|
Post by AfrikanerAndy on Feb 4, 2004 18:07:34 GMT -5
I'm very curious, about what race the turks are, and history and such, if anyone has any info, please share.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 5, 2004 7:17:11 GMT -5
A couple of night ago I saw a travel documental on Turkey, and I could observe, as I already suspected, that the "Western" Turks are mostly Hellenic (Greeks).
This is consistent with the idea that many invasions don't have enough human component to make the indigenous substratum to vanish.
I also saw one type of Turk (I can't remember the area) with more Nordid traits. These I believe are descendents of the Celts who settled the Anatolia region in ancient times.
Then, of course, there are non-europid Turks too.
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Feb 5, 2004 8:55:20 GMT -5
Yes, actually I read in Wells et al. 2001 that Turks are genetically the pre-Ottoman population, with a minor admixture of central-asiatic (real Turkish) genes.
Source : Wells et al, (2001): The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity.PNAS, Vol.98. No.18.
" The Turkish and the Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (table 1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45 and M 17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M 96 - and/or M 89 - related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altay-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture - another possible example of elite dominance - driven linguistic replacement."
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Feb 5, 2004 11:10:30 GMT -5
A couple of night ago I saw a travel documental on Turkey, and I could observe, as I already suspected, that the "Western" Turks are mostly Hellenic (Greeks). Exactly the case. Turkey neighbours many countries and different cultures, and each part tends to have a relevancy to its neighbouring area. The Western parts, including Thrace, Aegean, the Mediterrenean coast and the Black Sea area is pretty much Europoid Caucasians, most probably the remnants of Greeks and Balkanoid peoples with very minor admixture from actual Turkic peoples. The rulers of the Ottoman Empire themselves were not Turkic either. There was the whole tradition of marrying non-Turks (so that the Turkish families would not gain any power due to a royal marriage) and that lead to a total non-Turkic royal line. The high ranked bureucrats were also almost always from foreign stock. Again, exactly my point. I think it's utterly illogical to assume an invading party of a limited number of horsemen to change the entire genetic make-up of an area. Those people already resident in the area just don't vanish. They keep being the dominant genetic group, only to be ruled by the invading peoples. When a land is ruled by a certain group, it's only natural that the land is listed under their name. Thus, Turkey becomes Turkey for reasons of being under the rule of a Turkic dynasty (a Turkic dynasty to start with, which itself developed into a multi-ethnic one in time). Must be from the middle parts, what is now Eskisehir and surrounding areas. The land was once called Galatia (or Keltia) after the Celtic colony that lived there for quite a while. There's also those from Slavic extraction and not just from the Balkans (Serbs, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Pomaks, Macedonians) but also from Poland (there are a couple of Polish villages, with authentic Polish churches and people with Polish names and customs still) Quite a number of Albanians as well not to mention the Northwestern Caucasian diaspora (Circassian and Abkhaz) who are predominantly Pontid and Northern Pontid in phenotype. Well of course. Usually either Turanids or Eastern Mediterreneans, very similar to Syrians, Iraqis etc. in appereance (and probably related anyway). There are a considerable number of Tatars in the inner parts and because of intermarriage between ethnic groups, it's easy to see mongoloid influence in otherwise unrelated people. Armenoids are very common in Eastern Turkey where it's not easy to tell if a person is Armenian or Turkish by appereance.
|
|
Praetor
Full Member
Graecus in Fennia
Posts: 246
|
Post by Praetor on Feb 5, 2004 13:49:49 GMT -5
Well of course. Usually either Turanids or Eastern Mediterreneans, very similar to Syrians, Iraqis etc. in appereance (and probably related anyway). There are a considerable number of Tatars in the inner parts and because of intermarriage between ethnic groups, it's easy to see mongoloid influence in otherwise unrelated people. Armenoids are very common in Eastern Turkey where it's not easy to tell if a person is Armenian or Turkish by appereance. Bingo. If Ecevit wasn't famous who would identify his nationality at once? news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/37979000/jpg/_37979903_top.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 5, 2004 14:10:18 GMT -5
As a note of curious, I've read in today's newspaper that the European Popular Party, while not officially, opposes the entrance of Turkey in the European Union. The voice came from the MPs of the German CDU.
