Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who are the Turkish people's ancestors?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Yami Sasha View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-Dec-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote Yami Sasha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who are the Turkish people's ancestors?
    Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 01:06
I see two types of Turks, ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them.

I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish.

Can anyone clarify this for me?
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 08:14
Most people in Turkey descend from Anatolian populations. Plus, many also came from population exchanges from the Balkans bringing many different people in there (Muslims were regarded as Turks even though they were not).

Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
  Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 20:47
Im not sure if the OP was asking a question or stating an opinion but i'll try and answer.

Originally posted by Yami Sasha

I see two types of Turks,

Is that all?  I see about over 40 different types of Turks , of the top of my head.

Lets see starting from Eastern Europe and Anatolia there are Gagauz, Bulgarians Turks, Dobrujan Tatars, Turks of Greece, Cypriot Turks, Anatolian Turks, Iraqi Turkomans and the Crimean Tatars.  In Western Asia and the Northern Caucasus region, Azeris, Iranian Azeris, Khalaj, Qashqai, Iranian Turkmen, Balkar and Karachay, Nogay, and the Kumuk.  In Central Asia theres Afghani Uzbeks, Afghani Turkmen, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Qazaqs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Salars, Sari Yugurs.  In the Volga Ural region there are Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Siberian Tatars.  In Southern Siberia there are Shors, Altay Kiji, Telengit, Teleut, Tuba, Kumandi, Chalkandu, Khakas, Tyvans, Tofa, Tsengel Tuvans and the Dukha.  Finally in Northern Siberia and Easter China, Sakha, Dolgans and the Fuyu Kyrgyz.
I know some might think ive repeated some but the OP asked about "types".  Bulgarian Turks and Anatolian Turks may speak the same or similar language but they are different types of Turks and have different modern histories as well as different identities.


ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them.

I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Thats far too simplistic.  The changing faces and languages of Anatolia is a dynamic occurrence with many factors that should be taken into consideration. 
When we look at genetics compared to ethnic groups anywhere in the world we see similar patterns.  Many regions change ethnicities without altering the gene pool too much.  Put into an Anatolian context, some argue that genetic similarites between Turks of Western Turkey and Greeks is evidence that the Turks are actually Turkish speaking Greeks, but those same genes were present in the region before Greeks got there.  So the genes aren't "Greek" genes, they're localised genes, genes that are present in all groups of people no matter their ethnicity.
When the Turks entered Anatolia they were far outnumbered by other peoples living there.  Unless a widescale massacre occurred then you would expect localised genes to dominate and Turkic migration to have a limited affect on the gene pool as far as gene flow from central asia is concerned.  This is the case.
Most Turks who entered Anatolia were also the warriors and fighters of the statelets that formed so would have a higher chance of dying thus bottlenecking  the dna which came from CA.  I would like to see Mt DNA results from Turkey to see what picture they would reveal.
All in all most studies show that CA DNA account for around 8-20% of the Y DNA of Turkey.  This should be about right given the reasons i just stated.
Also the Turks ruled supreme in Anatolia.  Since entering they formed most the statelets and ultimately the Ottoman Empire.  Its important to understand that you cant force people to change their language.  UNLESS you take them away from their own cultural environment away from their own people and only teach them a different language.  Otherwise so long as they have native speaking mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours their language will not change.  Any change in language that took place would have happened without force as a result of Turkish cultural and political domination.  This is further backed up by the fact that many languages are spoken in Turkey today, such as Laz Hemshin, Zaza, Kurdish etc.

Ethnic Turks in Turkey are Turkish.  One of many different "types" of Turks.
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 22:08
Yami Sasha
I see two types of Turks, ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them.
 
Let's clear up a few misconceptions.
 
Turks arn't Mongols, the early Turks lived in a region including Western Mongolia, Altai-Sayan region (todays Russia, Kazakistan) and the northern parts of Eastern Turkistan.
 
The present day Mongols were not living in that region during that period.
 
The early Turks inhabitted a region of the world in which to the East of them populations are more Mongoloid and to the West more Caucosoid (even though these terms are pretty archaic today). Chinese sources differentiate Turks from themselves and observed that the "looked different".
 
Thus the Turks being inbetween have characteristics from both, if you actually went to Turkic Central Asia historic Turkistan you would realise that Turks there are different looking Turks.
There are peoples in Northern Afganistan, Oz'bekistan, Turkmenistan who look similar to Turks in Azerbaijan or Turkey, then there are some Turks in Kazakistan and Kirgizistan who you will find don't look similar.
 
