkic, try this site: http://www.karalahana.com/
 
Now, serious inquiry and research should also take note of the politics involved as summarized by this article:
 
 
Are there any ancient Phrygian or Hittite alleles in the bloodstram of contemporary Turks?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 19:25
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Hey buddies
I wanted to know if the Anatolian people are a little bit related to the ancient people of Anatolia.


Hi Easternbul!
My answer is yes and that is my personal subjective opinion (others might disagree). However note that those people went through various phases. You have to go really back in time to find a person who identified himself as Hittite. With the pass of time, many of those people were incorporated into Greek, Assyrian and other societies. With the coming of the Turks, some of those people were in their turn incorporate into the Ottoman society, ethnically, culturally and religiously. However, their identity before that was still not Hittite, Phrygian, Lydian etc. The last strong identity of ancient people in Anatolia were the Phrygians who you may trace until the 6th century A.D.

However it is important to remember that those anatolian people where not Turkic. Even my girlfriend in the beginning thought Hittites were Turkic people, which obviously is not correct. The people of Anatolia belonged into a group of Indoeuropean speakers or in groups that we known as Language isolates (e.g the Hattic language), meaning that the bear no resemblance or closeness with any known language.

If you're interrested in ancient anatolia, i suggest you see the magnificent Turkish production called "The Hittites" which is basically a movie-documentary about the rise and fall of the Hittites and the people surrounding them.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 23:04
Hmm so can we say that all people from Anatolia are mostly IE people but speaking mostly a turkic language now ?Is it possible that they were looking Eastern Mediterranean?Many people in the west coast are looking very Mediterranean.Some have light brown skin and others are white.And what is with the people in Eastern-Anatolia?I know one guy who has a little bit green in his eyes.Are they mostly Armenoid?
 

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 23:31
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Hmm so can we say that all people from Anatolia are mostly IE people but speaking mostly a turkic language now ?


All anatolian people where not only IE speaking. For example the Hattic people who were incorporated into the Hittites were speaking a language that we've never seen an equivalent of nor can we group it into any known language groups. Also, the Etruscans were suspected to originate from Anatolia as well and fall into the same category with the Hattic.

Appart from those and others we may not be aware of, people like the Hittites, the Luwians, the Kaskas, the Lydians, the Lycians, the Phrygians, the Carians, the Armenians were speaking an Indoeuropean  language. In fact Hittite is the oldest attested Indoeuropean language and Phrygian is the closest language ever attested to Greek.

Now, all those people gradually switched their language to Greek, Armenian, Iranic and Arabic. With the coming of the Seljuks and later the Ottomans, many of them were intergrated into the Turkish society and culture. 

Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:


Is it possible that they were looking Eastern Mediterranean?Many people in the west coast are looking very Mediterranean.Some have light brown skin and others are white.And what is with the people in Eastern-Anatolia?I know one guy who has a little bit green in his eyes.Are they mostly Armenoid?


Of course they can look like other mediterraneans. Just an example. If the Etruscans truly came from some group of people in Anatolia and settled in Italy, then they have probably contributed genetically (more of less) to some Italians, Greeks and Turks.

The same happens for those living in the eastern areas. They share common characteristics with their neighbours. Also, don't forget that the Ottoman army used many originally non-Turks (from their early age) that it grew up with the Ottoman education and culture. Although in the beginning those people were celibate, in the end they were allowed to live a life like any Ottoman. So, from there you can guess that a lot of different non-Turkic people contributed whether they were from the Balkans, the middle east or Anatolia.

As for the green colour it does not indicate "Armenoid". I don't know why just Armenians should have green eyes. While blue is not that common in the Mediterranean basin, other light colours are not surprising at all. Green could be the eye colour in Iranic speaking people as well.


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2009 at 23:43
Ahh ok and how was the body structure of the old Anatolian people?
And are the people of West-Turkey more related to greeks than any other people?



Edited by Easternbul - 30 Jul 2009 at 23:47
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 00:47
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Ahh ok and how was the body structure of the old Anatolian people?


Well, i'm not really sure and i don't think there's something special about it. From the early days, the statues (of the Hittites for example) are not those detailed types you see later during the classical years. Later Phrygian statues are not much different from Greek and Roman.

Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:


And are the people of West-Turkey more related to greeks than any other people?


