| 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
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The People Of Anatolia
    Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 18:29
You are the expert of this era not me Thumbs Up "Eti" is sometimes used for Hittites in history books (in Turkey).
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 17 Mar 2012 at 17:50
So, Eti from what I understand is a term connected to the Kingdom of the Hittites? Btw, that is a pre-Hittite symbol and so are the deers (once symbol of Ankara). Both probably are Hattian.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 08:01
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:


I have eaten a lot of Eti-Cin and Eti-puf... LOL I guess it is an Ankara based company right?

Not Ankara but close, Eskişehir.
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: 17 Mar 2012 at 07:57
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

So many Hittite affection Smile I remembered a funny thing, a snack food company named ETI. Its name is directly derived from Hittites and you will notice Hittite sun in their amblem.



Also thanks to Flipper, I'm currently watching that Hittite documentary. It's amazing Smile I was added that to my "have to do" list, but completely forgotton.




I have eaten a lot of Eti-Cin and Eti-puf... LOL I guess it is an Ankara based company right?
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2012 at 04:50
So many Hittite affection Smile I remembered a funny thing, a snack food company named ETI. Its name is directly derived from Hittites and you will notice Hittite sun in their amblem.



Also thanks to Flipper, I'm currently watching that Hittite documentary. It's amazing Smile I was added that to my "have to do" list, but completely forgotton.


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: 11 Jan 2010 at 06:25
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

 
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)


Hello Kapikulu!
I just wanted to make a corretion on the Hattic language. It is not absolutely unknown today. We are for sure far from having a clear image on the language but at least we know it was an agglutinative language unrelated to any other known language we know today (although you will hear many romantic scenarios...Can't escape those Smile). The Hattic language survived from religious Hittite documents that in some cases are billingual in the sense that they say "And now the priest will continue in the language of the Hatti". Those few sentences in those texts gave us at least a perspective on the nature of the language.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2010 at 07:12
The Seljuqs could just have easily picked up those features long before in Central Asia.  
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
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: 10 Jan 2010 at 05:15
Hmm... Don't you think the answer is quite natural?
 
Simply, because they are mixed with local indigenous Armenoid population of Transcaucasia and Anatolia. Simple as that.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
kalhor View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Location: sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 129
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kalhor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2010 at 20:40
i have been puzzled by origin of seldjuq and oghuz turks, because many of my azeri friend and i which is of kurd  origin . look like each other . broad shoulder big mustach and rather hairy in face and on the chestBig smileand my azeri friends called me turk of honourBig smile. if turkish people in turkey and azerbaycan are really turks why they don't look like turkemans or kergyz people? in the pictures of(painting) seldjuc sultans they are not looking like  mongols or other original turk tribes. were they already very mixed with north iranian tribes bordrring china? before conquest of turkey and northern iran or  those paintings are fake? any information would be very useful.
cheers
son of Bavand
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: 22 Oct 2009 at 09:10
How is it with Aegean Turks?
In the West Coast many people are looking Slavic.

How is it with Eastern Turks?
Many of them are looking Armenoid.
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 at 06:29
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Which Haplogroups are the biggest in Turkey?
If you look at this map, I think it's obvious that Turkey has a lot of haplogroups present.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/b/e/bencragun/ben42/Y%20Haplogroups%20of%20Europe%20001.jpg
this one's a bit different
 
Both Y-DNA haplogroup maps.
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 12:44
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:



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.
 
The sense of "Slavery" you tell to exist in the Ottomans is not the same type of slavery understood in the general context. That status was rather a sign of homage and allegiance to the Sultan(which represents the Empire itself), so, even though there were slaves in the Ottoman Empire(mostly coming from Africa in ships) the populations of the conquered lands were not enslaved(no forced labor or imprisonment except for those rebelling), however was in a status of total allegiance to the Sultan/Empire, just like the whole population of the empire.
 
I think this general misunderstanding which sometimes can be seen in the Western Literature arises out of a common misinterpretation of the word  "kul" , which actually means total homage/allegiance to God(generally used in that sense) or someone(the folk was "kul" to the Sultan, therefore the State), however translated as "slave" in many English translations, and therefore misunderstood.
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
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
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
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
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
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 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: 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
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 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 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
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: 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
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
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
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
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: 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
 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 0.125 seconds.