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Feb 5, 2004 14:16:49 GMT -5
[/img][/quote] I just looked it up and according to his biography he was born in Istanbul. That makes any guess about his background almost impossible because Istanbul is all the remnants of the former Ottoman Empire. He could be from originally anywhere. His father, however, who was also a member of the parliament, was elected from Kastamonu, which is in the Black Sea region. In any case, Ecevit certainly has very strong facial feautures.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 5, 2004 16:37:18 GMT -5
What about the Kurds? They are not Turks but they represent a substantial percentage of the population of Turkey (and growing). From my observation they seem to be on average darker than the Turks but blondism seems more frequent among them than in most parts of Turkey at the same time. Also there are many Turanid types amongst them which surprised me. Would that be because of Turkic (central Asian) or Mongolian genes?
|
|
Ioulianos
Full Member
Anegnon,Egnon,Kategnon
Posts: 199
|
Post by Ioulianos on Feb 5, 2004 22:31:04 GMT -5
I just looked it up and according to his biography he was born in Istanbul. That makes any guess about his background almost impossible because Istanbul is all the remnants of the former Ottoman Empire. He could be from originally anywhere. His father, however, who was also a member of the parliament, was elected from Kastamonu, which is in the Black Sea region. In any case, Ecevit certainly has very strong facial feautures. Ecevit parents were born in Crete.
|
|
|
Post by AfrikanerAndy on Feb 5, 2004 22:32:19 GMT -5
hmmmm, thats all very interesting, so many things about Turks I did not know Lol, thank you, anyone who responded
|
|
|
Post by rusalka on Feb 5, 2004 22:54:32 GMT -5
What about the Kurds? They are not Turks but they represent a substantial percentage of the population of Turkey (and growing). From my observation they seem to be on average darker than the Turks but blondism seems more frequent among them than in most parts of Turkey at the same time. Also there are many Turanid types amongst them which surprised me. Would that be because of Turkic (central Asian) or Mongolian genes? Silly me! Totally forgot to mention them because they're not even that much of a minority ethnic group, as the Kurds in Turkey are quite numerous, and mostly the majority in Southeastern areas. I must have completely internalized the idea of the Kurdish population. Their phenotype, from what I've observed is mostly dark to very dark in skin color and stereotypical Middle Eastern in appereance. Still, like you said, they do show blondism, but that's the kind of blondism the Berbers in North Africa seem to have. Their facial features are still quite distinct even if they show depigmentation in hair and eyes, and they almost never show skin depigmentation. At least, that has been my observation so far. As for the Turanid appereances, they have been in the area for a long time, it could be from any of the Turkic or Mongoloid (or both) groups that have settled in there, I would assume.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 6, 2004 12:33:11 GMT -5
If we speak about "Turks" we must distinguish between the different regions, especially from East to West and North to South.
The most Turks in the West are (East- and Gracil-)Mediterranids, Alpinoids (Alpines and Asian Alpines), to a lesser degree Armenids and Turanids, some Dinarids and Nordids too.
The centre of Anatolia is in my opinion more pronounced Armenid-Turanid/Asian Alpinoid, the East is just Armenid with slight Nordindid (Irano-Afghan) and Orientalid admixture.
Real pure Mongolids are unknown and mixed Eurasians of a so called "Turanid" variant are especially in central Turkey more often but still seldom.
Armenids and Asian Alpines with such "Turanid" admixture can you quite often.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Feb 7, 2004 10:11:26 GMT -5
Must be from the middle parts, what is now Eskisehir and surrounding areas. The land was once called Galatia (or Keltia) after the Celtic colony that lived there for quite a while. There's also those from Slavic extraction and not just from the Balkans (Serbs, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Pomaks, Macedonians) but also from Poland (there are a couple of Polish villages, with authentic Polish churches and people with Polish names and customs still) This is interesting. Do you know the names of these few Polish villages and what customs they practice and the names of these churces? I suspect that some Greeks from my family's area in central Arcadia, Peloponnese, are of Polish descent. I see extreme blondism for Greeks, and some people have Slavic names, as I have stated before, such as Borovas (Borovic, Borowski, etc), Klepas (Klepak), Kardasis (Kardacic or Kardasic), Korasis (Koracic)--even other non-Greek names like Klementzos and Frantzas. In Greece and Turkey these people are in the minority, but they're there. And the Slavic-influenced place-names are still there; they've been resistant to change--like the surnames. As far as I know, these people have kept none or few of their non-Greek customs--if they indeed are descended from northerners.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 7, 2004 16:17:54 GMT -5
such as Borovas (Borovic, Borowski, etc), Klepas (Klepak), Kardasis (Kardacic or Kardasic), Korasis (Koracic)--even other non-Greek names like Klementzos and Frantzas. Kardasis comes from the Turkish arkadas meaning friend and the hellenized form kardasis is used widely in many parts of Greece. Korasis seems Greek to me. Klementzos and Frantzas sound west European with Byzantine influence. They probably came with the Normans.
|
|
|
Post by sonofzeus on Feb 7, 2004 22:40:08 GMT -5
Dean
Dean=Fyromian(Yugoslavian Pseudo-Macedonian) propagandist.
