Anatolians before Turks
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Linguistics
Forum Discription: Discuss linguistics: the study of languages
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13476
Printed Date: 12-May-2024 at 08:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Anatolians before Turks
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Subject: Anatolians before Turks
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 14:56
| What languages were spoken in Anatolia before their mother language became Turkish? |
Replies:
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 15:55
|
greek, arabian, armenian, georgian, Lazic and persian but I think mostly greek since the byzantine empire was dominant.
the bigger "variation" of languages or more languages were spoken before the roman empire. ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Tangriberdi
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 18:20
|
in thracia, marmorian region, coastal pontic region , aegean region and mediterranean region pronbably spoke hellenic languages, in Eastern Anatolia and parts of Southern Anatolia Eastern Armenian dialects dominated, In Eastern Pıntic regions Laz and Georgian was spoken , in souteastern borders of conteöporary Turkey was Arabic language area beside other semitic languages. There was no Kurdish. Because Kurds and Turks came to Anatolia together, Turks conquered Kurds settled. ------------- |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 19:19
|
I thought Kurds lived there long before Turks...I know one of the 30 provinces of Greater Armenia was called Corduene... ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 04:12
that makes 2 of us.
btw this thread should be anatolia befor the greeks. I think the number of spoken languages was higher before the grees came to that region.
or am I wrong  ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 04:57
| Since Greeks didnt come after Turks my title includes that. Any new information would be welcome i wonder what languages had been spoken in Anatolia. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 08:19
|
How so If greeks already was the dominant language the turks just replaced that with turkish. So other languages were lost before the turks at the arrival of greeks. ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Tangriberdi
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 12:24
No you are not.
Corduene comprised the area in the south of van lake towards the tigris in the west. But today Kurds are spread a much larger area than that.
Considered where Corduene was located, there cannot be said to be Anatolia. To understand better. Actual borders of Anatolia is a direct line from Artvin to Iskenderun ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 15:24
|
In byzantine empire it was common practice to resettle people from differet nationalities in order to heterogenize them in particular place or hhomogenize in the whole empire. This made easier to rule them and to avoid signifficant revolts. Thus I know that large part of bulgarians were resettled to this regionsand even that they had sort of autonomous kingdom when turk came. Some of them that are known are
1. 30 000 Macedonian slavs resettled at 690.
2. 208000 slavs that were run from bulgarian king Telets.
3. Bulgarians resettled by Boris, the bulgarian killer.
As I said they had small kingdom with the only known king womqan Ekaterina. This kingdom ismention in "History of Karaman" ("something like "Tavarikh-e al-e-Karaman") which is known in three different variants and all of them contain the information abouth these bulgarians. They were orthodox and partially muslims as far as I understood. Some of turkish historians rekon that modern turkish speaking orthodox in those places are their descendants.
Localization of the place is Bulgar dagh (correct me please if I am werong with pronounciation). ÄThe information about it you can find if you search turkish historian Nedzhip Asem (again may be wrong, I just spelled from bulgarian text) and his ANATULUDA BULGARLAR-1, published in the newspaper "Ikdam" 27.10.1921.
Sorry for that messy post, I tried to summarize a bit information from different sorces. Those who understand bulgarian may be reffered to
http://ziezi.net/anadol/venedikova.html - http://ziezi.net/anadol/venedikova.html
http://ziezi.net/anadol/ - http://ziezi.net/anadol/
------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 15:46
Do not mix official and dominant. These langages are still spoken there to some degree, so how could they be dominated before? ------------- . |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 16:15
|
like english is the dominant language of the world but not the official chinese and spanish has more speakers but still english is used more widely and has more how do say importance ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 17:59
That is right. But does that mean that all other languages were replaced by dominating in Anatolia? Look at Ottoman Empire. Dominating language is turkish but many people spoke and still speak their own languages depending on nationality. Domination does not mean replacement. And by the way this multicultural and multilingual content always adds some inflections and nuances to the let say basic culture. That is why I really like the original question. ------------- . |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 18:37
|
but how do you explain that the hittit language an sevral other "disapeared" I think that was before the turks. Before the turks came to anatolia they stoped in iran or Iraq so they allready spoke persian or arabic right? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 21:08
Are you sure that they disappeared? Are you sure that they do not persist in modern turkish language at least partially? ------------- . |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 08:34
I think that they were long gone before the turkish migration ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 11:15
| This isnt being hepful at all, can someone tell for example which language were spoken in Ankara? Or Erzincan? Those areas are far to both Greek and Armenian influence. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 11:44
|
I heard ankara was an old hittit city so there language.
