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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Turkification of Turkey
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 14>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Turkification of Turkey
    Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 10:26
I don't know whether to post this message as part of "Modern History" or "Early Modern History" because it was a process that continued throughout these 2 periods.
 
When I was travelling in Turkey last year, our Turkish guide made a quote: "In Turkey there are no Turks, but only citizens of the Turkish Republic, who are Turkified native Anatolians"
 
Looking up historical sources, I learned that Anatolia had always been an ethnically diverse region, and Constantinople had been a multi-cultural city since its foundation.
The "Turks", as an ethnic group, arrived in relatively few numbers and managed to "Turkify" a portion of the native byzantine population.
However, as some sources claimed, as late as the fall of the Ottoman Empire, much of Anatolia still maintained its native ethnic profile with ethnic Turks forming a minority.
 
However, the Turkish republican government adopted a "Turkification" policy, making all native ethnics adopt Turkish language, names, and customs..., or otherwise they were deported. While at the same time immigration from Turkic nationalities abroad replaced them.
 
If these affirmations were true, then this recent "Turkification" process must have caused a deep psychological effect on much of the country's population, considering that they had to adopt a different language or culture all of a sudden under government imposition.
Suppose many Turkish citizens must remember a grandparent who was of a different cultural background to Turkish.
 
What really happened?
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 10:56
Originally posted by calvo

I don't know whether to post this message as part of "Modern History" or "Early Modern History" because it was a process that continued throughout these 2 periods.

I disagree with that. There is no direct connection between them. And so-called 'first phase' occured in Medieval age anyway.

Originally posted by calvo

When I was travelling in Turkey last year, our Turkish guide made a quote: "In Turkey there are no Turks, but only citizens of the Turkish Republic, who are Turkified native Anatolians"

I wonder, what does 'Turk' mean in the first place? I mean, if some people are 'Turkified X', then it means they cease to be X and become Turkish.

Originally posted by calvo

The "Turks", as an ethnic group, arrived in relatively few numbers and managed to "Turkify" a portion of the native byzantine population.

This is not %100 true. It's not like that a Central Asian army appeared from nowhere and conquered the whole region. They were nomadic people.

Originally posted by calvo

However, as some sources claimed, as late as the fall of the Ottoman Empire, much of Anatolia still maintained its native ethnic profile with ethnic Turks forming a minority.

This is %100 false. Turks didn't feel superior to other ethnicities as long as they were Muslim.

Originally posted by calvo

If these affirmations were true, then this recent "Turkification" process must have caused a deep psychological effect on much of the country's population

The concept of 'nation' is artificial all around the planet. Turkey is no exception.


Edited by Feanor - 07-Jul-2007 at 11:02
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 14:18
Originally posted by Feanor

I disagree with that. There is no direct connection between them. And so-called 'first phase' occured in Medieval age anyway.
 
So could you give me a summary of what happened in each of the "Turkification" processes, and the time periods in which they occurred?
 
What I've often heard and read is that Anatolia and Istanbul were up until the 20th century a mosaic of distinct nationalities and religions; while today, it has become somewhat mono-ethnic with just one identity: Turkish (although there are variations within the theme).
 
So an assimilation, or ethnic cleansing process must have taken place.
 
I'm curious to know what really happened from distinct points of views. I am an outsider without any political bias.
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711 		  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 14:58
I am curious where did you go at Turkey?
 
It is a little weird a turk say, I am not a turk but asimilated someone..
 
what happened was easy, people becomed muslims, and at anatolia It is generally accepted becoming muslim means also becoming Turk.
 
 
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 15:24
Originally posted by calvo

So could you give me a summary of what happened in each of the "Turkification" processes, and the time periods in which they occurred?

The first one was not 'Turkification' at all. Back then those people used 'Muslim' as an identity. Well, as you probably already know it started in 1071. Seljuk army defeated Byzantines and invaded Anatolia. The end depends on the region we are talking about. Anatolia? If that's the case, it ended even before Ottoman Empire was founded. I am sorry I can't give detailed information. The second one was more like a reaction. After French revolution the minorities of the Ottoman Empire were inspired by nationalism and seeked to gain independence. At first Ottomans tried to maintain the system by using Islamism, Ottomanism etc., but they failed. Then Young Turks, who were educated by Western/European ideas, emerged as first Turkish nationalists, but Ottoman Empire was on the brink of destruction. After the First World War, Ottoman Empire was destroyed and Anatolia was invaded. Mustafa Kemal rallied other Ottoman elites and defeated Greeks who were supported by Allies. He tried to establish a nation-state and attempted to assimilate Kurds and other ethnicities to avoid further seperation.