I can not have a definite answer but i would say that is likely. The same probably goes for some people living in the black sea coast. Maybe you can't make a general geographic rule about it, but for sure some people have some relation to Greeks more or less.

For example i know 1 turkish girl that is 25% Greek. I met another guy 10 months ago who was certain that his fathers family are of Greek ancestry. But those are cases where people know because of recent past. What about those who converted to Islam 300 years ago, their kids identified themselves as Ottomans and the later descendants forgot completely about their family tree?

In any case, any diversity amongst Turks can be mostly attributed to the jennisary i believe. I'm not a genetist though so i just speak theoretically. I'm pretty sure there are people who've done research on Turkish (of Turkey) ancestry. If i see anything i will let you now.


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 02:18
Interesting thread. Turkey has many diverse communities. What gives them unique identities revolves more around their cultures and languages than anything else. Racial purity is non-existent. Though Nation States of the 19'th and 20th centuries fiddled heavily with the concep[t of Nationalism the truth of the matter is that Turkey has been ethnically and culturally diverse. Over the course of the last century over one and a half million immigrants entered Turkey.  Turkey experienced a mass influx of almost half a million mostly Kurdish refugees from Iraq in 1988 and 1991, as well as mass influxes of Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, and Pomaks (Bulgarian-speaking Muslims), and Turks in 1989, 1992-1995, and 1999. Already based in Anatolia were large numbers of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. The former two have been reduced due to war, deportation and people swapping. Add to that list numerous illegal immigrants from the middle east and asia and the numbers of ethnic communities in Turkey swell. Another current influx of people had been those of the Central Asia turkic states.

Prior to the 20'th century there were mass infusions of people from the Balkans and Caucasus regions -
Muslim Albanians, Bosnians, Circassians, Pomaks, Tatars, and Turks. Jews from Spain were also moved into Ottoman territories but mostly in Selanik. Overall these diverse peoples have raised families in Turkey over the decades to where their citizenship is Turkish but their make up is more.

Going back further in time. The Seljuks were the first wave of massive Turkish movements into Anatolia. This was followed up by more Turkmens coming in from the Mongol invasions due to various reasons. As the Seljuks broke into many principalities Islam further carried an attraction into Anatolia. More central asians came in with Timur. The Ottomans attracted even more ethnicities from her sphere of influence, mostly to major cities of the day.

The Ancients. Turks are not Hitties or Phrygians or Greeks. Turks were not in Anatolia during those times. How many local ancients survived and mixed with centuries of immigrants is another story though and is beyond me to figure. One thing for certain, the mixture continues.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 05:33
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Interesting thread. Turkey has many diverse communities. What gives them unique identities revolves more around their cultures and languages than anything else. Racial purity is non-existent. Though Nation States of the 19'th and 20th centuries fiddled heavily with the concep[t of Nationalism the truth of the matter is that Turkey has been <span ="text2"> ethnically and culturally diverse. </span>Over the course of the last century over one and a half million immigrants entered Turkey.  <span ="text2">Turkey experienced a mass influx of almost
half a million mostly Kurdish refugees from Iraq in 1988 and 1991, as
well as mass influxes of Albanians, Bosnian Muslims</span><span ="text2">, and </span><span ="text2">Pomaks
(Bulgarian-speaking Muslims), and Turks in 1989, 1992-1995, and 1999. Already based in Anatolia were large numbers of Greeks, Armenians and Kurds. The former two have been reduced due to war, deportation and people swapping. Add to that list numerous illegal immigrants from the middle east and asia and the numbers of ethnic communities in Turkey swell. Another current influx of people had been those of the Central Asia turkic states. Prior to the 20'th century there were mass infusions of people from the Balkans and Caucasus regions - </span><span ="text2">Muslim Albanians, Bosnians, </span><span ="text2">Circassians,</span><span ="text2"> Pomaks, Tatars, and Turks</span><span ="text2">. Jews from Spain were also moved into Ottoman territories but mostly in Selanik. Overall these diverse peoples have raised families in Turkey over the decades to where their citizenship is Turkish but their make up is more. Going back further in time. The Seljuks were the first wave of massive Turkish movements into Anatolia. This was followed up by more Turkmens coming in from the Mongol invasions due to various reasons. As the Seljuks broke into many principalities Islam further carried an attraction into Anatolia. More central asians came in with Timur. The Ottomans attracted even more ethnicities from her sphere of influence, mostly to major cities of the day. The Ancients. Turks are not Hitties or Phrygians or Greeks. Turks were not in Anatolia during those times. How many local ancients survived and mixed with centuries of immigrants is another story though and is beyond me to figure. One thing for certain, the mixture continues. </span>


I agree and witnessed this while I was in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire brought in people from all over its empire both as captives and immigrants. It provided a lot of opportunity for would be immigrants.

