|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 17, 2005 20:52:40 GMT -5
Aren't many Turks just Turkified Greeks? Yes. And the irony kills me.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Nov 17, 2005 20:56:16 GMT -5
I can't believe some people are still pushing this false belief. I can only think of one article that showed Greeks had a significant Sub saharan background. The article that came out from a university in Madrid. That study has been ripped apart. As long as it suits someone's political agenda, people will still keep using refuted studies or myths. The Turks often claim that Greeks are part Turkish, because they like to see themselves as pure Turks and because there are some similarities with Greeks and western Turks. They fail to see though that the similarities between the peoples are not of Turkic elements, but caucasian. Genetically the main difference is that Western Turks have a central asian component which the Greeks have not.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 17, 2005 20:59:23 GMT -5
Indeed, it's actually the other way around. Turks are part Greek. At least the western ones. That's where the similarity comes from. Anybody with a basic knowledge of the ancient world would know this to be the case.
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Nov 17, 2005 21:06:11 GMT -5
Turks are part Greek. what are the greeks
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 17, 2005 21:06:48 GMT -5
You know... Grecos, Argives, Hellenes, boy lovers, malakas... Greeks. All that jazz.
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Nov 17, 2005 21:15:56 GMT -5
greeks = %70 anatolians+%20 indoeuropean greeks+%10(pre-islamic turkic tribes ,negroes ,something else) Turks =%70 anatolians +%20 central asian turks+ %10 something else.
|
|
byz
Full Member
rodostamo na ginesai
Posts: 171
|
Post by byz on Nov 17, 2005 22:08:27 GMT -5
You know... Grecos, Argives, Hellenes, boy lovers, malakas... Greeks. All that jazz. Haha!
|
|
|
Post by Beretta on Nov 18, 2005 5:16:31 GMT -5
Indeed, it's actually the other way around. Turks are part Greek. At least the western ones. That's where the similarity comes from. Anybody with a basic knowledge of the ancient world would know this to be the case. Yeah but by they time the Turkic tribes arrived in Anatolia, Greeks were spread throughout the whole peninsula, and not confined to western Anatolia, the population of Asia Minor went from being predominantly Greek speaking and Christian orthodox to being almost solidly Muslim and Turkish speaking in only afew centauries, during the ottoman empire Many Greeks simply converted to Islam in order to avert the economic hardships of Ottoman rule such as being heavily taxed, having their children taken away etc. its a fact MANY TURKS ARE MUSLIM GREEKS
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Nov 18, 2005 6:10:31 GMT -5
Yeah but by they time the Turkic tribes arrived in Anatolia, Greeks were spread throughout the whole peninsula, and not confined to western Anatolia, the population of Asia Minor went from being predominantly Greek speaking and Christian orthodox And these greeks were hellenicised anatolians.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Nov 18, 2005 6:12:40 GMT -5
So what is the origin of Greek food
|
|
byz
Full Member
rodostamo na ginesai
Posts: 171
|
Post by byz on Nov 18, 2005 6:44:24 GMT -5
Yeah but by they time the Turkic tribes arrived in Anatolia, Greeks were spread throughout the whole peninsula, and not confined to western Anatolia, the population of Asia Minor went from being predominantly Greek speaking and Christian orthodox And these greeks were hellenicised anatolians. Yes, many of them were. The Greeks, nonetheless, have been in Asia Minor since BC and have made a strong genetic influence on the region. As for your question about what the Greeks are - based on current information, the Greeks appear to be descended primarily from ancient speakers of the Greek language, and with admixture from various other ethnic groups. The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone knew of any more recent and credible studies that adressed the ethnic components of the Greek nation.
|
|
|
Post by Beretta on Nov 18, 2005 6:48:57 GMT -5
Yeah but by they time the Turkic tribes arrived in Anatolia, Greeks were spread throughout the whole peninsula, and not confined to western Anatolia, the population of Asia Minor went from being predominantly Greek speaking and Christian orthodox And these greeks were hellenicised anatolians. The Greeks vs Hellenised people is a weak counter-argument. Ethnicity is defined in terms of culture, otherwise the only real Greeks (by your definition) would be the speakers of proto-Greek. According to your definition, the ancient Greeks should not be called Greeks either, as they were basically the admixture of Indo-European Greek speakers and the barbarians locals in Greece (e.g. Pelasgians). In the year 800 Asia Minor had 800,000 Armenians and 8 million Greeks (figures by Mcevedy and Jones, Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth, 1978) The fact of the matter is that Anatolia was populated by Greeks before the Turkic tribes invaded, and many of these people are now Muslim and Turkish speaking, handle it
|
|
byz
Full Member
rodostamo na ginesai
Posts: 171
|
Post by byz on Nov 18, 2005 6:51:52 GMT -5
Yeah but by they time the Turkic tribes arrived in Anatolia, Greeks were spread throughout the whole peninsula, and not confined to western Anatolia, the population of Asia Minor went from being predominantly Greek speaking and Christian orthodox And these greeks were hellenicised anatolians. The Greeks vs Hellenised people is a weak counter-argument. Ethnicity is defined in terms of culture, otherwise the only real Greeks (by your definition) would be the speakers of proto-Greek. According to your definition, the ancient Greeks should not be called Greeks either, as they were basically the admixture of Indo-European Greek speakers and the barbarians locals in Greece (e.g. Pelasgians). In the year 800 Asia Minor had 800,000 Armenians and 8 million Greeks (figures by Mcevedy and Jones, Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth, 1978) The fact of the matter is that Anatolia was populated by Greeks before the Turkic tribes invaded, and many of these people are now Muslim and Turkish speaking, handle it Haha, you're awesome!
|
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Nov 18, 2005 16:35:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 18, 2005 17:04:32 GMT -5
They can look similar without actually being Central Asians. The Cappadocian type of Anatolia is just a smaller variant of the Irano-Afghan type of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia.
I also note that he said "many Turks are Turkified Greeks," not "all Turks" or "most Turks." There were certainly Greeks in "Turkey" before the Central Asian conquerers came and brought the Turkic language to the peninsula. But we musn't forget about the other indigenous Anatolian groups such as the Lydians, Phrygians, Hittites, etc. They surely didn't just up and disappear. It therefore stands to reason that modern Turks are the Turkified descendants of the ancient peoples of Anatolia, with a not-to-be-ignored layer of Central Asian conquerer (mostly Irano-Afghan, not Turanid) on top.
|
|