"There is no mention of Neo-Danubians(Slavs) in Greece in anthropological works. Neo-Danubians have short concave noses and broad faces,quite unlike the Greeks." Quote:"There are Slavs (from Russia and Baltic countries) who have dark hair and are not very light-skinned." Slavs racially.
Baltids have a circular facial and head shape; rough bones, stocky growth (165 cm),long torso,proportionally short extremities, wide shoulders, digestive onstitution; and also small eyes.
Quote:" who have dark hair and are not very light-skinned."
They usually have light complexion & grey or blue-gray,but dark hair and not very light-skin are not uncommon among them.
However:
"There is no mention of Neo-Danubians(Slavs) in Greece in anthropological works. Neo-Danubians have short concave noses and broad faces,quite unlike the Greeks." "This reach O,1 percent in Greece,in Anthropological works."
Quote:"There must have been isolated settlements here and there (especially in North Greece)," No,the Slavs in Greece just were Slav-speaking Balkanians,Dinarics/Norics(Illyrians in origin)+Pontic Mediterraneans (Vlahs in origin)+Nordic(Nordic in origin) and most of them defeated and droped out while very few assimilated(an insignificant number)."
*However,there is central European and some Nordic component in Hellenic Macedonia that related to Celts as I know.They reached west Hemos=modern Albania and Greek Macedonia during 2000 bc.
The Majority of the Greeks of Macedonia belong to the East-Alpine racial type that is paleolithic to this region and they are blended with the East-Mediterranean racial type of Thracians and of Greeks of Ionia who are too paleolithic population to this east region of Hemos(Balkans)+ Pontic Mediterranean of Vlah or ancient Greek Macedonian ancestry and from Greeks of Pontos+Few Dinaric & Noric of Illyrian ancestry and few Celtic+Nordic.
Anthropologists found 100% racial continuity(by the paleolithic to the neolithic and the Classic period) to this Greek region of Macedonia as well as in all other regions of Greece.
Quote:"Many scholars point out the fact that several places in Northern Greece have Slavic names. Well, you would expect them to have these names because a good part of northern Greece was under the rule of Bulgaria and the enlarged Slavic kingdom (Serbia) on and off for some time, therefore it is not surprising to find some Slavic names there." "Because a good part of northern Greece was under the rule of Bulgaria and the enlarged Slavic kingdom (Serbia) on and off for some time, therefore it is not surprising to find some Slavic names there."
Exactly
The "Slavic" extension in Hemos(modern Balkans) mainly was glossological not a racial extension.People as North Albanians,Yugoslavians and so on mainly are Slavicized Illyrian-Dinarics racially and they originated from north Caucasos from where they extended in all Europe during 3000 bc.
Genetically real Slavs(Neo-Danubians/East-Baltids can be found only in North-East Bulgaria,Kroatia and few in Romania+few in North-East Yugoslavia.
Albanians,people of Fyrom and most of all Greeks stayed untouchable by this racial type.
Quote:"Actually, if we are to believe that some Slavs migrated to northern Greece in the 6th century and later, this means that they were actually SLAVS, not Slavicized Illyrians or Thracians." Racially they were not Slavs but indeed Slavicized Illyrians(Dinaric+Noric) and Thracians(Mediterraneans) and Vlahs(lighter Pontic Mediterraneans) and perhaps few Nordic racial types,but not East Baltids. Such proto-Slavic tribes as Andes,Vides,Vendes mainly were de-pigmented Mediterraneans(=Pontic Mediterraneans).They reached North Albania and Yugoslavia too.No Slavs ever migrated to northern Greece,just Vlahs and few Serbs.
Quote:"The Illyrians were a separate cultural entity and preserved their heritage well into the first millenium AD." They Slavicized during 6-7th century. Also the Skyths of northern eastern Hemos peninsula(=Balkans) were not Slavs racially but northern Mediterraneans blended with the dinaric and the Noric racial type(+few nordic).
Also,50 000 Slav-speaking Balkanians from Fyrom region in Greek Macedonia are not East-Baltids(=Slavs) racially but Mediterranean+Pontic Mediterranean(=lighter Mediterraneans)+Dinaric+few Nordic.
|
|