|
Post by Salvador on Nov 18, 2005 17:55:52 GMT -5
We only know that the Greeks are 'primarily' ancient Greeks. Also, some studies have 'suggested' a 7% to 8 % of Slavic admixture.
The rest remains a guess. Because there is no clear genetic signature of the ancient Greeks, since they were a mixed lot of pre-Geeks and Indo-European tribes.
As far as the very low percentage of non-caucasian admixture. Who is to tell for sure if it wasn't there allready in the pre-hellenic era. As I said, ancient Greeks weren't pure angels.
|
|
|
Post by ohes on Nov 18, 2005 18:03:17 GMT -5
I don't know what Greeks are (nor care) but Turks are mostly what they are when they came to Anatolia 1000 years ago. All the genetical studies by Turkish Universities confirm this fact, and yes tehy are very serious scientific institutions. You can also look at the wikipedia (although I do not like to quote it) for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks"The Oghuz Turks are considered by some historians as genetically, culturally and linguistically "the purest of Turks". According to Lev Gumilev in his accredited work entitled 1,000 Years Around the Caspian, the Oghuz in the anthropological (racial) category were Caucasoid (Europoid). The majority of today's Oghuz Turks have light to dark skin tones and dark hair and eye colors, while lighter Europoid features including very light skin tones, blondish/brownish/reddish hair colors and light eye colors are evident in Azerbaijanis from the Republic of Azerbaijan and the northwestern region of Iran known as Iranian Azarbaijan as well as the Turks of Turkey, Turkmens and other Oguz Turks. Elements of both Caucasoid and Mongoloid strains are evident in some. Like most of the other Turkic peoples, the Oghuz have a round skull formation, high cheek bones and straight hair." Now, I have told many times the history of Turks here, provided sources from historians on how Turks look 1000 years ago (very similar to today), showed genetic studies about how DNA obtained from 2000+ years old graves are very similar to Turks of Anatolia, I have told where the former inhabitans are today(2 million Greeks and around 1 million Armenians left Anatolia during WW1). However it all fell on deaf ears. People here has a ideefixe that is not based on facts or actual information. They like to talk about the origin of people that they have only seen from pictures on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Nov 18, 2005 21:00:02 GMT -5
No offence, I have nothing aganst Turks nor feel to claim something which might be insulting to them, but it is simply impossible that the ancient and/ or medieval Anatolian inhabitants have been totally replaced by the Turks who came towards the region 1000 years ago.
It is totally illogical, historically and anthropologically. Well known facts show that there were mass conversions in Anatolia. Sometimes they were forced and many times even voluntarily. It is also well known that Turks took children (Janitsars) from other peoples to supply their armies. They did this because their quantity was not enough to sustain their empire.
The fact that 2 million Greeks and 1 million Armenians have been exchanged doesn't hange much after 7 centuries of mass conversions to Islam.
And let's not forget numerous tribes who inhabited Anatolia and have now been extinct or should I say Tourcofied.
The Turks of today are the children of the Turkish Republic with a rich amount of the cultural, ethnic and historical background of Anatolia. Inheritors of the Ottoman legacy which holds its roots in central Asia.
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Nov 19, 2005 5:05:35 GMT -5
The truth is first inhabitants of greece was anatolian immigrants.these inhabitants mixed with indo-european greek invaders and started to speak greek language.these greek people invaded anatolia and mixed with the inhabitants and imposed their language.Thats why I'm saying at least %70 of the greeks are anatolian.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 19, 2005 11:57:20 GMT -5
Now that actually makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Nov 19, 2005 15:38:30 GMT -5
are for example the greeks from sinope who were sent to greece during the turk-greek population exchange, also "ancient greeks" or some other ethnic group which was greekified say during the hellenistic/roman/byzantine period?
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Nov 19, 2005 16:57:44 GMT -5
are for example the greeks from sinope who were sent to greece during the turk-greek population exchange, also "ancient greeks" or some other ethnic group which was greekified say during the hellenistic/roman/byzantine period? Most of the populations which were hellenised in Anatolia converted to Islam quite easily. Most of the people who remained christian were from coastal regions where the Greek element was overwhelming since antiquity. Also, coastal/maritime regions were more developed. That's probably the main reason which helped many to sustain their Greek identity/religion. The same has happened in the northern Balkans. In the Byzantine empire many Greeks colonised that region and Greek language and culture flurished. Yet, after the Ottoman empire there were just some fragments left of the Greek element.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 19, 2005 17:31:12 GMT -5
I think the situation between Anatolian Turks is comparable to that of the Southern Slavs, who I've always believed were just Slavicized Thraco-Illyrians.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Nov 19, 2005 17:51:36 GMT -5
I think the situation between Anatolian Turks is comparable to that of the Southern Slavs, who I've always believed were just Slavicized Thraco-Illyrians. How come the Slavs DID menage to Slavicise them and the Greeks (with a superior culture) did NOT menage to hellenise them? Is it because the Greeks emphasised religion rather than language? Still, some things don't ad up. There must have been quite some Slavs there. Maybe not the majority, but quite some.
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Nov 20, 2005 10:35:30 GMT -5
what wil you say about these yoruk turkmens. They are culturally and geneticly the most pure Turks and 80-90 percent of the Tukey population look like these people. Are they turkified Greeks too? The Yoruk Turkmens are ethnical Turkmens who live in Eastern Anatolia. What makes you think that exactly they represent the genetically purest of all Turkic peoples?? The Turkmens are regarded as the descendants of the Ghuz or Oghuz who came in the 11th century from the middle and lower Yaxartes (Syr-Darya) into what is now Turkmenistan. There they assimilated Skythians and mixed with them. Interestingly the Turkmens are despite of the large area in which they are to be found (from Turkey to Afghanistan) quite homogenous. Most groups (the Yoruk Turkmens included) are relatively tall, the head is relatively long and mesocephalic, the face is broad and high, mostly mesoprosopic. Thus they are sort of Cromagnid and metrically clearly different from the Anatolian Turks proper. IMO they seem to correspond to a certain degree to the old Eurasian Steppe type, also known as the “type of the Andronovo culture”, probably the effect of the Skythian substrate, because all their neighbouring ethnical groups in central Asia (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Karakalpaks, Kazachs, Kirgisians) are markedly brachycephalic, but the skulls from Turkmenistan (SW-Central Asia) have always been dolichocephalic according to Alekseev and Gochman 1983. According to Debetz 1970 the Turkmens of Afghanistan are also more Mongoloid than the Indo-European groups (Europid index only 576).
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Nov 20, 2005 10:37:56 GMT -5
According to the cranial findings the populace of Anatolia in the early 1st millennium AD was still longheaded on average. It seems likely to me that the change to the brachycephalic means we perceive nowadays was at least partly the result of Turkish immigration.
Anthropologists agree that the predominant type among Anatolian Turks is Armenoid (as Coon called it) or Armenid, respectively Anatolid for the “Medish” influenced verson. But I’ve had the idea that at least a part of these Armenoids might be in fact Pamirid, another Taurid (Dinaromorph) type, which is frequently found in central Asia.
Furthermore it is possible that some traits that are characteristic of the Armenoid type might have had a positive selective value in Anatolia, and this could have strengthened the impact of the non-Turkic Armenoids on the Anatolian Turkish phenotype on the long run. The same holds for the Dinaric type and the former Yugoslavs, btw. From the cranial record it’s evident that the brachycephalisation trend in this region was reversed in the time of the Slavic invasions and shortly after that it continued as strongly as before...
|
|
oguz
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by oguz on Nov 20, 2005 14:30:07 GMT -5
''The Yoruk Turkmens are ethnical Turkmens who live in Eastern Anatolia. What makes you think that exactly they represent the genetically purest of all Turkic peoples??''
What makes you think they don't represent Turkic people? Do you think they aren't turkic either?Are they turkified greeks or what? If you think turkifisation is so easy why we couldn't manage to turkify millions of kurds in a thousand year? Yoruk turkmens are nomads who live in close groups.They haven't lived in cities. So it is hard to say that they have mixed with local people. Your statemants are according to head shape. You think that only brachsephalic people are turk( I am brachysephalic). This is wrong.I think brachsephalisation is the result of mongolian influance. Yes that's true most of turkic people brachsephalic but this isn't a rule.
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Nov 20, 2005 17:40:44 GMT -5
What makes you think they don't represent Turkic people? Do you think they aren't turkic either? I didn't say they were not Turkic (at least culturally and ethnically, and to some extent genetically). But I asked you why exactly they should be the most Turkic of all Turkic peoples (there are quite a few). Are they turkified greeks or what? If you think turkifisation is so easy why we couldn't manage to turkify millions of kurds in a thousand year? Yoruk turkmens are nomads who live in close groups.They haven't lived in cities. So it is hard to say that they have mixed with local people. What I wrote actually supports the view that the Turkmens have mixed little with other groups, because they are quite homogenous, i.e. the various Turkmen groups are similar to each other. So there certainly wasn't much of a Greek or local influence in their case. But what I wrote also supports the view that they assimilated some Scythians or Scythian descendents in the very beginning, when they arrived in what is now Turkmenistan. It isn't that unusual that nomadic people accept all sorts of foreigners to participate in their group and to travel with them. At least that was afaik the case with various Germanic tribes in the Germanic migrations, like the Goths for example. Your statemants are according to head shape. You think that only brachsephalic people are turk( I am brachysephalic). This is wrong.I think brachsephalisation is the result of mongolian influance. Yes that's true most of turkic people brachsephalic but this isn't a rule. The Anatolian Turks are brachycephalic too, in some regions quite heavily, but I wouldn't say they display much Mongolid or Turanid (Coon's sense) characters, only slight admixture, so it's not likely due to Mongolian influence, in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by reality on Nov 20, 2005 17:53:52 GMT -5
The percentage of Sub-Saharan African DNA in Greece is no greater than the average for Europe, and is therefore negligible. Greek DNA has influenced Turkey to a much greater extent than Turkish DNA has Greece - the Turkish language and culture are relative newcomers to Asia Minor. Before the Turks, these regions were inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Anatolians, Phrygians, and other peoples of Eastern Rome. Greeks and Turks rarely intermarried - it did happen, but hardly enough to warrant consideration of a sizeable Turkish influence to the Greek gene pool. Most of the Turks who were in Greece are long gone. i heard black african y chromosomes are at 25% in average greeks..
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 20, 2005 19:09:44 GMT -5
LOL! 25%!? Nonsense..just see the articles on Dienekes Anthropological page or on Racial Reality... My country....Portugal...has the highest percentage of SSA Genes....2,5%...Greece...from what I have read..has only 1% like almost every country in Europe...
|
|