|
Post by koroglu on Jul 12, 2005 15:51:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 15:53:57 GMT -5
Turks are not just Turkified Greeks, but Greeks make up a substantial part of their make-up, especially on the Aegean coast.
Turks are a mixed bag of different ethnicities, Central Asian, Anatolian, and European.
|
|
|
Post by koroglu on Jul 12, 2005 16:04:37 GMT -5
Not possible because of the religion and the cultural distance! Seljuks, Ottomans and the other Turkmen people came from CHORASSAN (region between Iran, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan). They were Turks 1000 years ago! A great mix in Anatolia never happened It is absolutaly normal that a Chorassan Turkman doesnt look like an Uighur from China! But bouth are Turks... like the anatolian Turks.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 16:15:43 GMT -5
Look, this is very, very simple to understand if you would just open your eyes, listen to real scholars and not Turkish propaganda, and well, just do the math.
There are types that exist in Turkey that do not exist in Central Asia. These types were in Anatolia BEFORE the Central Asians arrived and they are still there now.
The major types present in Anatolia before the Turkish invasion were: 1.) Mediterranean (brought by the Ionians) 2.) Dinaricized Mediterranean (a Dinaricized form found among the Greeks) 3.) Cappadocian (type of the Hittites and many other Anatolian peoples) 4.) Alpine (also found among Anatolian-speakers) 5.) Armenoid (this type is also frequent among Hittites, Kurds, Armenians, etc.)
When the Turks invaded, they brought the IRANO-AFGHAN and TURANID types with them, and diversified the Anatolian population even further. The result is the Turks you see today.
This is very, very simple. Mediterranean, Dinaricized Mediterranean, and Cappadocian types do not exist in Central Asia. They are local to Anatolia.
|
|
|
Post by koroglu on Jul 12, 2005 17:10:46 GMT -5
Oh yes these subraces exist in (southern)Central Asia, too. And when the Turks invade Anatolia, Armenians stayed Armenians, Kurds stayed Kurds etc. The intermixture with non-islamic nations at least is not realistic! TELL ME IF YOU DISCERN WHERE THIS GIRL IS FROM..
|
|
|
Post by koroglu on Jul 12, 2005 17:23:31 GMT -5
Ok.. I will say.. From Uzbekistan! Is she enough turkic looking in your oppinion?!?! OR DO YOU FIND THIS CHINEESE LOOKS TURKISH?!? PLEASE YOU DON´T KNOW HOW TURKESTANIANS LOOK LIKE, AND YOU ARE TELLING HISTORIES...
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 18:07:07 GMT -5
No, I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand will believe anything the Turkish government wants you to believe.
I am studying to be a history professor in the freest country in the world, you know. Who do you think a third party would side with?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Jul 12, 2005 18:15:50 GMT -5
Koroglu, Some selected pictures prove nothing. BTW that portrait of Ataturk is not very much like him I find. Genetic studies provide a valuable insight. Check out Cengiz Cinnioglu's study on Anatolians: hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdfThere are things that neither the Turks nor the Greeks or the Armenians are comfortable with. So, they are hushed up by all sides for their own reasons. You are right that religion was a major obstacle to intermarrying. There was such a thing though as conversion. For a number of reasons there were mass conversions of Christians to Islam in Ottoman times. Whole villages would convert with the priest leading them. On certain occassions the imams even told them circumcision was not absolutely necessary Such was the demand there were not enough qualified people to perform it Just look at it like this. The Greeks speak about the Ionians being expelled from the Aegean coast of Anatolia in 1923. The truth is the big majority of those people were 18th century colonists from the islands. The original Ionians had been assimilated. When the Turks conquered western Anatolia the population (and it was a large one) was 100% Greek speaking and Christian. Within a couple of centuries they had almost disappeared. There are no records or even tales of genocide or mass immigration. What do you think happened to them?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 18:21:46 GMT -5
They were assimilated of course. The whole history of the Anatolia is basically a case of one assimilation after another. The Central Asian conquest is clearly no different.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 12, 2005 20:24:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 12, 2005 21:56:36 GMT -5
This thread started as a discussion on the possibility of negroid admixture in Turkish Turks or Cyprian Turks. Now it has veered from Turkey/Cyprus all over the Asian world. Forget those Tajaks or Uzbeks or Kirghiz or Kazakhs or other extraneous Turkic speakers. What do they have to do with Turkey other than speaking Turkic. I have been to Turkey. West Turks from Turkey don't look much different to Greeks. Sorry to both nationalities but that is how I see it. Central and East Turks, from Turkey do look either like Kurds or Armenians. The Dinarid or Armenoid type is not the common type found in the part of Asia where the Turks are supposed to have originated. All those Central Asian Turks can look caucasoid or mongoloid but usually vary somewhere in between, that is have a Turanid appearance. Of those Turkish men koroglu posted the third one, the one with those batwing ears looks Turanid. The others don't especially the first two. Kemal looks like a misplaced Bosnian, the other fellow is not representative of Turkish people at all. Listen guys, if you want to believe in your Turan guff about Turkish people, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 12, 2005 22:27:29 GMT -5
Forget those Tajaks or Uzbeks or Kirghiz or Kazakhs or other extraneous Turkic speakers. What do they have to do with Turkey other than speaking Turkic. Tadjiks don't speak Turkic languages.