but I thought the byzantne empire coverd almost all of anatolia ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 08:12
|
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/anat/ana.html -
These sites may be helpful:
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/anat/ana.html
http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/anatolian_languages.htm - http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/anatolian_languages.htm ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 18:00
------------- |
Posted By: Tangriberdi
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 14:31
That is not true. If it is true, show me any example of any monuments built by Kurds.
A cistern, an inn, a palace, a castle, an arc. There is nothing that proves the exitence of Kurds in Anatolia ( not meant South of the Van Lake) before Turks.
Any travellers did not write about Kurds before Turks. Also we have many historical records confirming that alittle amount of Kurds entered beyond Tigris and North of the Van lake with the Armies of Seljukids. Later just because the Shiite and Sunnite fights between Persia and Ottoman Empire many Sunnite Kurds were invited and settled by ottoman reign to Anatolia and much morein number Alawite Turcımans were exiled from the region to Iran. It is very well known that the region started to become Kurdicized in 1600s.
Do not distort the truth.
Andf I do not believe you to be Turkish, it is impossible that a Turk exists who supports Israeli massacres and repeats the PKK thesis about Kurds in Anatolia.
You must be a Kurd from Turkey. I will not go on with you.
This is my last answer to you .
. ------------- |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 15:29
|
At the arrival of Turks,in the peninsula (not the Armenian or Kurdish region,) the only language spoken was Greek. The adoption of Greek by the Anatolian people,dates back to 5th century BC when Cars ,Lydians and Luwians,adopted the Attic.(first as official language). After the conquests of Alexander,the founding of Greek cities by the Seleucids in the inner Anatolia,and the hellenization of the "barbarian kingdoms" of Asia Minor this procession accelerated. Geographer Strabo (a hellenized himself) mentions in 1st century BC: "there is no sign of Lydian language in Lydia" and also describes the way Cars were speaking greek as particular :"carizein" In central and eastern Anatolia these languages survived more. Goths who settled in Phrygia in 4th century where already bilingual in 5th century-their descendants are called "Gotho-greki" in a 8th century's text-like the Galato-greki" (Gaul-greeks) who where hellinized earlier. Cappadocian survives till the 4th cent, Isaurian till the 6th. "Neo-Phrygian" epigrams are found until the 4th century (about 100),but Greek are already the vast majority,and it seems that until 6th century is disappeared too. So,already in the 6th cent,Greek was the only written,and probably the only spoken language in the Western,central,and coastal regions. There can be found 2 distinct linguistic and cultural groups : The Greek speaking,Orthodox christians who recognize the patriarch of Constantinople as their spiritual ruler (Romei) ,and the others (including several ethnic groups-mainly in the eastern part) As for the Slavs mentioned above,they were obviously early assimilated (this was after all the purpose of their transfer into regions where "Romei" were the majority). ------------- |
Posted By: Konstantis
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 15:55
|
The major part of the Anatolian population were Greeks before the arrival of the Turks.The other major ethnic group were the Armenians who had their own church and their own state.
The ethnic groups that existed in the antiquity in the region of Asia minor were hellenised gradually.This process had started at the time of the establishment of the Greek colonies on the coasts of Asia minor,long before the campaign of Alexander.The process of hellenisation became more intense during the age of the hellenistic kingdoms and culminated after the Roman conquest and the conversion of the indigenous people to christianity.The Roman government didn't alter the linguistic ''status quo'' in Asia minor.The romans didn't try to spread the Latin language,instead they favoured the use of the Greek language in the whole region.They did this because a great part of the population were already hellenised.
The advent of christianity in Asia minor(craddle of eastern christianity) strengthened the domination of the Greek language as the most used language, since the Gospels were initially written in the Greek language by hellenised converts.
By the time the Tuirks arrived in the area only small communities at the eastern borders of the empire preserved their linguistic identity like the Laz people.As I stated above the Anatolian population spoke mostly Greek.
