|
Post by Meddish on Apr 18, 2005 6:53:42 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there are "black" turks or Turkish Cypriots? and by that I dont mean recent immigrants to those countrys who came from SSA....But actual Turks with negroid ancestry? that goes back at least a hundred years or more. Thank's Medd'ish
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 18, 2005 11:25:05 GMT -5
I have never seen any black Turks but according to Dienekes' blog there is a low percentage of negroid Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups present in Turkish populations.
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on Apr 18, 2005 15:09:03 GMT -5
I have never seen any black Turks but according to Dienekes' blog there is a low percentage of negroid Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups present in Turkish populations. Thank's SensoUnico, Maybe the SSA dna came from the occasional slave of the sultan that got left behind in Turkey then? or from people of other origins who carried SSA dna with them when they moved to Turkey? like arabs and or north-africans.
|
|
|
Post by Batucan on Apr 19, 2005 2:09:12 GMT -5
Does anyone know if there are "black" turks or Turkish Cypriots? and by that I dont mean recent immigrants to those countrys who came from SSA....But actual Turks with negroid ancestry? that goes back at least a hundred years or more. Thank's Medd'ish Turks cannot have negroid genes but there are very small number of negroids who served in the palace. They are mainly brought from Sudan. But we accept them as Turk and they are Turks. One of them is an actress now playing in a Turkish TV serial.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 19, 2005 3:09:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on Apr 19, 2005 5:33:18 GMT -5
Turks cannot have negroid genes but there are very small number of negroids who served in the palace. They are mainly brought from Sudan. But we accept them as Turk and they are Turks. One of them is an actress now playing in a Turkish TV serial. She looks like a "pure" sudanese type.Her family must have managed not to inbreed with Turks since Abdul Hamid's time at least!! that or she is a recent(last 40 years) immigrant to Turkiye?
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on Apr 19, 2005 5:36:11 GMT -5
Thank you Dienekes, I still find it baffling that Turks and Southern Euro's have less SSA dna than the british who I think? average 5%?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 19, 2005 14:01:23 GMT -5
Thank you Dienekes, I still find it baffling that Turks and Southern Euro's have less SSA dna than the british who I think? average 5%? I doubt that the British have 5%.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Apr 19, 2005 16:04:07 GMT -5
Thank you Dienekes, I still find it baffling that Turks and Southern Euro's have less SSA dna than the british who I think? average 5%? Yeah geographically speaking one wouldn't think it'd make much sense but if you look at history, Britain had a fair number of African slaves within its territory during colonial times. I think the only southern European country that ever really had African slaves within its territory was Portugal, but although that was true, it was never an overwhelming number that many people would have us believe. The admixture there is still quite low. Dienekes, would you happen to know the percentage of admixture in the Portuguese?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 19, 2005 16:19:05 GMT -5
Dienekes, would you happen to know the percentage of admixture in the Portuguese? I haven't calculated any number recently, but there may be some studies in my blog archives.
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on Apr 19, 2005 16:26:12 GMT -5
Yeah geographically speaking one wouldn't think it'd make much sense but if you look at history, Britain had a fair number of African slaves within its territory during colonial times. I think the only southern European country that ever really had African slaves within its territory was Portugal, but although that was true, it was never an overwhelming number that many people would have us believe. The admixture there is still quite low. Dienekes, would you happen to know the percentage of admixture in the Portuguese? Hello Buddy Hmmmmm im just not so sure, Im not a 100% about any of these DNA population tests.I mean who exactly are the people in the population that the tests are being done on? for example in England there have been large amounts of Negro's living there since 1940's so when they do these population genetic tests do they make sure the subjects have no known negroid or non native blood? or do they just pick a random sample of people say 30o or so and test them? Also look at the tests done on the population of the Arabian peninsula Zain was saying ages ago no this forum how all the test were done in Hadromout an area in Yemen that has large amounts of blacks and slaves.So when they found 40% SSA dna on the mothers side it came as no suprise whereas when Yemeni population were tested in other areas of the country no SSA was found.Also how can a population like the Turks have only 3% SSA dna but the Arabs of Arabia 40% when there is a sizeable amount of Arab blood in the turks to start with so surely if they had SSA dna they would have given it to there Turkish sons???
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Apr 19, 2005 19:41:40 GMT -5
Hello Buddy Hmmmmm im just not so sure, Im not a 100% about any of these DNA population tests.I mean who exactly are the people in the population that the tests are being done on? for example in England there have been large amounts of Negro's living there since 1940's so when they do these population genetic tests do they make sure the subjects have no known negroid or non native blood? or do they just pick a random sample of people say 30o or so and test them? Also look at the tests done on the population of the Arabian peninsula Zain was saying ages ago no this forum how all the test were done in Hadromout an area in Yemen that has large amounts of blacks and slaves.So when they found 40% SSA dna on the mothers side it came as no suprise whereas when Yemeni population were tested in other areas of the country no SSA was found.Also how can a population like the Turks have only 3% SSA dna but the Arabs of Arabia 40% when there is a sizeable amount of Arab blood in the turks to start with so surely if they had SSA dna they would have given it to there Turkish sons??? Yeah that's true that it depends on the sample tested, which is why multiple samples would result in the detection of the most reliable average rate of admixture in a given population, but in the case of Turks having Arab ancestry, I believe that the "Arab" in them is mostly northern Semitic groups from what is now modern-day Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. Thus, the Arabs in question were themselves not Arabian Bedouins but Phoenicians, Canaanites, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. Therefore, the small percentage of SSA admixture in Turks is probably due to slaves/concubines from North Africa or southern Arabia. Also, the Turks occupied much of Egypt. Perhaps some of the Nubians from southern Egypt/northern Sudan found their way into Turkey. It really is interesting stuff no doubt. Anatolian Turks are really a heterogeneous mix, which is largely the result of the Ottoman Empire, though it also dates from earlier times as well. You had the Greeks in western Turkey, Hittites, Assyrians, and Kurds in the central-eastern parts, and in the extreme east the Circassians, Armenians, Georgians, and Persians. The Galatian Celts crossed over into Anatolia from Europe before the Romans came, who centuries later were followed by Arabs and Central Asian Turks. With the Turks of course came the linguistic/religious change and the adoption of the title "Turk" over all other Anatolians as the original Turks established dominance over all others in the region. When the Turks conquered the Balkans, they imported many Slavic slaves, especially into the European part of Turkey (Istanbul). Many other slaves were imported from Greece, the Levant, North Africa, and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Batucan on Apr 20, 2005 1:55:32 GMT -5
Anatolian Turks are really a heterogeneous mix, which is largely the result of the Ottoman Empire, though it also dates from earlier times as well. You had the Greeks in western Turkey, In western Turkey there were only Ionian colonies. During time especially in Byzantine times west Anatolia has been Hellenised and could be partially assimilated. So you cannot describe people of Anatolia as Greeks. They were mainly Akhas in Anatolia but the mainland Greece has been inhabited by Dorians and native Palasgians. It would be better if you generalise the matter as Anatolians. The Greeks which were mentioned in the war of Troia and the Greeks who inhabits in mainland Greeks 700 years later were different ethnically. If you compare today's Greek population with 2500 years ego I think they can have nothing more than a small similarity. When the Turks conquered the Balkans, they imported many Slavic slaves, especially into the European part of Turkey (Istanbul). Many other slaves were imported from Greece, the Levant, North Africa, and elsewhere. Turks were already in Balkans before Ottomans came there. Uz (Oghuz), Pechenegs, Cuman/Kipchak and Bulgars were all Turkic tribes who have been inhabited in Balkans. Those tribes are big and important Turkish tribes. So describing Balkans as Slav is wrong. Some of the Turkish tribes have been converted to Christianity and they have been settled by Byzantine Empire to secure the eastern borders in Anatolia and they have served in the Byzantine army. The rest of them have been mixed with other people in Balkans. In fact the number of slaves were not much in Ottomans. The ones who have been collected to be used in army did not have the right to get married until they are retired. The biggest number of slaves were from Serbian, Albanian and Italian communities. There can not be slaves from Levant and North Africa since they were Muslims or ruled by Muslim states. The simple observation which was made in Istanbul shows the average appearance of Turkish people since majority of people living in Istanbul (more than 10 millions) come from Anatolia. There is nothing to do with slaves or other stuff.
|
|
|
Post by cunjar on Apr 20, 2005 3:44:16 GMT -5
Anatolian Turks are really a heterogeneous mix, which is largely the result of the Ottoman Empire, though it also dates from earlier times as well. You had the Greeks in western Turkey, Hittites, Assyrians, and Kurds in the central-eastern parts, and in the extreme east the Circassians, Armenians, Georgians, and Persians. The Galatian Celts crossed over into Anatolia from Europe before the Romans came, who centuries later were followed by Arabs and Central Asian Turks. With the Turks of course came the linguistic/religious change and the adoption of the title "Turk" over all other Anatolians as the original Turks established dominance over all others in the region. When the Turks conquered the Balkans, they imported many Slavic slaves, especially into the European part of Turkey (Istanbul). Many other slaves were imported from Greece, the Levant, North Africa, and elsewhere. Actually Greeks were found all over Anatolia in large numbers, not only in the West coast, Pontian Greeks inhibited the northern black sea region of modern day Turkey, there were many important colonies there, Melitus founded more than 60 cities between the Hellespont and the Crimea. Among these were: Abydos, Cyzicus(in the Dardanelles), Sinope, Olbia and Panticapaeum. Trapezus (modern day Trabzon) was founded by Greeks from the Black Sea port city of Miletus in the 8th century bc. The term 'Anatolia' actually comes from Greek word "anatoli". It literally means 'East'. When the Seljuks overran Anatolia these People were either converted to islam or killed. The Greeks of Trapezus still remained in Anatolia until the last centuary but unfortionatly in 1923 the Turks deported the city's sizeable Greek population which had lived there for Millena. If you compare today's Greek population with 2500 years ego I think they can have nothing more than a small similarity. Well you think wrong, theres a remarkable similarity in craniofacial morphology between modern and ancient greek populations, modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks get it, got it, good Basically the Turks use to enslave Christian boys at a young age, convert then forcibly to Islam and had them fighting as soldiers in their armies, The most important part of turkish army was made up by young christian boys, these were known as Janissaries. In fact the number of slaves were not much in Ottomans. The ones who have been collected to be used in army did not have the right to get married until they are retired. The biggest number of slaves were from Serbian, Albanian and Italian communities. There can not be slaves from Levant and North Africa since they were Muslims or ruled by Muslim states. You mention the biggest slaves were from Serbian, Albanian and Italian communities, you’re forgetting to mention the Greeks, Now seeing how the Turks took over Constantinople; the centre of the Greek world and Orthodox Christianity, the Turks undoubtedly took large numbers of young Christian Greek boys as slaves/Janissaries.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Apr 20, 2005 6:54:31 GMT -5
as far as I know. In the Iliad th Greeks were referred to as Argives, Achaeans and Danaans. The Trojans are also called Dardanians, and Troy is also called Ilion or Ilium.
I doubt it that the trojans were a much different people than the Greeks. Especially the Pelasgians must have been quite similar with them. Don't forget that we are talking about Mycenian times here. Centuries later in classical Greece the Trojans were part of the Ioanian Greek legacy. like all people in western Anatolia.
|
|