|
|
|
Post by ohes on Jul 12, 2005 23:19:58 GMT -5
Mike, the map of Turkey you posted is highly inaccurate. Anyone who knows something about Turkey would point that out to you. Let me say this again, there is no difference between the ethnic Turk populations of Turkey. You can't tell if a Turk is from Kutahya or Erzurum. Now, there are Kurds numbered around 12-15 million in Turkey. They are Iranians mixed with Arabs, they live in east and south-east Anatolia but in the last century they scattered to all over the Anatolia. Especially big cities. However, almost always a Turk can be distinguished from a Kurd. Now, most of you are just assuming Turks looked mongoloid before coming to Anatolia. Let's state the facts. Turks have always been at the boundary between Caucasoid and Mongoloid races and they have been mostly caucasoid. Turks have two main groups: Oguz and Cagatay group. Oguz Turks looked more caucasoid from the beginning. Look at the writings of Kasgarli Mahmud (i think from the 12 th century). He would describe the Turkmens (Oguzs) as what they are today. Turks have always been a population that many phenotypes could be seen. Old kypchak Turks are described as blonde in historical texts. Similarly Kyrgyzs were known for their red hair. However, Kyrgyz today looks slightly more mongoloid. I don't know how people look at this and miss this basic fact, these people were invaded by the Mongols. Although admixture with Mongols were not that high, since the Mongolian genes are more dominant, average Kyrgyz tgoday looks more mongoloid than what they were before the invasion (of course as I said Turks had some properties similar to Mongoloid people even from the beginning as a transition population, but this was not that strong). Actually, many consider Turkmens of Anatolia and Balkans to be the purest example of Turks, I put an example below, because they never lived under another nation's rule. Of course, I don't claim that Turks did not mix with other populations at all. But this admixture is not more than, say, that of the Greeks or any other nations. I have seen some knuckleheads on another board saying that Turks of Anatolia is a made up nation built in the 20th century by Ataturk. Then, how come even in the 13th century, westerners started to put the name of Turkey to Anatolia on their maps? Again, Turks as a nation are as legit as any nation in the world, certainly more legit than Slavic Bulgars who carries the name of a Turkish tribe, English people who are a mix of Normans, Saxons, Celts, Franks etc. and just formed at around the beginning of last millenia,etc. I don't understand why you guys are so eager to make Turks Greeks or something. I repeat again, if current Turks have a Greek element, Greeks must have at least same amount of Turkic element IMO. Why don't you consider that at all?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 13, 2005 2:23:21 GMT -5
Wow, somebody needs to edit their post because the pictures stretching out the board thing is real annoying.
I can't even read Ohes's post it's so irritating to have to scroll.
But I will answer briefly what I can: I'm not trying to say the Turks are Greeks or that they are something they are not.
I'm just saying that it would grossly inaccurate to say that Turks are entirely descended of Central Asians.
|
|
|
Post by ohes on Jul 13, 2005 2:44:04 GMT -5
Like modern Greeks are not entirely descended from ancient Greeks (well, actually I don't want to compare the situation to Greeks everytime but it was the nationality brought up before). However, Turks of Turkey has every right to say they are Turks as Greeks (or Hellenes as they name themselves) can say they are descendants of those ancient people. I don't have any problem with people seeing things like that.
|
|