------------- "Stranger, tell the Lakedemonians that here we lie dead obeying their orders." Tombstone on the tomb of the 300 Spartans |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 16:26
As for bulgarians mentioned above, they were obviously not assimilated since "History of Karaman" clearly mentions that they were orthodox and slavic language speaking.
------------- . |
Posted By: Konstantis
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 16:32
|
Digenis is not speaking about Bulgarians that were transferred to Anatolia during the years of the ottoman empire.He is speaking about slavs that were transfered there during the age of the Byzantine empire History of Karaman was written AFTER the fall of Byzantium and AFTER the arrival of the turks in the region ------------- "Stranger, tell the Lakedemonians that here we lie dead obeying their orders." Tombstone on the tomb of the 300 Spartans |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 16:56
| And how did Anatolia got Hellenized? Was Byzantine Empire strict about language issue or has it received Greek migrations from Greece? Or both. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:22
|
So when I said that the turks just replaced the dominant greek language I was right? ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:44
Well, Konstantis, the only slavs that were mentioned above were Karaman bulgarians. And it does not matter when this book was written, the matter is what is written there. They could not be transferred by ottoman since they had war against them already in Anatolia. And formed indepent country with their own king...
And again I do not believe in domination of one language (particularly greek) over others in such multinational country like Byzantine Empire. Greek was official indeed but different nations most likely spoke their own languages and greek. And by the way latin as well. You may call it domination (meaning that most people spoke greek) but not assimilation (meaning that most people spoke greek but not their own languages). ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 17:57
Digenis, greeks were under ottoman rule aroun 400 years. How come that they were not "turkicized"? How come that bulgarians and serbs were not turkicized? Why miriad of nations in Russian Federation having no written culture survived and persisted their national identity and language? (Even with a lot of borrowings but still their own languages that russians do not understand!). What about american Indians? What is the difference between these federations and byzantium? ------------- . |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 07:19
|
Behind Byzantium lies a whole world, the roman and the hellenistic. The hellenization process began in the 4th century BC, when Alexander conquered the area. When Byzantium adopted officially the Greek language in the 7th century AD, there had been already a millenium of assimilation. If Greece was under turkish occupation for 1000 years I find it very possible that she would become turkified. Already you could see many Greeks, especially from Asia Minor, speaking turkish as mother language, in 1922. Or the 'Turks' of Crete, who are basically turkified Cretans.
Plus, the western coast of Asia Minor has pretty much always have been Greek. Also the Black Sea coast of Asia Minor had already been settled by many Greek states. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 08:59
|
you would be surprised that ellements in culture and language is turkish. But the greeks have a verry strong identity so that "slows" things down. ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 10:29
Your starting with capital letters to every private name except Turk has pulled my attention, is it a coincidance or...?
|
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 14:08
Of course a great part of the greek speaking ,orthodox population was "turkicized" from 1071-today. Do you think that the greek-speaking orthodox "Romei" of all Anatolia disappeared at once? Or they were only the 1,3 millions of Greeks who went to Greece in 1923? Of course many of them were killed,or expelled during this millenium-but obviously a significant proportion of modern Turks are partially ancestors of these people. And also: Do you have any proof that these people were speaking another language and not Greek? You will tell me ,"Greek was the official and so the only written",but do you think its possible ,that all written evidence of native languages stop to exist even since 4th-6th century,but these people were still speaking their language the following 400 years ?  Do you have any mention in writers who record smth like this? Any archaeological findings? It's nice to express your own opinion,but it would be nicer if it had any base. ------------- |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 14:19
Greek migrations happened as its known during the 1st (western Anatolia ) and 2nd colonization (North,South) of Ancient Greeks. The inner was colonized when the Seleucids founded douzins of Greek cities. The migration continued during the Roman period,since poor Greeks were trying to find a better future in the blooming new Anatolian cities. But the majority of the population of the inner was actually hellinized natives. It was not a strict language politic of Byzantium (after all the official language till the early 7th century was latin!) -but more the huge cultural influence .Greek way of life was adopted firstly by the scholars and the upper class (as well as the monarchs of the Anatolian kingdoms),and the population sooner or later followed. Christianity was also a factor of hellenization. ------------- |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 15:00
|
Here we go, and go again...