Its not a simple black and white issue. 
 
 
Yami Sasha
I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, .
 
"Forced"?, please show one historical source that can back this up.
 
There was no "forced" Turkification by the Seljuks just as there were no Hittites or Lydians in existance by the time the Turks had arrived.
 
 
Yami Sasha
which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish
 
Which we? who is we, show me one credible scholor who supports this absolutely ridiculous claim.
 
The Turks of Iran are Turks, what is "Iranian origin"? there are Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Baluch, Turks in Iran so what are you implying by Iranian origin.
 
According to your logic, Persians are of Elamite origin but were forced into speaking Persian.
 
Also Azeri Turks were never "forced" into speaking Turkish, in case you didn't know, the Seljuk state languages of governance were Arabic and Persian.
Now are you going to tell me that the Seljuks came and magically some people just learned Turkish? they didn't learn Turkish in schools, it wasn't the language of governance, it wasn't the language of law but somehow despite all of this millions of people just said, you know what we'll just become Turks?
 
They are Turks due to the Oghuz Turk clans which migrated to the region and never lost their language, identity, clan structure etc
When the Seljuk state ended, many Beyliks and Atabeyliks were found, each by various Oghuz Turk clans, this pattern could be witnessed across Iran and Turkey.
 
Regarding the issue of Turkification, in regions with settlements of Oghuz Turks its likely that non-Turk tribes merged into the large Turkish clans, also by mixing and living in close proximity through time a shift to Turkish could have occured.
 
The Turks are just as much a part of Iran as are Persians.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jan-2008 at 22:34
Vorian
Most people in Turkey descend from Anatolian populations. Plus, many also came from population exchanges from the Balkans bringing many different people in there (Muslims were regarded as Turks even though they were not).
 
There are difficulties in establishing the extent of Turkic migration as we don't know the DNA of the Turks which were involved. Most Turks in Turkey claim descent from Khorrosan and between the Aral and Caspian Seas.
 
The first waves of these migration occured during a period prior to the Mongolian effect on the population of Central Asia.
 
 - The initial Oghuz Turk wave which accompanied the Seljuks and the aftermath of Malizgirt.
 
Constant stream of migration to the newly establishing Beyliks
 
 - Second mass migration, fleeing the Mongols.
 
 - Third mass migration, fleeing, being re-settled and arriving with Amir Temur.
 
 - Fourth mass migration, fleeing the Russian advance into the Crimea and Caucusus (not just Turks, also non-Turkic muslim populations)
 
 - Fifth mass migration, fleeing the wars in the Balkans (not just Turks, also non-Turkic muslim populations)
 
Now, trying to genetically work out who is and isn't a Turk is pointless, there is no Turkish genetics, Central Asia hasn't remained stagnant over a millenia and we don't know the genetics of those who migrated.
 
The method of working out the Turkicness of Turks in Turkey today is done by making a comparison with more Eastern Asian genetic markers.
 
The results of these figures range from 10-30%, which is no small number in itself, infact its a dramatic shift which shows a pattern of continuos migration.
 
However, the Eastern Asian genetic markers in for example people in current day Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Eastern Turkistan is rarely over 40% while Kirgiz and Altay Turks have some of the highest R1a genetic marker in the world according to the studies conducted.
 
 
The Turks of Turkey are Turk if they speak Turkish as their mother tongue and claim Turkish identity, other aspects like claiming descendance of various Oghuz Turk clans like Afshar, Chepny, Bayindir, Teke, Salur, Kayi etc or Crimean Tatar can also be used to a degree. During the Ottoman era all clans, tribers, prominant families were all listed, there are huge archives showing the geneology of people in Turkey today which are more useful when trying to work out  why people feel Turk, Kurd, Laz, Hemshin than genetics is.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 02:41
For sure Turks is not a homogeneous ethnicity.
 
It's just a language affinity.  Most of the people who speak Turkic languages today have little or no genetic connections to the Turks of the Great Turk kaganate, due to whom this name became known in the world.
 
The same is with the Turks of Anatolia, culturally and linguistically they are Turks, but the percentage of the real Turkic nomades that contributed to the formation of the Turkish nation (I mean the nation of the Republic of Turkey) was minimum.
 
Most of modern Turkish people of Anatolia are just indigenous population (yes those Lidians, Phrigians, Galats etc.) who by the time of when the Turks took over spoke Greek and thought they were Greek. Then they were "Turkified" the same way as before they were "Hellenized."
 