Originally posted by calvo

So an assimilation, or ethnic cleansing process must have taken place.

Well, their motivations are unclear, but you might want to search Talat-Enver-Cemal trio and Armenians.


Edited by Feanor - 07-Jul-2007 at 15:28
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: 07-Jul-2007 at 17:28
Calvo
When I was travelling in Turkey last year, our Turkish guide made a quote: "In Turkey there are no Turks, but only citizens of the Turkish Republic, who are Turkified native Anatolians"
 
Looking up historical sources, I learned that Anatolia had always been an ethnically diverse region, and Constantinople had been a multi-cultural city since its foundation.
The "Turks", as an ethnic group, arrived in relatively few numbers and managed to "Turkify" a portion of the native byzantine population.
However, as some sources claimed, as late as the fall of the Ottoman Empire, much of Anatolia still maintained its native ethnic profile with ethnic Turks forming a minority.
 
Firstly, I wouldn't take any notice of that tour-guide, its a ridiculous ignorant statement, its pretty shocking that such an ignorant person could be made a "tour guide".
 
As for your research, let me add to it.
 
The Turkification of todays Turkey has been a phenonema.
 
The Turkish migrations to todays Turkey was a "continuos migration", not a one-off like some mistakingly believe.
 
There were early settlements around the Arab regions of Turkey and some Pechengs, Khazars and Kumans in Byzantine lands.
 
However, the mass migrations began after the battle of Malizgirt. The land resembled their homeland of Central Asia, especially the flat plain areas and it also was suitable for, "Qishlik" and "Yazlig", summer and winter camps and there were many "Yayla" (plateus) all very important for Turkic communities, still this culture is prevalaent.
 
The initial Oghuz Turk migration was to Eastern Turkey and the flat plains of Southern Turkey/Northern Syria. Its estimated that this initial mass migration was between 500,000-600,000 by Proffessor Ibrahim Kafesoglu.
 
According to "Claude Cahen" 
 
Generally speaking, it is difficult to believe that movements of peoples at that period can have involved more than a few tens of thousands of individuals in any one operation, at the most two or three hundred thousand
 
 
Pre-ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, C.1071-1330 (Hardcover)
by Claude Cahen (Author)
 
 
Taking into account that the total population of todays Turkey at that time was around 6-7 million it was a major migration.
 
Now this was just the first, these migrations continued.
 
However, even before them the area had become Turkish enough for it to be called "Turkchia" by the time of "Barbarrossa's Third Crusade"! Therefore the Turkish character of the land even before the next Mongol invasions has to be acknowledged, it wasn't even the Turks who gave this name to the land, it was non-Turks who named it as they saw it. When Arab travellers wrote of areas of Central Turkey it was described as if it was as foreign as Central Asia was and both Arab and European writters always commented on the "freedom and importance of woman" in this to them "new alien society".
 
The next mass-migration period occured during the Mongol expansion. After the Khwarzamshahs were defeated there was a huge wave of Khwarzemshah Turkish tribes to Anatolia, today there was many "Harzemshahogullari" and Harzemshah linked tribes/large families in modern day Turkey. In addition many Khorrassan and Turkmenistan Oghuz Turk tribes migrated. Many Oghuz Turk groups became dispersed, that's why a family tree trace especially if you belong to one of the 24 tribes during that region you can find descendants in Turkmenistan, Afganistan, Pakistan, China, Iran, Azerbaycan, Turkey.
 
For example

The Chigil were living according to Hudud al-alem in the northwest of Issik Kol. Gradually acquiring more importance, they became a separate and independent tribe in the eleventh century.(7) Kashgari says that they had three branches.(8) Today, there are four villages in Asia Minor called Chigil. This may indicate that a part of the Chigil came to Asia Minor with the Mongolian invasion.

 
Or say the "Teke" Oghuz Turks, in Turkey they founded the "Teke beylik" in the Antalya region, up till modern day Turkey that province was called the "Teke sanjak" and their are many Teke villages and members today. Also in Turkmenistan, one of the most influential clans are the Teke.
 
These examples are numerous and are due to the Mongols.
 