No. The main language was Byzantine Greek, local languages were Armenian, Cappadocian Luvian, Lycian Luvian, Phrygian and Cilician Luvian in Cilicia Trachea. Also Laz, Slavic, Syriac Aramaic and Arabic were semi local languages spoken by little communities.
No. Actually all these languages are dialects of Luvian, or Hittite. Except Paphlagonian (Pauwa Lacawana, Palaic people) which was Palaic, related with these.
Let's give an example. During the Battle of Manzikert, the general of the right side of Byzantine army, was from western Cappadocia, named "Alyattes". Alyattes (actually "Aluvva Atta") is a pure Hittite/Luvian name, also the name of father of Croesus, meaning fire of Luvian father god, "Atta". Neither his religion or mother tongue was Greek. How can you force him to be a Greek?
Same for Romenos Diogenes. His father was a rich farmer of Caesaria Mazaca and a pure Cappadocian. Maybe his name wasn't so "Latin" before he entered the Byzantine palace in golden horn.....
When Michael II attacked Syria, Mu'tasım of Islamic caliphate burned the city of Amirion down, to take revenge from Michael, who was born a Phrygian. Mutasim was defined to pillage greater Phryigia from the east (Halys) to the west (Mysia, or Massa in Hittite), because Amirion was the hometown of Michael, and it was especially the home town of "infidel"s in Western Anatolia, according to Mu'tasim. There still existed people who prayed a goddess called "Cybele" and named their daughters after her. They weren't ehl-i kitab (believers of any Abrahamic faith). Amirion is called Emirdag today and we have names like Mursel (remember what Dayi said) and Sibel today. Do you still think if Michael has learned any Greek words before highschool?
Sources like Anna Komnena mention Rumoi and non-Rumoi lived together in Laodikea. Also Ibn Bibi says that Paphlagonians lived in the west of Tsanivk (Oune, Ordu- Iris). Also when the Seljuks arrived Iconium (Ikuna in Hittite), many people out of ehl-i kitap were either slaughtered or suddenly dissappeared (Islamicized). When Turks captured Edirne (Hadrianople), there were speakers of Greek, Bulgarian, and a so called language named "Uskudami", which was probably an ancient dialect of Thracian.
The true Hellenization of Anatolian people began with Christianization, and the Turkification began with Islamization.
Not before the Acheans (Ahhiyawa) captured western cities of Mira, Luvian cities of Miletos, Ephesos, Smurnu and Fotzas. Hittites tried to fight them, but Tudhaliyash has failed.
BTW http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=1034&FID=41 - Argentum Draconis , I see you still try to hide your nationality but you can't hide your nationalism, even if you try to. We had previous topics on these issues and you still didn't "get down, sit down and give up the fight". But you don't have to worry mate, there existed Anatolia before Turks, but there won't be a new Anatolia after Turks, so you should try to get along with that...
------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 15:33
Can you give me any inscriptions of these languages after 6th century AD? Is it just an imagination that they still existed? Do you doubt that Strabo ,as early as 1000 years before the Turks says that western anatolian nations (such as Lydians) spoke only Greek?
Theodoros Alyattes was Aluvva Atta? Was he wearing a Hittite armor?  In fact Kizil Irmak river is Alys in Greek (even if "Alys" is a hellinized form of a native nme for the river) (=so Aly-ates is the one who is from the region of Alys / -ates is an ending meaning origin from region in greek (ex:Menidi-Menidiates)) For example a friend of mine is name "Thalassinos" (thalassa =sea in the past 3.000 years in greek language.) But researchers say "thalassa" is a pre-hellenic word adopted by the Greeks. According to you my friend speaks a pelasgic language...Isnt?
have you ANY evidence of cappadocian language after the 4th century AD? ANY? If its just your imagination ok..but i cant speak with fantasies..only with evidence...
"romei" and "mi-romei" ..so what ? Of course there could be foreigners in Laodikeia ..why not? Romei and non-Romei where also in Constantinople-Latins,Muslims..etc etc... ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 16:39
Nice to hear from greek about assimilation of greeks by other nation. That is my first experience really
Did you mean that they were ancestors of modern Turks?