Armenians ang Georgians also contributed to the formation of the new Turkish nation as well as Slavs.
 
So it's not surprising that most of the Turks from Anatolia look more like Greeks or Armenians, but totally different from from Tuvinians or Yakuts.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 15:16
Sarmat
It's just a language affinity.  Most of the people who speak Turkic languages today have little or no genetic connections to the Turks of the Great Turk kaganate, due to whom this name became known in the world
 
This is not a clear cut issue in itself.
 
The only way we can find out the genetics of the Turks of the GokTurks is by studying their burial remains, however, this doesn't give the total picture either as most of these are of royalty, members of everyday society should also be tested.
 
 
Turkish Anatolian tribes may have some ancestors who originated in an area north of Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period (3rd century BCE to the 2nd century CE), since modern Anatolian Turks appear to have some common genetic markers with the remains found at the Xiongnu period graves in Mongolia:
The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that most of the Turks originated in Central Asia. Interestingly, this paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs), found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al. 2001). Moreover, the mtDNA (female linkeage) sequence shared by four of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell 1996; Richards et al. 2000).[59][60]
  1. ^ Christine Keyser-Tracqui, Eric Crubzy, and Bertrand Ludes. Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of a 2,000-Year-Old Necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia American Journal of Human Genetics 73:247260, 2003.
  2. ^ Nancy Touchette. Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave, Genome News Network.
Sarmat
The same is with the Turks of Anatolia, culturally and linguistically they are Turks, but the percentage of the real Turkic nomades that contributed to the formation of the Turkish nation (I mean the nation of the Republic of Turkey) was minimum.
 
This also is a contraversial matter as we don't know the genetics of the incomming Turks making it difficult to make proper estimates.
 
The Turkic migration also did not Turkify the whole of Anatolia which was only a century into this new expansion renamed by Europeans "Turchia". The Greeks, Georgians, Armenians, Syriacs remained making the theory of non-Turk populations just forgetting their language and identity one unlogical to understand.
 
Also regarding the extent of Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Turks, historical records show there numbers were huge.
 
 
Records indicate that in the mid-13th century there were 200,000 Yrk tribal families living in tents between Denizli and Izmir alone. The existence of a further 100,000 tents was reported in the Kastamonu region of north central Anatolia, and 30,000 between Ktahya and Afyon.
 
 
The head of the Turkish History Institute, Prof. Dr. Halacoglu is nearing the end of a 10 year study in which he researched the Ottoman tax archives, every clan, tribe, the amount of tents and houses which belonged to them and their lifestock population was all recorded. From these findings the population of Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs etc can be worked out for the 16th century period.
 
 
Bunların 37 bin 706sı Trkmen, 2 bin 287si Krt, 166sı Moğol, 90ı Arap, 280i Kıpak. O yıllarda Anadoluda yaşayan Osmanlı nfusunun 10 milyonun biraz zerinde olduğunu tahmin eden Halaoğlu, bu 41 bin aşiretin 1 milyon 140 bin adıra sahip olduğunu anlatıyor. Bu adırlarda 4-5 kişi yaşadığını hesaplayıp aşiretlere mensup kişi sayısının 6 milyon civarında olduğunu ifade ediyor.

There were 41 thousand tribes listed in todays Turkey.
 
37, 706 were Turkmen
2,287 were Kurdish
166 were Mongol
90 were Arab
280 were Kipchak
 
These tribes in total had 1,140,000 tents between them.
 
A rough estimate of each tent having 4-5 inhabitants gives a figure of 6 million.
 
The "Mdevver ve Kuyud-ı Kadime" which are the huge Ottoman tax archives were studied to find this information, the Ottoman known for their bureaucracy have extensive archives regarding these matters.
 
Also, a common occurance in Ottoman history was rebellions, most often by Turkmen tribes. Many famous Turkish folk poets of the era criticised the Ottoman authorities, they were clashing with them as the state wanted to settle them. The forced settlement policy created alot of tension. Turkmen tribes regularly were resetlled, sent into exile or split up.
 
 
Sarmat
Armenians ang Georgians also contributed to the formation of the new Turkish nation as well as Slavs.
 
As did Cherkez, Chechen, Bosnians, Albanians, even some Cossacks.
 
Sarmat
So it's not surprising that most of the Turks from Anatolia look more like Greeks or Armenians, but totally different from from Tuvinians or Yakuts.
 
However, Central Asian Turks closest to the Turks of Anatolia like those in Turkmenistan, Uzbeksitan, Northern Afganistan, Khorrosan, Eastern Turkistan look pretty different to Tuvians and Yakuts aswell.
 
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 22:09
Originally posted by AyKurt

Im not sure if the OP was asking a question or stating an opinion but i'll try and answer.

Originally posted by Yami Sasha

I see two types of Turks,

Is that all?  I see about over 40 different types of Turks , of the top of my head.

Lets see starting from Eastern Europe and Anatolia there are Gagauz, Bulgarians Turks, Dobrujan Tatars, Turks of Greece, Cypriot Turks, Anatolian Turks, Iraqi Turkomans and the Crimean Tatars.  In Western Asia and the Northern Caucasus region, Azeris, Iranian Azeris, Khalaj, Qashqai, Iranian Turkmen, Balkar and Karachay, Nogay, and the Kumuk.  In Central Asia theres Afghani Uzbeks, Afghani Turkmen, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Qazaqs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Salars, Sari Yugurs.  In the Volga Ural region there are Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Siberian Tatars.  In Southern Siberia there are Shors, Altay Kiji, Telengit, Teleut, Tuba, Kumandi, Chalkandu, Khakas, Tyvans, Tofa, Tsengel Tuvans and the Dukha.  Finally in Northern Siberia and Easter China, Sakha, Dolgans and the Fuyu Kyrgyz.
I know some might think ive repeated some but the OP asked about "types".  Bulgarian Turks and Anatolian Turks may speak the same or similar language but they are different types of Turks and have different modern histories as well as different identities.


ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them.

I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish.

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Thats far too simplistic.  The changing faces and languages of Anatolia is a dynamic occurrence with many factors that should be taken into consideration. 
When we look at genetics compared to ethnic groups anywhere in the world we see similar patterns.  Many regions change ethnicities without altering the gene pool too much.  Put into an Anatolian context, some argue that genetic similarites between Turks of Western Turkey and Greeks is evidence that the Turks are actually Turkish speaking Greeks, but those same genes were present in the region before Greeks got there.  So the genes aren't "Greek" genes, they're localised genes, genes that are present in all groups of people no matter their ethnicity.
When the Turks entered Anatolia they were far outnumbered by other peoples living there.  Unless a widescale massacre occurred then you would expect localised genes to dominate and Turkic migration to have a limited affect on the gene pool as far as gene flow from central asia is concerned.  This is the case.
Most Turks who entered Anatolia were also the warriors and fighters of the statelets that formed so would have a higher chance of dying thus bottlenecking  the dna which came from CA.  I would like to see Mt DNA results from Turkey to see what picture they would reveal.
All in all most studies show that CA DNA account for around 8-20% of the Y DNA of Turkey.  This should be about right given the reasons i just stated.
Also the Turks ruled supreme in Anatolia.  Since entering they formed most the statelets and ultimately the Ottoman Empire.  Its important to understand that you cant force people to change their language.  UNLESS you take them away from their own cultural environment away from their own people and only teach them a different language.  Otherwise so long as they have native speaking mothers, fathers, friends and neighbours their language will not change.  Any change in language that took place would have happened without force as a result of Turkish cultural and political domination.  This is further backed up by the fact that many languages are spoken in Turkey today, such as Laz Hemshin, Zaza, Kurdish etc.

Ethnic Turks in Turkey are Turkish.  One of many different "types" of Turks.
 
ClapClapClap
 
But could you please inlighten us with this Central Asian DNA you mentioned?
 
Turkic people could be very mixed before their migration.
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 06:58

Today obviously Turks are Turks, Mongols are Mongols, and they are not the same. But going back to before the formation of what become "Turks" and "Mongols" today, based on physically body looks similar and from same geographical areas, we can say that they had some kind of common Altaic base groups that no longer exists today. "Turks" and "Mongols" as idenfiable group occured in AD, but what about in BC?  

Btw there was a recent documentary i saw about a Japanese woman who took a genetic test and they compared to genetic test of people in Central Asia.
 
This Japanese woman was found to have identical part of mitochondrial DNA to a woman in Kazakhstan. So they had same femal ancestor.. when the tv program too the Japanese woman to there, they visited this Kazakh woman who lived in remote house in the grassland, she had surprizingly similar face to the Japanese woman, in fact we can say they looked like cousins or sisters, because they looked very similar. in color and shape of face features. 
 
The Japanese woman stayed in Kazakh womans house for a week. It was like a family reunion.
 
