Anatolia

In 1000 AD? Well... alright, that's a tricky one. If you'd tell me about the classical or post classical times, it would be all the easier. But when it comes to 1.000 AD, things are more obscure, because a lot of "hellenization" and some "romanization" had been concluded by the time, altering decisevly the demographics of the region.

I haven't got any book (nor know of any) that deals with the demographics of Anatolia in 1.000 AD. I believe the vast majority of people in the region would identify themselves as "Romaioi", would speak Greek and would be culturally Greek-Orthodox. But as for what ancestry the come from, you'd have to go back to the ancient timesto find the respective people they originate from (so that would yield us Greek, Karians, Phrygian, Paphlagonian, Lydian, Lykian, Cilician, Galatian and several other elements, adding up into the genetic mix that produced the Anatolian people. One can admit that, those genes were difused in the Balkan area as well, but as genetic studies show us the changes people like the Greeks have undergone in the course of time, were rather minimal, despite the constant influx of immigration.

You certainly can't call the Anatolians "Romans" or "Byzantines" and be any close to accurate... you could just stick with "Anatolians" or "Hellenized Anatolians" (if you talk about that timeframe).

I think there are some comprehensive books dealing with the issue and you can find which they are, by googling a tad or looking in some good online bookstore.

Originally posted by Leopard When I said Roman I meant 'Romaioi' anyway. Roman=Romaioi. Then I am correct on my guess that majority of Anatolia was Romios (Rum as they call it in turkey). I want to know which areas of Anatolia the romaioians lived because If you look at the old names of anatolian cities most of them are of greek orijin. Does that this mean that people of these cities were mainy Romaioi. �stanbul; Greek; Constantinopoli, Stanpoli= to the city. Ayasofya: Greek; A�ia-Sofia �sk�dar: Greek; Skudari, Bak�rk�y: Greek; Makri Hori (Uzun k�y), Edirne: Greek; Adrianopoli, �anakkale: Greek; Dardanos, �zmir: Greek; Smyrni, Antalya: Greek; Atalya, Manisa: Greek; Magnisia (Means the area of Magnezium), Mudanya: Latince; Montanya (Means mountainous), Bursa: Greek; Brusa, �zmit: Greek; Nikomidia, Sakarya: Greek; Sangario, Tarsus: Greek; Tarsos, Mersin: Greek; Mirthos,Mirsini, Antakya: Greek; Antiohia, Adana: Greek; Adana, Ordu: Greek; Kotioro, Trabzon: Greek; Trapezunda (Bendy, In the shape of trapezium), Rize: Greek; Riza (Means root), Giresun: Greek; Kerasunda (Cherry garden), Amasya: Greek; Amatia, Tokat: Greek; Evdoksia (Means great opinion), Erzurum: Arap�a; Arz-� Rum, Galata: Greek; Galatas (Means milkman), Afyon: Greek-Lat; Opion-Opium (Means marijuana), Mu�la: Greek; Mugla, Faroz: Greek; Faros (Fener), Yoroz: Greek; Giros (Means turning thing), Bart�n; Greek; Parthena (Means virgin), Bal�kesir: Greek; Paleokastro (Means old castle), Kastamonu: Greek; Kastromoni (Means castle of Ke�i��), Kayseri: Greek; Kiseriya (Means Kayser�s, Kisralar�s place), Ke�an: Greek; Kesani, Enez: Greek; Ainos (Enos), Assos: Greek; Asos, Efes: Greek; Efesos, Ladik: Greek; Laodikya   Uluda�: Greek; (Originate from Olimpos), Konya: Greek; �konium (Means the city of �konas), Bolu: Greek; Poli (Means city), Silifke: Greek; Silifkis Sivas: Greek; Sewastia (Sevasmos: Means respect, respectable city), Ankara: Greek-Latin; Angyra-Anchyre (Means Anchor), You can see that from west to east, north to south the name of the cities of Anatolia are of Greek orijin.   The so called turks live mainly on the cities cities above. If they were really turks who came from Central Asia the turkish population would be concentrated on the east of Turkey not west as shown in the map. Did Romaioi people live in these cities? Is it possible to call the current Anatolians (so called turks) 'Romaioi'. I especially want to know who lived in the south of Anatolia and middle anatolia.

I believe you invented here a new term named "so called Turks".I will try to state my broad(but not so great) knowledge about it here.