The next mass-migration occured during the Timurid era, Timur gave importance to the Turkish leaders, he gave conquered provinces to these leaders and populated them with their clansmen.
 
The Turkish wave caused due to the Mongols and Timurids to Northern Iran/Azerbaycan and Turkey pushed the Turks already there West.
 
Also, what must be realized is that the inhabbitants before the advent of this mass Turkish migration were not a unified mass.
Quite to the contrary. There were numerous groups and nations, various regional powers and different languages were spoken. When the Turks secured Northern Iran and Azerbaycan as their base and started entering todays Turkey joined by following mass-migrations they were a majority.
Now they wern't an "overall majority", however out of the various groups (excluding the Greeks, Georgians, Armenians) they were the largest uniformed and organised nation. Over time, these various groups became Turkified via free assimilation, inter-marrying and living with the Turkish majority.
 
The Turks secured a path which allowed the free-flow of Turkish migration from Central Asia to Northern Iran, Azerbaycan and Turkey and this carried on.
 
The next mass-migration occured in the 18th-19th-20th centuries.
 
During the Crimean-Russian wars, in the 1780-1800, 500,000 Crimean Turks were exilled from there lands.
In 1864 it was estimated the total Crimean/Nogay/Astrakan Tatar-Turk migration to todays Turkey was around 500,000-700,000. Later in the 1900's, first world war and Stalin era many more migrated to todays Turkey.
 
In the 1890-1920's between 1-2 million Caucaus Turks, Cherkez, Chechen and other muslim groups migrated to todays Turkey.
 
From Eastern Turkistan during the problems with the Chinease, thousands migrated to todays Turkey.
 
Overall in the years leading up to WW1, there were around 5-6 million people that were made refugees in the Balkans and Caucauses and forced to flee to Turkey. In adittion 5 million muslims/Turks were killed in the same region.
 
Recently there have been Turkish migrations from Afganistan, China, Turkmenistan and other Turkic regions.
 
 
In conclusion this "myth" that no Turks actually migrated to Turkey is a total and utter lie. Turks had a strong presence in the region since the times of the 3rd Crusade when they called it "Turchia". Since then they gradually through continuous migrations, mixing with the locals who were not from large communities and nations who also joined them and through time became Turks became the majority in the land.
 
 
 
 
However, the Turkish republican government adopted a "Turkification" policy, making all native ethnics adopt Turkish language, names, and customs..., or otherwise they were deported. While at the same time immigration from Turkic nationalities abroad replaced them.
 
If these affirmations were true, then this recent "Turkification" process must have caused a deep psychological effect on much of the country's population, considering that they had to adopt a different language or culture all of a sudden under government imposition.
Suppose many Turkish citizens must remember a grandparent who was of a different cultural background to Turkish.
 
What really happened?
 
 
The majority of people in what is today Turkey at the time were either ethnic Turk or had a bond to Turks via Pax-Ottoman and that they were already called Turks by everyone else in the lands they fled anyway.
 
Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Justin McCarthy
 
Among these 5-6 million refugees many also were non-Turk. However, the 5 million killed were generally as they were called by the non-muslims as Turks. Even today in the Balkans some non-muslims call muslims there Turks even though they arn't.
 
Without understanding this you cannot understand the nation building process that occured in Turkey.
 
For the majority of the people, the policies of the Turkish state ie national language Turkish, Turk identity etc didn't have a negative affect and most united as Turks.
 
They had been made refugees for being "Turks", they had previously lived as persecuted minorities during the Balkan and Caucaus wars. Now in Turkey they were a muslim majority, they were with people they had a bond and no problem with. Thus the Albanians, Bosnians, Cherkez, Chechens etc had no problems being Turks. THe ethnic Turks obviously being Turks didn't have much of a problem.
Only the Kurds wern't happy with the new policies.
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 07-Jul-2007 at 17:34
      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
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 18:12
Tour guides really make good historians.. Their job is to entertain people with the mask of enlighter. In order to grab the attention of the tour, most of the time they tell sensational stories
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2007 at 20:09
So, how many actual Turkic people came to Anatolia comparing to Byzantine population of those lands? Roughly.
.
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358 		  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:14
Almost every Turk in Turkey has a mixed ancestry, for instance, my fathers mother is of pontic greek descent, and my mothers side has recorded georgian ancestry. Speaking in terms of probability, i would say that ethnically i am a mixture of Armenian, Greek, Georgian, Kurdish and Turkish, because these are the ethnicities that have resided historically in the regions where my ancestry lay. My situation is a bit of an exception though, because my heritage lays within the city of Trabzon, which was the last city in anatolia to fall to the Turks. The inland, non-coastal area, was predominantly Turkic after the Battle of Melankirt, so far as i know.
 
In my case, i suppose you could say we are turkified, because in spite of the fact that whatever turkic blood we have is somewhat diluted amongst other ethnicities, we are all very proud to be Turkish, and uphold Turkish culture. We are Turks, so far as we are concerned.
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358 		  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 00:39
Originally posted by Feanor

Originally posted by calvo


[QUOTE=calvo]So an assimilation, or ethnic cleansing process must have taken place.

Well, their motivations are unclear, but you might want to search Talat-Enver-Cemal trio and Armenians.
 
An assimilation process definitely occured. Undeniable. In the 1980's, a rather nationalist government banned the Kurdish language and referred to them as mountain Turks, so as to assimilate them. Whilst it is true that Kurds did mix with Turks in historic times (such as the Ak-koyunlu, Kara-koyunlu, the Safavids, and so on), they still regarded themselves as Kurds and they were suppressed of this identity. I have to emphasise though, that this policy was abondaned soon after it was installed and that it was brought in by a strictly nationalist government. Do not judge the nation of Turkey for the actions of a bunch of ultra-nationalists.
 
Regarding the Armenians, I think it would be unfair to classify their deportation as ethnic cleansing. They were deported to Syria because they were assisting the Russians on the eastern front, and after the Russian threat collapsed in 1917, most of them moved back to Eastern Turkey anyway. Most left after the Treaty of Lausanne, because the local Kurds and Turks were, and still are, incredibly hostile towards them.
 
Keep in mind that many Armenians assisted Mustafa Kemal and his nationalist movement, and were later welcomed as citizens of the Turkish Republic, such as Berch Keresteciyan, who saved Ataturk's life, and later became a member of Turkish parliament. They too, were assimilated, but certainly not ethnically cleansed.
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 03:50
Originally posted by Bulldog

When Arab travellers wrote of areas of Central Turkey it was described as if it was as foreign as Central Asia was and both Arab and European writters always commented on the "freedom and importance of woman" in this to them "new alien society".

And what causes this? Turkish culture or lifestyle of nomadic people?

Originally posted by Bulldog

Regarding the Armenians, I think it would be unfair to classify their deportation as ethnic cleansing. They were deported to Syria because they were assisting the Russians on the eastern front

Before that, all those Turkish/Kurdish bandits were armed and mobilized by Istanbul government.

Back to Top
Jagatai Khan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Jeune Turc

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270 		  Quote Jagatai Khan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 06:07
Originally posted by Anton

So, how many actual Turkic people came to Anatolia comparing to Byzantine population of those lands? Roughly.


I agree with assimilation and mixing theories, but Turkic migration is  considerable and had mass number; although they are nomads and mostly lived in villages they managed to change the ethnic structure of the settled culture.

I have once heard a "5 millions" number from Turkists.This is an exaggerated number.

But in a history magazine published by historians it was written that two most crowded Turkmen tribes; Dulqadir and Uluyoruk Turkmens had 300.000 people when they arrived to Anatolia, and at those times an ordinary city in Anatolia had 5-10.000 population.
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 06:42
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

I have once heard a "5 millions" number from Turkists.This is an exaggerated number.

That's beyond exaggeration.
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 07:04
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

Originally posted by Anton

So, how many actual Turkic people came to Anatolia comparing to Byzantine population of those lands? Roughly.


I agree with assimilation and mixing theories, but Turkic migration is  considerable and had mass number; although they are nomads and mostly lived in villages they managed to change the ethnic structure of the settled culture.

I have once heard a "5 millions" number from Turkists.This is an exaggerated number.

But in a history magazine published by historians it was written that two most crowded Turkmen tribes; Dulqadir and Uluyoruk Turkmens had 300.000 people when they arrived to Anatolia, and at those times an ordinary city in Anatolia had 5-10.000 population.
 
 
Ilber Ortayli, one of the most distinguished and famous Turkish historians of our time had written that 50-60% of the people in Turkey are Turcomans, 10% Kipchak Turks, and the rest composes of other etnicities
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 07:30
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Ilber Ortayli, one of the most distinguished and famous Turkish historians of our time had written that 50-60% of the people in Turkey are Turcomans, 10% Kipchak Turks, and the rest composes of other etnicities

I may have misunderstood you, are you actually saying that 70% of Turkish (People of Turkey) genes are from C. Asia?

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 09:07
Anatolian genetics was a discussed long time ago, the biggest ratio of the  'Turkic' gene ive seen was 30% , IIRC that was disputed because it considered all CA markers as Turkic. The most recent one that i know of is around 10%. Either way I have never seen figures like 50% or more being discussed by any genetic study.

This was the most productive thread, with the studies quoted or linked


However, the Turkish republican government adopted a "Turkification" policy, making all native ethnics adopt Turkish language, names, and customs..., or otherwise they were deported.
You might need to provide some proper context around this, for some balance. It was not as simple as that^.

My other concern with your post is that it seems to regard turks as foreign. After so many centuries they are simply not. Assimilation of, whatever the number really is, goes both ways, even if, on unequal terms. Hence Turkish people are also Anatolian. I would think that the regional differences are as important as ethnic ones, that is, up until modern times and the advent of ethno-nationalism and the resulting wars.  Go to Pontus 150 yrs ago and the Greeks-Rum, laz and Turkish people are mainly separated by language and/or religion not culture. For instance pontic Greeks dance and dress more like laz than Aegean Greeks.





Edited by Leonidas - 08-Jul-2007 at 09:08
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 09:39
Originally posted by Leonidas

Assimilation of, whatever the number really is, goes both ways, even if, on unequal terms.

Well said. I totally agree on that.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 10:21

Thanks for all the information.

What I'd like to know is the following:

How many Turkish citizens today (what percentage) have parents and grandparents who were not Turkish-speaking or not Muslims?

Did they assimilate to Turkish culture voluntarily or was there any resistance to it?

I remember reading in a book called "From the Holy Mountain" by William Darymple - an account written in the 1990s when the author set off to find remaining legacies of the Byzantine Empire. He quoted that Chistian communities still existed in Eastern Anatolian, some of which were of Syrian oigin. Their numbers were becoming smaller though due to emigration to Europe.

I have never heard of this phenomena elsewhere.

As with Islam, the official Ottoman policy might have considered all Muslim people as equal; but today, judging from the attitudes of Arab countries and from most of the Arabs that I've met, few of them seem to sympathise much with the Turks and many viewed them as their former colonial exploiters.

For example, not long ago thousands of Lebanese took to the street to protest when Ankara offered to send troops for the UN. They still seemed to have a hangover from Ottoman colonialism.  
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 10:57
Originally posted by Feanor

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Ilber Ortayli, one of the most distinguished and famous Turkish historians of our time had written that 50-60% of the people in Turkey are Turcomans, 10% Kipchak Turks, and the rest composes of other etnicities

I may have misunderstood you, are you actually saying that 70% of Turkish (People of Turkey) genes are from C. Asia?

 
1- I am not saying, I am quoting one of the most distinguished historians of Turkey.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0lber_Ortayl%C4%B1
 
2- As far as genetics concerned, I fail to see your background on genetic studies to begin with. It is not that simple studies to argue about. It is a field of science that need to be gone a long way in order to speak precisely..All I can do now is to copy-paste from Wikipedia:
 
Possible Genetic Links

A 2003 genetic study shows that some Turkish Anatolian people have ancestors who originated in an area by Central Asia at the Xiongnu period (3rd century BCE to the 2nd century CE). Some of the Turkish people in Turkey have origins from various regions at Central Asia. According to the study, modern Anatolian Turks appear to have some common genetic markers with the remains found at the Xiongnu period graves in Central Asia:
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869 		  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 11:18
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

1- I am not saying, I am quoting one of the most distinguished historians of Turkey.

You didn't quote, you made a statement which referred to Ilber Ortayli. I didn't understand what you meant.

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

2- As far as genetics concerned, I fail to see your background on genetic studies to begin with.

Did I claim anything at all?

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Some of the Turkish people in Turkey have origins from various regions at Central Asia. According to the study, modern Anatolian Turks appear to have some common genetic markers with the remains found at the Xiongnu period graves in Central Asia

Well, no doubt some people do. Turkish language is obviously not from the Caribbean, right? But we are talking about percentages.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 14>

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 0.094 seconds.