Things like language speaking and cultural identity feelings can be changed easily based on political situation or social situations in history. But the physical evidence of our own bodies suggests that Japanese and Central Asians have some ancient "common Asian" biological connections the details of which have long been buried and forgotten for thousands of years. Only now its being uncovered slowly. "Nations" and "Empires" come and go in centures, but genetic traces remain for millienia
Back to Top
osmantus View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary

banned

Joined: 22-Nov-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote osmantus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 11:37
adam. All of one comes from him.

İF yuo are asking the anatolia we come here from middle asia. And most of them are oguz.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 12:20
Wow, thread re-animation
Clap
Back to Top
Tyranos View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 246
  Quote Tyranos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 14:18
Originally posted by Yami Sasha

I see two types of Turks, ones that live in central asia who have an oriental feature to them tracing them to be direct decendents of those of Mongolia and those of Turkey who have a very Caucasian feature to them.

I was thinking that the original natives of Anatolia (hitties, Lydians, etc...) where forced into speaking turkish when the Seljuk Turks had control of the area, which we have noticed to be true with the Azari's who are of Iranian origin but were forced into speaking Turkish.

Can anyone clarify this for me?


Well thats basically the gist of it.

The original homeland of the Turkic peoples is from Central/Eastern Asia. Many wouldve been intermingled with Mongoloid peoples. The Huns were a Turkic people and they're really the first time these people would be known to Western History.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 16:48
Originally posted by MediaKurd

Originally posted by AyKurt

Im not sure if the OP was asking a question or stating an opinion but i'll try and answer.

Lets see starting from Eastern Europe and Anatolia there are Gagauz, Bulgarians Turks, Dobrujan Tatars, Turks of Greece, Cypriot Turks, Anatolian Turks, Iraqi Turkomans and the Crimean Tatars.  In Western Asia and the Northern Caucasus region, Azeris, Iranian Azeris, Khalaj, Qashqai, Iranian Turkmen, Balkar and Karachay, Nogay, and the Kumuk.  In Central Asia theres Afghani Uzbeks, Afghani Turkmen, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Qazaqs, Karakalpaks, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Salars, Sari Yugurs.  In the Volga Ural region there are Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, Siberian Tatars.  In Southern Siberia there are Shors, Altay Kiji, Telengit, Teleut, Tuba, Kumandi, Chalkandu, Khakas, Tyvans, Tofa, Tsengel Tuvans and the Dukha.  Finally in Northern Siberia and Easter China, Sakha, Dolgans and the Fuyu Kyrgyz.
I know some might think ive repeated some but the OP asked about "types".  Bulgarian Turks and Anatolian Turks may speak the same or similar language but they are different types of Turks and have different modern histories as well as different identities.
 
Do you think there are a people who is called turks?
Sholars and sources are showing that turkish is an modern mongolian language.. The turkish is not more than an language, and not nationality or ethnic, or tribes.. The turkish speaking language are mongols.. That is not bad to be mongolian, and mongol or mongolian is one the nations..
 
If you think there are peoples who is called turks, please show me the sholars and sources.
Do have you more than 800 years history in the Mesopotamia? How can ethnic or nationality been changed from Mongolian to turkish?
 
Confused Turkish is a modern mongolian language? What a meaningless text.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 19:40
Three spammers balbanpasa3, osmantuus and medikurd are all banned from the forum.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2008 at 20:33
I saw many faces in Turkey so I would say their ancestry is very diverse, European, Middle Eastern, Asian. The Ottoman Empire pulled in ethnic groups from all over the empire and beyond. I read 10 million Turks have Greek blood in them and I saw many who looked more Greek than Turkish. Of course, the Kurds and some I saw, even though they looked caucasion, I could see Asiatic or Mongolian/Turkic features in their faces. Many of my students in Istanbul thought I looked Turkish with my olive complexion.

This is a very complicated question because of the diversity in Turkey. It is like asking an American two-three hundreds years from now.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2008 at 16:50
Originally posted by eaglecap

I saw many faces in Turkey so I would say their ancestry is very diverse, European, Middle Eastern, Asian. The Ottoman Empire pulled in ethnic groups from all over the empire and beyond. I read 10 million Turks have Greek blood in them and I saw many who looked more Greek than Turkish. Of course, the Kurds and some I saw, even though they looked caucasion, I could see Asiatic or Mongolian/Turkic features in their faces. Many of my students in Istanbul thought I looked Turkish with my olive complexion.

This is a very complicated question because of the diversity in Turkey. It is like asking an American two-three hundreds years from now.
 
10 million turks with greek blood? You think that greeks were existing with the creation of the world? Anatolian greeks are mostly from anatolian stock. Greeks living at Greece also assimilated major slavonic, albanian and turkic peoples in to their soceity. There isnt any pure nation today. Our western friends love this subject especiially Turkeys demography. Turkeys population includes multiple etnicities which it is normal, but comparing with USA makes nonsense.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 12:05
Originally posted by Sarmat

For sure Turks is not a homogeneous ethnicity.
 
It's just a language affinity.  Most of the people who speak Turkic languages today have little or no genetic connections to the Turks of the Great Turk kaganate, due to whom this name became known in the world.
 
The same is with the Turks of Anatolia, culturally and linguistically they are Turks, but the percentage of the real Turkic nomades that contributed to the formation of the Turkish nation (I mean the nation of the Republic of Turkey) was minimum.
 
Most of modern Turkish people of Anatolia are just indigenous population (yes those Lidians, Phrigians, Galats etc.) who by the time of when the Turks took over spoke Greek and thought they were Greek. Then they were "Turkified" the same way as before they were "Hellenized."


For me the debate ended with this post, excellent summary of the issue.

However, the fact that Turkey and its people use the Turk-name causes a lot of confusion.  Whenever I talk history with people who are largely ignorant of the history of Turkey and Central Asia, most people that is, I always feel forced to steer clear of referring to Turkic peoples altogether, for the average person will immediately draw a connection to modern Turkey. If I mention say, the Seljuks, I must refer to them simply as steppe nomads in order to avoid having them mixed up with the modern Turkish. When it does happen that I speak of Turkic peoples, my listeners are always baffled at how little they resemble the people in Turkey, as they are typical Mediterraneans in all things significant, and I end up digressing to in order to explain it.

It gets quite annoying when you've been in this situation enough times, especially since most people have short attention spans and it's the challenge of the historian to say as much as possible in as short a time as possible. Once you start drifting into sub-topics you lose many.
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 12:42
Originally posted by Vorian

Wow, thread re-animationClap


Zombie Thread!
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 20:02
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

Originally posted by eaglecap

I saw many faces in Turkey so I would say their ancestry is very diverse, European, Middle Eastern, Asian. The Ottoman Empire pulled in ethnic groups from all over the empire and beyond. I read 10 million Turks have Greek blood in them and I saw many who looked more Greek than Turkish. Of course, the Kurds and some I saw, even though they looked caucasion, I could see Asiatic or Mongolian/Turkic features in their faces. Many of my students in Istanbul thought I looked Turkish with my olive complexion. This is a very complicated question because of the diversity in Turkey. It is like asking an American two-three hundreds years from now.

 

10 million turks with greek blood? You think that greeks were existing with the creation of the world? Anatolian greeks are mostly from anatolian stock. Greeks living at Greece also assimilated major slavonic, albanian and turkic peoples in to their soceity. There isnt any pure nation today. Our western friends love this subject especiially Turkeys demography. Turkeys population includes multiple etnicities which it is normal, but comparing with USA makes nonsense.


All the things you have mentioned I acknowledge and knew about. As for tHe USA in time our population will become more and more mixed like what has happened in other regions of the world, as we assimilate different races and ethnic groups. Even today Americans are usually quite an ethnic mix- so are the Turks today.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2008 at 20:17
Regimund
However, the fact that Turkey and its people use the Turk-name causes a lot of confusion.  Whenever I talk history with people who are largely ignorant of the history of Turkey and Central Asia, most people that is, I always feel forced to steer clear of referring to Turkic peoples altogether, for the average person will immediately draw a connection to modern Turkey. If I mention say, the Seljuks, I must refer to them simply as steppe nomads in order to avoid having them mixed up with the modern Turkish. When it does happen that I speak of Turkic peoples, my listeners are always baffled at how little they resemble the people in Turkey, as they are typical Mediterraneans in all things significant, and I end up digressing to in order to explain it.
 
Seljuks are the forefathers fo the Turkish republic as after their expansion to Asia Minor the region became known as Turchia, ruled by Turks and settled by Turks.
 
Also which Turkic peoples are you referring to? people from Eastern Turkistan, Ozbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaycan and Turkey actually don't look too different to each other. However, with Kazaks, Kirgiz there is a difference.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 27-Nov-2008 at 20:28
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.