In 1000 AD, in the Middle and Western Anatolia, it is so natural that people living there was under ethnic upper identification of what you call Romaioi, as they were under the Roman and Byzantine rule for centuries. But that doesn't mean they were Greek originated.Romaioi doesn't necessarily mean Greek. They just had the upper identification name Romaioi, but they were people living in Anatolia for centuries, under many different empires' rules from Hittites to Lydians, Urartu to Phrygians etc.,generally can be classified as the Hatti,and named in the past according to the places they lived(Galatians,Paphlagonians etc.) In the east it had been a little different. Some Armenians started to choose to Eastern Anatolia as living place and the Turks had slowly started their waves of immigration in that 11th century. So, in the East, it wasn't actually the Romaioi identification they had,as Roman Empire wasn't always effective in the region.But we can still say they some were native of the area, coming from Urartu,Assyrian etc. origins. We should also mention the different Christian kingdoms in different regions(kingdom would be a little "huge" for them,though)  in the area, such as Cappadocia,Cilicia(as an answer to the people living in Middle Anatolia,those kingdoms shall not totally be classified as Romaioi).And one more thing to remind is some of the southern and southeastern part of today's Turkey was under the rule Abbasid caliphate.So, there was some Arab population there either, but mainly, Turks(mostly warrior families) were settled around those border provinces because of their combatant and half-nomad characteristics

Turks' coming to the place had been by emigration, mainly after battle of Manzikert,1071. We can't put Romaioi and Turk under same category, as the Turks had come to Anatolia with several chains of emigrations. First there were Turkic empires in today's China, later after emigrations, The Karahanl�, Ghaznavid and Seljuk empires were formed, and after another chain of emigration, Turks began emigrating westward and begin to go into Anatolia in large groups. During the Mongolian era,this emigration increased much more, because many Turks living in Khwarazm Empire(Iran, Turkistan) emigrated to Anatolia to run away from Mongols. And that hadn't been enough, they had to move westwards even in Anatolia to run away from the Ilkhanids later on.

After that, of course there has been a certain amount of mixing between the Romaioi and the Turks, and even Arabs and Armenians till some extent. It is so natural. But we can't say people living today in Anatolia is the Romaioi, and that would be meaningless. If you go that far, we shall call the people of Anatolia as Hatti. As the original folk of Anatolia,even before the Romans came, was the Hatti(Hatti was not Greek originated at all).We shall include the effects of emigrations here strongly, as Turks had come to Anatolia by this way, either Armenians, either some Romaioi left by this way.And one memorable issue is the natural disasters,such as earthquakes,volcanoes, mostly happened in Roman and Byzantine time,which devastated the cities and killed many. After the Byzantine empire lost its influence in the area, the term/identification Romaioi had lost its importance. The folk in Anatolia was classified by religion: Islamic and non-Islamic. The Islamic folk were the Turks and non-Islamic was classified as Rum and Armenians, the initial one with more density. Most of the non-Islamic population with later emigrations and population exchange of Turkey with Greece in 20th century, and either most of the Islamic population in Balkans, whom were the people sent there in terms of Ottoman Empire's inhabitation politics in Balkans between 14th-16th centuries, emigrated back to Turkey to escape from cruel acts or of newly independent Christian Balkan countries or wars occurred in Balkans in 19th-20th century

So we can say all the factors were mixed in Anatolia and interacted, as they lived together for a long time, but we can't call today's Turkey's population as Romaioi. If you go sooooo deep like several centuries in the family lines, you can find some Romaioi roots, but it wouldn't be something abnormal, Turks had become the clear majority in Anatolia after so many emigrations between 11th-13th centuries, but the Turks of course had deep interaction with the other factors living around.

The so-called Turks you mentioned lives all around Turkey today concentrated everywhere. It is so pointless and funny to argue why does the Western Anatolia is concentrated with Turkish population; it is the magical touch of emigration from centuries ago.For the Thrace area in Turkey's land,I can say it is mainly the inhabitation policy of the Ottoman Empire, bringing the Turk population to Thrace after conquering the area.

Edited by Kapikulu

Nothing more really to add.  The greater part of Anatolia in the year 1000 was under the rule of Roman emperor based at Constantinople.   Hence, Anatolia was "Roman", therefore the Empire was called "Romania".  On the fringes to the east, including Transcaucasia was the Caliphate dominated by the Buyids, divided into emirates.  Sandwiched in between were several Armenian principalities.

To give these peoples some all-inclusive modern name fails to recognize the utter complexity of how Anatolia historically evolved, and therefore a simple name must therefore be completely artificial.  As some have pointed out, the "national" name of Rhomaioi only bares on those peoples under the rule of the Emperor at Constantinople.  It was not meant to be an ethnic, or racial designation, because those Anatolian peoples obviously had different origins. 

It's basically the same when we view the people of the United States.  We draw from all ethnic backgrounds, but we simply call ourselves "Americans".  Sometimes in place of "Americanized" we say "Anglicised" to accent which ethnic group has cultural dominance.  The same with modern Turkey.  It has many peoples conscious of various ethnic backgrounds but what started as an ethnic name became a national name.  Nobody is arguing whether Bulgarians should be called "Bulgarians", despite the fact that it was originally a Turkic tribal name, yet they are Slavs. 

For an individual to call originally non-Turkish minorities "Roman-Turks" (just as an example) will then run into the problem in trying to pinpoint which populations should be included.  Genetics is not going to be much of a help, considering that even ethnic Turks aren't that different genetically from earlier Anatolians.  Some historically well attested ethnic groups such as Greeks will have a problem being viewed genetically distinct as well.  It is well attested by even ancient Greek authors that those Greeks which migrated into Anatolia intermarried with the natives there.  Then, there are groups which were never even a part of the Rhomaioi of the year 1000, like the Kurds and at times the Armenians. 

Place-names are not going to be of much help either.  Leopard's list supposedly is that of Greek cities.  The problem is that most of them have linguistic origins other than Greek.  These names were simply the Hellenized forms of names of much more ancient non-Greek origin or of Latin origin.  Virtually all the major cities of the Middle East and beyond, bore a Hellenized version of their name, therefore these cannot be used as indicators as to "Roman" occupation. 

No, it becomes rather ill-conceived to try to use historical data to try distinguish modern populations.  The further back one goes, the more complex the ethnic situation becomes, and thus the more a modern designation for them becomes irrelevant.

�anakkale: Greek; Dardanos

Canakkale: Modern name of the city, linguistically Turkic (�anak) + Arabic (Kale). which means "bowl castle."

Kayseri: Greek; Kiseriya (Means Kayser�s, Kisralar�s place)

Kayseri: Caesarea (The city of Caesar)

Uludağ: Greek; (Originate from Olimpos)

Uludag: linguistically Turkic. "Olympos" is old name of the city.

Afyon: Greek-Lat; Opion-Opium (Means marijuana)

Afyon: Arabic.





Edited by THE TURK

 

Hanakkale: Modern name of the city, linguistically Turkic (�anak) + Arabic (Kale). which means "bowl castle."

He meant the original name, Dardanos (I assume). But this is not a Greek root anyway, (Dard-).

 

Kayseri: Caesarea (The city of Caesar)

Greek etymology of a Roman root - I said it wasn't Greek myself.

Uludag: linguistically Turkic. "Olympos" is old name of the city.

A paraphrase of "Olympus" with a Turkic ending. Seems very Greek to me.

 

Afyon: Arabic.

You are right, the ancient Greek word is opion, Afion is Arabic -> Turkish.

Maju, afion means "opium", certainly not marijuana

...could be a case of counter loan... I don't know, it's suspiciusly similar to "Olympus" (OLY-->ULU) and what's more, it denotes the same city.

BTW I've found another reference of Afion, being a counterloan from Greek to Arabic (opion -> afion) and then back to Greek (Afion-afionion). Damn complicated business the linguistics...

Most of the cities are of greek orijin so they must have a identity. Romaioi is a good term to describe the majority of anatolia, dont forget that Armenia and kurdistan is not part of anatolia actually. After some time it is used to describe the whole of turkey.

By the way turks who came from central asia to anatolia is a minority right now. They make up only %9 of the  turkey's current population.

This %9 is so mixed that it is impossible to call them turks.

Turk is a term used to describe the muslims in anatolia 85 years ago. It doesn't refer to race. The name 'Turk' is a latin and  greek orijin.

Turcus means 'bizantine' in old latin.
Latin orijinated languages such as italian,french, spanish,portugese usually call the so called turks 'TURCO'.

Since turco is a latin orijinated word, the names 'turco and turkiya' have been given to turks to mean bizantine muslims. In italian 'turco' means non-christian by the way.

In greek, 'tourko-tourkos' words means muslims. In those times, to change a religion meant changing your nation too, so when greeks,romaios etc converted to islam they called themselves tourks.


Romios=rum
Tourkos=turk

Tourk= muslim

By the way there hasn't been any emigration form central asiato anatolia. This a big lie. There is not evidence either.

Originally posted by Leopard Turk is a term used to describe the muslims in anatolia 85 years ago. It doesn't refer to race. The name 'Turk' is a latin and  greek orijin. Turcus means 'bizantine' in old latin. Latin orijinated languages such as italian,french, spanish,portugese usually call the so called turks 'TURCO'. Since turco is a latin orijinated word, the names 'turco and turkiya' have been given to turks to mean bizantine muslims. In italian 'turco' means non-christian by the way. In greek, 'tourko-tourkos' words means muslims. In those times, to change a religion meant changing your nation too, so when greeks,romaios etc converted to islam they called themselves tourks. Romios=rum Tourkos=turk Tourk= muslim

Are you ignorant or you're just playing dumb? I'm not gonna explain the origin of the word Turk, read some Central Asian history.

Are you one of those greeks that still think about 400 BC. and have orgasm?

Leopard here is a tip: provide evidence when making such statments!

When talking about identy you must understand that people mainly define themselves on cultural,social and linguistic grounds more than on actual geneology. This goes for turks and practically every other nation. Shared history-belief and upbringing is a whole lot more influental and important than physical bloodlines. Also, people will define themselves from their own view point, not yours even if you dont accept that definition.

If you want to talk about genetics then do so on another thread. Infact the genetics of the anadolians has already been discussed and i recomend you post there
or read here



Edited by Leonidas

I used to think he was Lebanese.

Edited by Artaxiad