If you look at the Turkic invasion which began in Armenia in the early 11th c. AD and spread after the Roman defeat at Manzikert in 1071 you will learn that some parts of Anatolia were depopulated of its natives population and resettled by Turkic tribes but then again they took captives. If you read Matthew of Edessa he thought the Turkic tribes was God's punishment for their sins. Today Turkiye is very mixed and that is probably why I passed as a Turk with mostly my Greek/German ancestry. Some students asked another teacher how come I look Turkish; which I took as a compliment. I am sure some of the captives taken by the Turkic tribes are the ancestors of some Turks. The Romans also did their share of destruction so I am not picking on the Turks; who are good people or most.
A good Turkish source is the book of Dede Korbul. I want to find an English translation of so can anyone help me there. Some other sources are:
The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor by Spero Vyronis
The Dreadful Day; battle of Manzikert 1071 by Alfred Friendly
There are some others but I cannot recall off hand right now.


Edited by eaglecap - 31 Jul 2009 at 06:02
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 05:43
I think you meant the translated Penguin classic of Dede Korkut. 
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 05:57
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

I think you meant the translated Penguin classic of Dede Korkut. 


thanks Seko and yes you are right a typo I meant Korbut and I need bi foculs

I found it here so I will order it to add to my library of primary sources
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0140442987

Edited by eaglecap - 31 Jul 2009 at 06:07
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 12:11
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Hey buddies
I wanted to know if the Anatolian people are a little bit related to the ancient people of Anatolia.
 
Of course, they are related. It would be absurd to think that Turkic tribes massacred all the indigenous population of Anatolia or that that population just disappeared without any clue. Of course, those people remained where they lived. Gradually, however, they were Tukicified and absorbed into a new emerging Turkish ethnos.
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2009 at 20:05
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


The Ancients. Turks are not Hitties or Phrygians or Greeks. Turks were not in Anatolia during those times. How many local ancients survived and mixed with centuries of immigrants is another story though and is beyond me to figure. One thing for certain, the mixture continues.


I have met many Turks for some years now and there is one thing that surprises me positively. Many of them truly see, what those people mentioned above left, as their heritage as well, BUT they do acknowledge what you just mentioned Seko.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Shirvanshah View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Aug 2009
Location: Baku/Azerbaijan
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shirvanshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2009 at 08:18
Anatolian people is made up of different nations: Galats,Phrygians,Greeks,Medians,Macedonians and etc. Of course they relates. I'm Azeri and my family consists people from Turkey,Chechnya,Arabia,Persia and Mongolia. 
I am Immortal...
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2009 at 09:04
Originally posted by Shirvanshah Shirvanshah wrote:

Anatolian people is made up of different nations: Galats,Phrygians,Greeks,Medians,Macedonians and etc. Of course they relates. I'm Azeri and my family consists people from Turkey,Chechnya,Arabia,Persia and Mongolia. 


Anatolians are considered the people that lived in Anatolia before any Greeks and Phrygians arrived (before 1200 BC). That means the Hattic people, Hittites, Luwians, Lycians, Lydians, Carians, Kashkas etc.

FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2009 at 09:12
But it is very possible that some Anatolians have ONE  Anatolian ancestor ;-)
I am very happy about the great heritages in Turkey.Many civizilations lived in Turkey(Anatolia) and some of them had great empires
Back to Top
Shirvanshah View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Aug 2009
Location: Baku/Azerbaijan
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shirvanshah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2009 at 21:34
I don't think that they have common ancestor... Some of them came from Egypt, Celtic kingdoms,Greece and Caucasus... 
I am Immortal...
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2009 at 22:25
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

But it is very possible that some Anatolians have ONE  Anatolian ancestor ;-)


Hittites, Luwians, Kashkas, Lycians, Lydians, Carians had probably a common Neolithic ancestor. However, the Hittites as we know them later (e.g when they fought against Egypt) are a mix of the proto-Hittites and the non Indoeuropean Hattic people that lived in Anatolia before the proto-Hittites came.

Originally posted by Shirvanshah Shirvanshah wrote:


Some of them came from Egypt, Celtic kingdoms,Greece and Caucasus


People that came from Greece and Caucasus are not considered Anatolians even if they inhabited those areas. Even if Greece in late neolithic and early bronze age had people speaking languages close to Luwian and Carian, those were later mixed with natives and the new invaders that introduced organized farming. Generally, Anatolians are considered people speaking Anatolian languages, with exception to the Hattics who were incorporated into the Hittites but spoke a non IE language.

PS: Welcome Shirvanshah

Edited by Flipper - 04 Aug 2009 at 22:34
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2009 at 00:24
I have been wondering why comments have hewed the line of the Bronze Age and not taken a step back into the Neolithic? After all, Anatolia has been in the forefront of research since the groundbreaking work of James Mellaart in the 1960s at Catalhoyuk, and since the 1990s the site has undergone intense investigation under the direction of Ian Hodder. Then there is Cayonu in eastern Anatolia and Hacilar in the west, both as old as 7000 BC, thus within this wide swath you had a pattern of urbanization, practicing agriculture as well as exploiting domesticated animals, long before the Chalcolithic with an increased refinement of art forms, pottery, tools and weapons. Sorry, Flipper, but you are misinformed in this postulate: "Even if Greece in late neolithic and early bronze age had people speaking languages close to Luwian and Carian, those were later mixed with natives and the new invaders that introduced organized farming". We can only speculate on the commonality of the Mesolithic between the Thracian and Anatolian Trans-Aegean. Yes, we do have Colin Renfrew's Anatolian Hypothesis [i.e. the Indo-Hittite Model], however, such is premised entirely upon the fact that the earliest examples of "urbanized" agrarians in archaeology is the Anatolian peninsula. In contrast, most investigators raise the Kurgan Hypothesis for the Indo-Europeans (the Pontic Steppes) and disassociate the cultural and economic developments of Anatolia during the Neolithic from any Indo-European origins.
 
I am afraid that as with Europe as a whole, genetic study on Anatolian Neolithic remains would hardly clarify the situation since the cautions raised by Ellen Levy-Coffman on autochtonous origins would apply here as well: see "We are not our ancestors"--
 
 
Large-scale movements of people do have to receive consideration as alterers of genetic material; hence, there is scant possibility that effects studied elsewhere should not apply to Anatolia as well. It is striking to see the distinctions in the Anatolian Neolithic from later evidence (e.g. absence of writing, burial practices) while at the same time facing strong inferential evidence on cultic and kinship materials (matrilineal dominance, the bull fertility enigma). What relationship did the Neolithic populations have to the organized Hatti (pre 1750 BC) and the later Hittite orb from  Hatusa (1750-1000 BC) one can only speculate. Yet, one can suppose that given the nature of warfare and population movements (see the fate of the male Trojans in the Iliad), the question of genetic ancestry might find answers elusive.
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 05 Aug 2009 at 00:25
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2009 at 00:38
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Sorry, Flipper, but you are misinformed in this postulate: "Even if Greece in late neolithic and early bronze age had people speaking languages close to Luwian and Carian, those were later mixed with natives and the new invaders that introduced organized farming". We can only speculate on the commonality of the Mesolithic between the Thracian and Anatolian Trans-Aegean. Yes, we do have Colin Renfrew's Anatolian Hypothesis [i.e. the Indo-Hittite Model], however, such is premised entirely upon the fact that the earliest examples of "urbanized" agrarians in archaeology is the Anatolian peninsula. In contrast, most investigators raise the Kurgan Hypothesis for the Indo-Europeans (the Pontic Steppes) and disassociate the cultural and economic developments of Anatolia during the Neolithic from any Indo-European origins.


But i was speculative of course otherwise i would write "Greece in late neolithic" instead of "Even if Greece in late neolithic".

And yes, i had Renfrew in mind of course Smile
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2009 at 07:29
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Hey buddiesI wanted to know if the Anatolian people are a little bit related to the ancient people of Anatolia.



 

Of course, they are related. It would be absurd to think that Turkic tribes massacred all the indigenous population of Anatolia or that that population just disappeared without any clue. Of course, those people remained where they lived. Gradually, however, they were Tukicified and absorbed into a new emerging Turkish ethnos.

 


Of course you are right but a large segment of the native population was slaughtered or forced to migrate to the Balkans- post Seljuk and Turkomen invasions. Some suvivors remained and probably intermixed or are in Greece today. excluding the ones who fled to places like N. America in the 20th century etc
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2009 at 08:16
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:


Of course you are right but a large segment of the native population was slaughtered or forced to migrate to the Balkans- post Seljuk and Turkomen invasions. Some suvivors remained and probably intermixed or are in Greece today. excluding the ones who fled to places like N. America in the 20th century etc


Nah, i don't think you can speak of distinct native populations several thousands years later, especially after so long symbiosis. Also, i don't think all those vanished because of somekind of slaughter while others survived.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2009 at 08:28
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:


Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

Of course you are right but a large segment of the native population was slaughtered or forced to migrate to the Balkans- post Seljuk and Turkomen invasions. Some suvivors remained and probably intermixed or are in Greece today. excluding the ones who fled to places like N. America in the 20th century etc
Nah, i don't think you can speak of distinct native populations several thousands years later, especially after so long symbiosis. Also, i don't think all those vanished because of somekind of slaughter while others survived.


I do agree that some were enslaved and eventually absorbed into the Turkic population.

I think Spero Vyronis is very clear about this in "The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor"
Plus:

"Certain phases of Conquest of the Balkan peoples by the Turks (touches on this) by Dimitar Angelov
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2009 at 06:04
I, actually, don't know of large scale "inslaveries" practiced in the Ottoman Empire. Of course, Christian population was discriminated to some extent, but the large scale "enslavery" doesn't make sense at all. It didn't have any political or economic sense at all.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3428
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2009 at 07:14
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I, actually, don't know of large scale "inslaveries" practiced in the Ottoman Empire. Of course, Christian population was discriminated to some extent, but the large scale "enslavery" doesn't make sense at all. It didn't have any political or economic sense at all.


The conquests by Mehmed the great included the slavery of conquered people and this continued through the Balkan conquests up to the gates of Vienna but the Europeans also enslaved and so did the Africans so this is not the point. I was really referring to the Seljuk Turks and the Turkomen which would have been the early 11th c. AD and not the Ottomans.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2009 at 07:36
Most of those conquered people stayed where they were before the conquest. They just got a special status had to pay a special tax and were discriminated if they were willing to pursue certain careers.
 
Of course, Turks captured people and made them slaves during their campaigns but that by no means was equal to "enslavery" of the whole chunks of conquered non-Turkish population.
 
Up until 1920th there were large pockets of Greek Christian population in Anatolia.  Those pockets are remnants of the indigineous Christian population that slowly (during 1000 years) converted to Islam and was assimilated into Turkish culture.
 
"Enslavery" didn't make sense because Turkish lords were dependent on the revenues collected in a form of taxes from the Christian peasants and merchants.  "Enslavery" would mininimize those revenues.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2009 at 08:14
Let's get off of this "enslavement" kick. First, the existence of dhimmis were an economic benefit to the governing classes, be it in Medieval Andalusia or the Early Modern Ottoman state. Besides, to be a "slave" of the Sultan was on its own degree a type of honorific. Anyway, under Islamic Law simple conversion would free one from both the dhimmis tax or slavery itself. In a way, Sarmat is correct, for if one views the Janissaries, one would understand how such represented a career alternative rather than a condemnation to perpetual toil. The notion of Turks "kidnapping" Christian children is on its face absurd. Even if one moves into the orbit of the Seljuks and the Byzantines, the introduction of the "slavery" thematic is but a false convenience. Recall, that one of the major reasons for the spread of Islam in the Mediterranean world was the "liberty" it promised the large bulk of the rural populations already toiling under the bonds of slavery and serfdom.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 22:28
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:


A good Turkish source is the book of Dede Korbul. I want to find an English translation of so can anyone help me there. Some other sources are:
The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor by Spero Vyronis
The Dreadful Day; battle of Manzikert 1071 by Alfred Friendly
There are some others but I cannot recall off hand right now.


The english translation hasnt been in print since the 70's i think.  I just bought it from a third party seller through amazon in the UK, cost me 20 pounds though but well worth it to me anyway.  I think i remember seeing a US seller too for about the same price so you could try there if you want.


As for the topic, i think most families in Turkey will have divergent roots.  My mum and sisters are just back from Turkey and looking through the picture one thing stands out more than anything.  Appearances.  I thought my niece had a strong hint of asian in her even though shes half scottish but theres a photo with her and my cousins daughter.  If i showed the picture of my cousins neice you would think she was straight out of Central Asia her asian appearance is that strong.  Probably a throw back.
Within my family we have native anatolian i suspect, Balkan, both my grandmothers are Rumelian Turkish descent, and Central Asian through my paternal grandfathers line.

In Turkey the most common and distinctive appearance is the ones similar to Central Asian, Balkan and Slavic.  Theres also along the west people similar to Greeks, the swarthy Europid look similar to Kurdish/Iranian and the Middle Eastern appearances in the south.  The closest to the ancient anatolians would probably be among those who dont fit into any of the other categories.  Rare, or perhaps more hidden, but you do have them.  However its all subjective Wink
< ="return false">
< id="LIU_txt" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; : ; left: 0px; right: 240px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 19px ! imant; line-height: 50px; display: block;" ="">< id="LIU_sel" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 100px; right: 138px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 17px;">< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Wikipedia< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Wictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Chambers (UK)< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google images< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google define< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">The Free Dictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Join example< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">WordNet< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Urban Dictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Answers.com< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">rhymezone.com< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Merriam-Webster< id="LIU_search" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 68px; right: 68px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 19px;" value="Search" ="submit">< id="LIU_prev" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 46px; height: 19px;"><< id="LIU_next" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 24px; height: 19px;">>< id="LIU_mode" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 2px; height: 19px;">0
< id="LIU_0" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">w< id="LIU_1" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">v< id="LIU_2" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">c< id="LIU_3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">i< id="LIU_4" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">d< id="LIU_5" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">f< id="LIU_6" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">j< id="LIU_7" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">o< id="LIU_8" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">g< id="LIU_9" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">u< id="LIU_10" style="border-style: solid; border-color: black black white; border-width: 1px; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : white;">a< id="LIU_11" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">r< id="LIU_12" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">m
< ="http://www.answers.com/,?lookitup" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 13; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__10">< ="http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?lookitup&ofrhyme=def&Word=,&org1=syl&org2=l&xcrop=//p/table&=table%7Bwidth:100%%7D" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 11; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__11">
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2009 at 21:22
Which Haplogroups are the biggest in Turkey?
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1924
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Oct 2009 at 12:25
It is of course very natural that the modern people of Anatolia still carrying genetic traces of the Ancient Anatolians, with a lot of influx from all around though.
 
Anatolia has always been in crossroads, and a lot of different "people" has passed by, so it has never had a genetically "pure" population even from the ancient era on.
 
The original first known inhabitant population group was known as the Hatti, and many others came from different areas or somehow emerged in the following thousands of years, from the Phrygians to Cimmerians, from the Assyrians to Dorian/Ionian Colonies, from various Mesopotamian tribes to the Sea Peoples and tens of others, some of whom established kingdoms and civilizations. Even the founders of the first huge actual Anatolian civilization, Hittites are considered to have emigrated into Anatolia, considering that they used to speak an Indo-European language, generating from a widespread proto-language elsewhere, surely differing from what the original Hatti were speaking(which is absolutely unknown today)
 
The ancient eras were followed by some sort of centralization by the Persians and then Hellenization of Anatolia after Alexander and the following Hellenistic empires, which also contributed to Eastern Roman Empire having a Hellenic character once the Roman Empire lost its union and integrity after the fifth century(at least Western and Middle parts) 
 
Even before the Turks came, the genetical heritage was already a mix and mash. They came in huge masses(even more after the Mongol invasions), but it is senseless to say that no interaction took place. However, I think it might be rather reasonable to say that it was in a sense rather limited in the Ottoman era comparing to before(the other ages and also the era of Seljuks and Turkish beyliks), because without a Christian(as the local folks of Anatolia who were there before the Turks, were Christianized during the Roman/Byzantine eras) turning into a Muslim, the marriage was not so much a common thing among the believers of two different religions, one shall also consider the imperial character and widespread lands of the empire and shall not underestimate the supposed number of people brought from all over 3 continents to Anatolia(meanwhile, it makes sense to consider that many parts of Anatolia was generally not regarded as such important centers by the Ottomans where the population of the empire coming from all over has gathered)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.