Digenis! What do you want me to show!? Inscriptions of the nonwritten languages? (Well, I am not talking about those like Armenian). From f.e. 2 million thracian population in the Balkans, north Pontum and Asia Minor we got only 3 or 4 inscritpion that are readable and their length is around 3 or 4 words! So how could I show you something that never existed? The only thing we could look for is sources. Some of them regarding slavs, like history of Karaman I have posted. Bashibouzuk did the same for Lydian language. I am sure if youyare interested you may find more. So, this means that greek language was not the only one. The major sort of speak but not the only one.
And again, you are telling me that 1.3 million anadolian Greeks were returned to Greece. Such a huge population even after 500 years of living under ottoman rule and domination! How much is it? Around 5 or 10 per cent of total Anatolian population? So what assimilation and disapearance of languages are you talking about? There is no such a thing as extreme assimilation and disapearance of a language. The only example I can find were languages of American Indians but in even in those cases that was not an assimilation but total death of a tribe... ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 16:49
Who says that? That would be difficult to prove indeed. People just oppose that greek culture replace all others. That, I think, is very far from true. ------------- . |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2006 at 18:38
|
Başıbozuk your post was a good one except the part about me.
*Aptalca şeyler söylemişsin.
Thanks though..
|
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 05:42
I can't, because as I know, their alphabets were extinct by 6rd century AD, and their languages were almost extinct when Turks arrived Anatolia, but what I meant was that Greek wasn't the oly language spoken at Anatolia as you claimed. Local languages and even local religions have existed even during 17th century, as mentioned by Evliya Çelebi, the Turkish historian who travelled many regions of Ottoman and Safavid empires.
The native form was Marashantiya, which had a related meaning with the Turkish name Kizilirmak.
These are not the same kinds of derivations. His name was "Alyattes", not "Halyates". And his name was the same with the Lydian Neo-Hittite king, Alyattes, father of Croesus, who forced Cimmerians out of Hatti country.
I don't know, maybe so. A friend of mine is also named Sibel and I also had a girl friend named Alev. Do you think I used to date with Hittites?
Yeah, I have many more than the ones I mentioned above. If you need them I may provide some info, as a favour of course.
I didn't have such a statement before.
Şimdi sen diaspora Ermenî'si olduğunu inkâr mı ediyorsun?
------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 10:36
| Just why the hell did you call me Armenian? Because few months ago i said Anatolian Turks arent central asian? And what does it have to do with this topic? Nationalist people are inferior. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 10:44
First time? And what do you think,that all the world believes pan-turanist imaginations that modern Turks are pure descendands of central Asian tribes? Of course a significant part are grand-children of the ex-greek speaking -orthodox Romei =Byzantines.
some thracian inscriptions: http://members.tripod.com/groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html - http://members.tripod.com/groznijat/thrac/thrac_6.html and... Thracians started to write their language ,where already under heavy greek linguistic and cultural influence,and then (the northern tribes ,under latin influence. During the Roman occupation their language was disappeared too.Unless you believe that there are still thracian speakers,just because there must be somewhere. The same happened with the several Anatolian nations.Of course at first they were speaking their languages.There have been found such inscriptions. But(!) Somewhere between 4-6th century ,after they are being gradually reduced in numbers...they disappear! In the same time greek inspriptions are being raised..until there can be found only greek. Even in popular texts of the lower class: prays,curses,on rings. What else can this mean apart from the disappearence of their language too ?
About the Lydian language!!!??? What? I ll write it for the 3rd time:Strabo in 1st cent (63 BC-64 AD) claims that there is no evidence of Lydian language in whole Lydia ,and the only spoken language is Greek. As for your beloved "history of Karaman" :1st is not a scientific book. 2nd:it speaks about "Bulgarians"=people that could not be in Anatolia before 700-800 AD -so their linguistic hellinizationwould last the most 200 years. I am speaking about the Anatolian people of inner Anatolia-they were under greek language 's influence since 5th cent BC. This means 1.500 years (!)
The Orthodox Christians in Anatolia recorded in 1600's Sultanic catalogues are counted around 400.000 . The greek -speaking Orthodox population of Anatolia before the invasion of the Turks where some millions . But plz answer me this: Do you believe that Turks did not islamize a big part of Anatolian-Byzantine population ? this population was greek-speaking , othodox and hellinized. Why is it so hard for some people to swallow this? ------------- |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 14:55
|
just a random fact, but prior to 1900 Anatolia was 34% ethnically Turkish, after 1925 it was 85% ethnically Turkish
------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 15:54
hahaha I and a lot of turks would wish that but thats bull 20 or 30% of turkey is kurdish btw the ethnicaly TURKic lineage in turkey is low most who have it have 30% of it.
So that not a fact most sites say that but this is the internet according to those states there are only 2 ethnic groups in turkey turks and kurds.
Are there more?  (sarcasm)------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 16:32
I dont know where did you get that but this isnt true. Turks have been the major people in Anatolia since they have conquered it. There was no one except Ottoman census to record such a statistic and since the Armenians dont believe them i wonder whose fantasy is this. Dont get offended but this statement is a lie. For this numbers to be true Turks whose number are one third of the region must somehow make %91 of the remaining people disappear while facing starvation, invasions and civil wars and the fact that they have entirely lost their few generations in the war should be noted too. That means they had decreasing manpower and population which effects the population ratio of the country.
Kurdish populaiton is Turkey something like 10 million, Turkey's population is 72 million. That doesnt make %20 or %30.
|
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 17:28
Funniest statement of yours I've ever read in this forum (except your previous one about being hairy). Anyway, I need your "sensible" sources.
5th century B.C.? You mean when the PErsians conquered neo Hittite kingdoms of Tabal in Cappadocia, Issuwa (Melitene), Carcemish, Cilicia and Lydia which dominated all over Anatolia, including coastal Aegean? There was no significant Greek influence in Anatolia except Ionia and Pontian colony cities before Hellenistic period, and Greek language wasn't the lingua franca of Anatolia before the Roman conquest of Anatolia and the kingdom of Tabal, by A.D.17. Roman emperors have always imposed Greek language in Anatolia, Armenia, Northern Syria and Thrace. So Anatolia was never entirely Hellenized, though its language was by late Byzantine period, except few local communities.
I wonder what sultanic catalogues are, but nope, much less than that number was consisted of Christian Rums. ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 18:25
|
take it easy now, I never said I believe that...however it was my a professor in the University of Minnesota who said that in the last part of his interview....which happens to be on the same page as the Taner Akcam interview, on another thread...
------------- |
Posted By: Bashibozuk
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 02:42
|
So you may have said that that your professor from the diaspora, with his brother Taner stated these so called "factbite"s, not you. ------------- Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar, Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar. Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar, Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben. |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 04:30
Yes 5th century. Lycia,Lydia and Caria were under the ioanian heavy cultural influence. The adoption of greek language,and greek culture dates back to the 5th century. Of course after Alexander's conquest and for the following 1000 years the hellinization was complete.
Yes sure! Take a look at your touristic advertisements all over internet,and you won't see any Hellinization! ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 06:27
|
No, I do not believe to this panturkic stuff. Anatolian population before arrival of turks were majorly greek speaking, but many other languages also existed (like bulgarian as I pointed) in less proportion. In General I do not believe in any pansomething staff and I include to that panhellenistic as well. Thus I do not believe that greek population were unmixed with other nations existed in multinational Byzantine Empire -- slavs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Thracians, Illirians and others. I am sure you will agree with that  ------------- . |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 12:56
For the same reason as people in USA speak English nowadays and not the native languages. They were forced away from the region so there were not so many left to keep the language dominant. -------------  
SÃ¥ nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:07
Ok...it turned to a conversation of personal beliefs.. I don't want and i can't convince you with any arguments for the opposite,since you believe it and no evidence can change this.  Byzantine Empire started as a real multinational empire,but as they centuries where passing by all its nations (like Thracians,Illyrians u mentioned-as well as Anatolians and Greeks of the mainland) melted -(under Christianity and Greek-Roman civilization) into one : the ΡΩΜΑΊΟΙ (Romei,Romans,"Byzantines") -the people which in the 1800's where already the "'Ελληνες" (Ellines,Hellenes,Greeks,Neo-ellines,"New-Greeks") Of course distinct exceptions where some Slavs and the Armenians-but these where already since medieval times distincted from the "Romei". ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:03
Well, well, if you look at the thread you will be surprised who first used this word  Regarding that in 1800s they started to be called hellens -- thats right. Multinational product called Roman Empire started to bear name hellens later  Of course, no doubts that hellenistic civilization had the strongest influence on that "product" but if one is not blinded by beliefs he could find other influences as well The problem is that now it would be difficult to find this influences and such attempts will meet strong opposition from "new-greek" co-forumers. Because they would very much like to have continuation of their culture during milleniums without any influences from neughboring nations and to be descendant of everything attractive in Balkan peninsula. This is their belief which cannot be argued by facts ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:12
Flipper, in US people still speak native languages despite the domination of English. And like in Byzantium there are many communities that speak their native languages mainly. They are somewhat analogs of foederati apart from the fact that foederati beared protective function in Byzantium. You may find Irish, Jewish, Chineese, Indian and other cultural and lingual communities in the US. Am I right? ------------- . |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:33
|
@Anton: 1-"Ellines" (Hellens) started to be used again far more earlier (15th ,even 13th century) (though not widely till 1800's) ,to describe ex-"Romei". 2-Of course there was influence (localy mainly) by other ethnic groups ,but this was limited. 3-foederati was a constitution of the early Byzantine empire. United states could be a good example (esp about the earlier immigrants to USA) Germans,Irish,English,and other Europeans melted under common language and culture into a nation. Latinos and Chinese are 10 century's Armenians and other non-Romei nations of Byzantium. and finally: it's simple :there were not any thracians,illyrians,lycians,cappadocians,lydians...etc in Byzantine empire of 10th century. There were only greek speaking,orthodox christian Romei. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:48
|
Digenis it seems that our opinions differ only in details
------------- . |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:00
|
Sorry for repeating myself,but i don't get any counter -argument on this just personal beliefs . so i won't say it again (after all i ve said "finally")2.limited/localy.: Since greek language was the only one,and since a common culture was created,any influence was limited and localy. Take a look at the underground churches of Cappadokia (the eastern frontier of Byzantine(Romei) population) Inscriptions are all (of course )in greek . Frescos revealed show the common byzantine rythm of iconography ,but with local (not so elegant) elements. There is a lack of clasicization that exists in churches of Constantinople and the other major cities of the empire. ------------- |
Posted By: Argentum Draconis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:12
| What about the Kurds, due to their homelands' geographic condition they are hard to influence, were they hellenized as well? |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:25
No. Kurds remained out of the cultural influence of Hellenism. They were not even christianized. ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 18:14
Well, of course they are in greek since they belonged to greek orthodox church As for "not so elegant", be more cautious. Sometimes it is hard to make a difference between "beautifull" and "different from your culture"... I personally do not consider Hellenic elements in for example thracian culture as "more elegant" and "higher standarts", as many tends to say. It is, better to say, another way (no doubt, a good one) of expression of Thracian mysticism. The same thing could be applied with Cappadokian churches, maybe. Or icons of Russian Andrej Rublyov do not become less elegant or less impressive because of addition slavic understanding of christianity. Sorry for the offtop again.------------- . |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 18:36
|
I didnt say "ugly" I ve said more elegant. If u prefer not so naive-or products of a more "intellectual" art. Or more stylized-or closer to clasical pwtterns-or performed by classical educated painters... Is it ok ? ------------- |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 18:49
Yeah, the last one is perfect
So, now tell me who produced these paintings? hellenophonic greeks? If yes, why they are different from classical byzantic, pardon hellenistic paintings? Isnt it logical to propose that they have influence from other nations still remembering their own culture, at least partially? To be honest I didnt see them so I cannot discuss it in more details. But if you say that they are different from classical greek orthodox paintings than this might be true ------------- . |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 03:03
|
They are differend than the art of the Capital nd big cities. But its the same all over other regions. For example some frescos in Kastoria-(West.Macedonia -Greece),or in Mani,or small churches in Crete ,etc,are different-more primitive -too. This hasnt to do anything with greek speaking or not(!) ------------- |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 03:37
Yes you are right Anton. But my point was that they are not dominant languages. There are still Ponts in Turkey but there are few. They speak their Pontian language but that doesn't mean it is a dominant language. My sentence " people in USA speak English nowadays and not the native languages" goes for the majority not for groups of Natives that still speak their language ofcourse. On the other hand, in countries like Bolivia where the natives were not forced in the same way, the Ketsua language is spoken at a very high rate. -------------
SÃ¥ nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |