We shouldn't misunderstand about Turks.

[delicoban33]

Hey, i have got my account a few minutes ago, and i read many topics, so i want to clarify something about Turks.
Most of people think that Turk is a race, but as i learnt from my Turkish friends; Turk is a culture connection. An Arab, Kurdish, Gipsy, Armenian etc. The Turk is not what you guess, The Turks in your mind are Hunnic people. Well, i am the liar of my friends.

[Loki]

You sound like a troll.

[Vojnik]

You sound like a troll.

I agree.

[Europa]

He truly does...:coffee:

[Malta1066Falzon]

UJ8Eya7EWqI

[Jebivjetar]

But he makes a good point.

[Loki]

But he makes a good point.

Yeah well it's an interesting topic perhaps to leave open.

[Loki]

The Turks in your mind are Hunnic people.

No, not at all. Depends where they settled and what percentage of genetic displacement has been achieved. In modern Anatolian Turkey, for example, only ~10% of the genetic material is actually from the far-flung corners of Asia. The remainder is basically just local people with a transformed culture and language.

I suspect much the same for Azerbaijan.

[delicoban33]

No, not at all. Depends where they settled and what percentage of genetic displacement has been achieved. In modern Anatolian Turkey, for example, only ~10% of the genetic material is actually from the far-flung corners of Asia. The remainder is basically just local people with a transformed culture and language.

I suspect much the same for Azerbaijan.

Well i guess, probably you are not objective while answering to my text, yeah you think all europeans are pure, only turks and azerbaijans are asimilated or transformed etc. That s really so funny, when something is good for your idea it is good , when it is not good then i am a troll. Okay i thought you guys were not troll, i think the same about you guys, anyway. Explaining something to you is wasting time. funny.

[Onur]

In modern Anatolian Turkey, for example, only ~10% of the genetic material is actually from the far-flung corners of Asia. The remainder is basically just local people with a transformed culture and language.

I suspect much the same for Azerbaijan.
This is a fallacy, Loki.

That 10% number derives from a stupid logic that;
"Turks=Mongols, 10% of Turkish people has Mongolic DNA, therefor 90% of Turkish people should be local Anatolians but no other"

This is even proven to be wrong by the analyses of same scholars because even the DNA of eastern Hunnic graves of 2nd century BC, discovered in Mongolia are predominantly Caucasian, like 8 out of 10 mummies are either R1A or J2 and only 2-3 out of 10 has Mongolic C, Q, N DNA.

So, even the Turks of 11th century was predominantly Caucasian with slight Mongolian influence and the assumption of 10% of current Turkish people being the real Turks is complete fallacy.


P.S: I am sick of Armenian, Greek trolls creating stupid threads about Turks due to their own insecurity about their own origins but i don't blame them because if half of the people of my country would speak another language than Turkish only a century ago, maybe i would be insecure as them and attack others, to my neighboring countries to feel a bit secure inside.

It`s fact that more than half of the current citizens of Greece had grandparents speaking Albanian, Turkish, Macedonian and Vlach as a mothertongue. Thats why they are THAT insecure. It should be difficult to live with this fact while officially continuing to promote the so-called 10.000 year old hellenic continuity :S

[Loki]

Well i guess, probably you are not objective while answering to my text, yeah you think all europeans are pure, only turks and azerbaijans are asimilated or transformed etc. That s really so funny, when something is good for your idea it is good , when it is not good then i am a troll. Okay i thought you guys were not troll, i think the same about you guys, anyway. Explaining something to you is wasting time. funny.

Well, I'd like to learn. So please inform me of your viewpoint.

@Onur - what percentages are we talking about here? I know you are suggesting that the Turks from Central Asia were predominantly Caucasoid, which I agree with but sometimes forget.

[orangepulp]

This is a fallacy, Loki.

That 10% number derives from a stupid logic that;
"Turks=Mongols, 10% of Turkish people has Mongolic DNA, therefor 90% of Turkish people should be local Anatolians but no other"

This is even proven to be wrong by the analyses of same scholars because even the DNA of eastern Hunnic graves of 2nd century BC, discovered in Mongolia are predominantly Caucasian, like 8 out of 10 mummies are either R1A or J2 and only 2-3 out of 10 has Mongolic C, Q, N DNA.

So, even the Turks of 11th century was predominantly Caucasian with slight Mongolian influence and the assumption of 10% of current Turkish people being the real Turks is complete fallacy.


So You're saying that the current population of Turkey is dominantly Central Asian? I understand that the first Turks that came to Anatolia were not fully mongoloid anyway, so we should not only look at the mongoloid part to detect the Turkic input but If that was the case then why do Anatolian Turks cluster better with other Anatolian ethnic groups than they do with central Asians such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc..? Yes, Anatolian Turks do carry Turkic genes but the preTurkic part is definitely far more than the Turkic input.

[delicoban33]

Science, genes are enough for you guys? I think if nations have something similar in culture, then they are in the same family.

[Loki]

So You're saying that the current population of Turkey is dominantly Central Asian? I understand that the first Turks that came to Anatolia were not fully mongoloid anyway, so we should not only look at the mongoloid part to detect the Turkic input but If that was the case then why do Anatolian Turks cluster better with other Anatolian ethnic groups than they do with central Asians such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc..? Yes, Anatolian Turks do carry Turkic genes but the preTurkic part is definitely far more than the Turkic input.

Yeah I agree with this viewpoint. Invasions very rarely completely wipe out entire nations, but mostly a nation's culture is transformed.

[Loki]

Science, genes are enough for you guys? I think if nations have something similar in culture, then they are in the same family.

Well it's a combination of all those, of course. In your OP you stated 'cultural connection'.

[Pallantides]

nvm

[orangepulp]

Yeah I agree with this viewpoint. Invasions very rarely completely wipe out entire nations, but mostly a nation's culture is transformed.

Exactly, what happened to the population of Asia Minor after the Turks came???Its illogical to think they were all wiped out!!
They assimilated with the Turks.

Just take a look at this genetic tree that Dr. van Winkle ( Xavier ) made from Eurogenes K12 project

Some of the Turks are in this branch dominated by Armenians including me and Karakoyunlu's father.

http://www.human-diversity.com/dna/k12_orangepulp.png

Most are in the Turkish branch which also includes an Armenian.
Turku and 5aday are in this branch:
http://www.human-diversity.com/dna/k12_turks.png

[dandelion]

P.S: I am sick of Armenian, Greek trolls creating stupid threads about Turks due to their own insecurity about their own origins but i don't blame them because if half of the people of my country would speak another language than Turkish only a century ago, maybe i would be insecure as them and attack others, to my neighboring countries to feel a bit secure inside.

You must be fucking kidding us here, Onur.
Most of your posts are about Greeks, what Greeks are, what Greek culture is , etc, and most of times, without anyone mention Greece, let along a Greek being active in the conversation.
You are obsessed with Greeks and is it YOU who is ''sick'' of that?

Have a look at your posts, do a self-critisism, and then talk about that again.


It`s fact that more than half of the current citizens of Greece had grandparents speaking Albanian, Turkish, Macedonian and Vlach as a mothertongue. Thats why they are THAT insecure. It should be difficult to live with this fact while officially continuing to promote the so-called 10.000 year old hellenic continuity :S

It's at least the 5th time I read the same-old post of you. If you tell it 10 more, you are going to believe in the end :lol:

[Onur]

So You're saying that the current population of Turkey is dominantly Central Asian?
It`s not that possible to find the exact number but the Turks from central Asia should be the majority because in 10-11th century, there was no mass education systems and techniques, so it`s not possible for 10% minority to assimilate 90% without that. Before the invention of modern mass education systems, the majority was always assimilating the minority but never the other way around unless there was a mass massacre to eliminate the local people and reduce their numbers. There was no mass massacre in Anatolia in 11th century, therefor the central Asian Turks should be the majority by simple logic.


I understand that the first Turks that came to Anatolia were not fully mongoloid anyway, so we should not only look at the mongoloid part to detect the Turkic input but If that was the case then why do Anatolian Turks cluster better with other Anatolian ethnic groups than they do with central Asians such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc..? Yes, Anatolian Turks do carry Turkic genes but the preTurkic part is definitely far more than the Turkic input.
This is another fallacy.

You cannot compare central Asian Turks of 11th century with today`s central Asian people. This is easily proven by historical records. Today`s central Asia has been created after Genghis Khan and Timur`s era and most of today`s Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs gone there in 15th century from more eastern parts of Asia. It`s same for Tajiks, they came from today`s northern Afghanistan, Iran after Timurids. For example, today`s Uzbeks have no relation with Timurids because they came to Samarkand, Uzbekistan after Timurid reign ended in late 15th century.


Exactly, what happened to the population of Asia Minor after the Turks came???Its illogical to think they were all wiped out!!

They assimilated with the Turks.
Yes, they have been assimilated among us but they were no way in hell 90% of Anatolia. Just read Armenian and Byzantine chronicles about that. They also say that Turks massively migrated into Anatolia after 1071 and became majority in few decades.

No one can convince me that without any massacre nor any mass education system in 11th century, it`s simply impossible for 10% to assimilate the rest 90%. It should be other way around.

[Padre Organtino]

Onur is certainly a very sad character.

[brunette]

This is a fallacy, Loki.

That 10% number derives from a stupid logic that;
"Turks=Mongols, 10% of Turkish people has Mongolic DNA, therefor 90% of Turkish people should be local Anatolians but no other"

This is even proven to be wrong by the analyses of same scholars because even the DNA of eastern Hunnic graves of 2nd century BC, discovered in Mongolia are predominantly Caucasian, like 8 out of 10 mummies are either R1A or J2 and only 2-3 out of 10 has Mongolic C, Q, N DNA.

So, even the Turks of 11th century was predominantly Caucasian with slight Mongolian influence and the assumption of 10% of current Turkish people being the real Turks is complete fallacy.


P.S: I am sick of Armenian, Greek trolls creating stupid threads about Turks due to their own insecurity about their own origins but i don't blame them because if half of the people of my country would speak another language than Turkish only a century ago, maybe i would be insecure as them and attack others, to my neighboring countries to feel a bit secure inside.

It`s fact that more than half of the current citizens of Greece had grandparents speaking Albanian, Turkish, Macedonian and Vlach as a mothertongue. Thats why they are THAT insecure. It should be difficult to live with this fact while officially continuing to promote the so-called 10.000 year old hellenic continuity :S

Well why contradict yourself? Why say the original Turks were not Mongoloid but Caucasoid. Then say stuff like ''it's just Greek and Armenian propaganda''. It's not there's even old Mosques in Greece and Armenia where the Turks were.

[Thraex]

Yeah I agree with this viewpoint. Invasions very rarely completely wipe out entire nations, but mostly a nation's culture is transformed.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The basis of the so-called Ottoman culture most likely had its roots in old Anatolian culture that spread to all corners of the Ottoman Empire. It's not so crazy when you think about it. The Turks may have given the Anatolians their tongue but I highly doubt they completely supplanted their culture.

[Onur]

Also, one more thing;
Turks didn't only migrated to Anatolia. The migration to Anatolia in 11th century was just the last wave but there was earlier waves from the north of Blacksea.

Some Turkic tribes gone to Carpathian basin together with Magyars, like Szekely people in today`s Romania who used Turkic runic writings and spoke Turkic before being assimilated among Magyars. Turkic Bulgars gone to Balkans and before Bulgars, Balkans has been ruled by the Avars for about ~300 years and their people was predominantly Slavs and Turks. Pechenegs and Cumans dominated Balkans between 9-13th century, founded 2nd Bulgarian kingdom and first ever Romanian state and Cumanian trace is all over southern Balkans today, from people`s names, city-town names etc.

IF Turks are Mongols, then where are the Mongolic trace among Hungarians, Bulgarians and all other Balkan people? At least 15% of today`s Hungarians have Cuman ancestry, if Turks was Mongols, then where are these mongols in today`s Hungary?

[brunette]

If you admit you're a Greek Armenian Georgian Serbian Albanian Hungarian Romanian Bosnian fill in the blant _ convert to Islam that's the first step in discovering your Turkish roots. :D

[Onur]

Yeah I agree with this viewpoint. Invasions very rarely completely wipe out entire nations, but mostly a nation's culture is transformed.
No, it`s not possible for a small minority to transform majority`s culture without mass education. It was always the other way around throughout history. The only way to do that before modern era was committing mass massacres upon local majority and drastically reduce their numbers, otherwise it was impossible.


If you admit you're a Greek Armenian Georgian Serbian Albanian Hungarian Romanian Bosnian fill in the blant _ convert to Islam that's the first step in discovering your Turkish roots. :D
Brunette, you are just a loser fed with Armeno-Greek propaganda. I don't respond to people like you, just quit it.

You better continue to dream about 10.000 year old hellenic continuity and consider everyone in southern Balkans and Anatolia as pure blood Greeks in disguise. I just don't care.

[brunette]

No I said Southern Serbians and Albanian Tosks and Bulgarians. That's not everyone in the Balkans. Also you're a Macedonian convert so you're partly Greek and that's not propaganda.

[brunette]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorouks

The Yorouks, also Yuruks or Yörüks (Greek: Γιουρούκοι, Bulgarian: юруци, Macedonian: Јуруци, Turkish: Yörük) are immigrants, ultimately of Thracian descent,[1]some of whom are still nomadic, primarily inhabiting the mountains of Anatolia and partly Balkan peninsula. Their name derives from the Turkish verb yürü- (yürümek in infinitive), which means "to walk", with the word yorouk or Yuruk designating "those who walk, walkers"...

he Yorouk to this day appear as a distinct segment of the population of Macedonia and Thrace where they settled as early as the 14th century.[4] While today the Yoruk are increasingly settled, many of them still maintain their nomadic lifestyle, breeding goats and sheep in the Šar Mountains (Kosovo), the Pirin and Rhodope Mountains (Bulgaria) and Dobrudja.

So Bulgaria is mentioned and Macedonia is. *Bump*.

[brunette]

Oh yeah and Kosovo that would be Serbia. I thank you.

[dandelion]

No, it`s not possible for a small minority to transform majority`s culture without mass education. It was always the other way around throughout history. The only way to do that before modern era was committing mass massacres upon local majority and drastically reduce their numbers, otherwise it was impossible.


Brunette, you are just a loser fed with Armeno-Greek propaganda. I don't respond to people like you, just quit it.

You better continue to dream about 10.000 year old hellenic continuity and consider everyone in southern Balkans and Anatolia as pure blood Greeks in disguise. I just don't care.

And just another post about Greeks.
Yeah-yeah, the one that says he is ''sick'' of Greeks talking about Turkey...

Oh well...

[brunette]

Constantinople?

[orangepulp]

It`s not that possible to find the exact number but the Turks from central Asia should be the majority because in 10-11th century, there was no mass education systems and techniques, so it`s not possible for 10% minority to assimilate 90% without that. Before the invention of modern mass education systems, the majority was always assimilating the minority but never the other way around unless there was a mass massacre to eliminate the local people and reduce their numbers. There was no mass massacre in Anatolia in 11th century, therefor the central Asian Turks should be the majority by simple logic.
I'm not giving any percentage on the Turkic migration but then what happened to the preTurkic population of Anatolia if they were not massacred??? Where did they go??Either the Turks assimilated with the locals being the dominant part or the Turks massacred the locals by logic!
Of course the assimilation is far more logical if we consider genetics.

This is another fallacy.

You cannot compare central Asian Turks of 11th century with today`s central Asian people. This is easily proven by historical records. Today`s central Asia has been created after Genghis Khan and Timur`s era and most of today`s Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs gone there in 15th century from more eastern parts of Asia. It`s same for Tajiks, they came from today`s northern Afghanistan, Iran after Timurids. For example, today`s Uzbeks have no relation with Timurids because they came to Samarkand, Uzbekistan after Timurid reign ended in late 15th century.


Yes, they have been assimilated among us but they were no way in hell 90% of Anatolia. Just read Armenian and Byzantine chronicles about that. They also say that Turks massively migrated into Anatolia after 1071 and became majority in few decades.

No one can convince me that without any massacre nor any mass education system in 11th century, it`s simply impossible for 10% to assimilate the rest 90%. It should be other way around.

True, we cannot compare the Central Asian Turks of today with the central Asian Turks of the 11th century but we can comapre todays Anatolian Turks with todays ethnic Anatolian populations and Anatolian Turks cluster with other West Asians such as Armenians, Georgians, Assyrians etc.... At least this must tell you something. Either today's Anatolian Turks are the result of assimilation between Anatolians (being the dominant part) with the original Turks or according to your logic the Turks that came to Anatolia from central Asia were genetically Anatolian like!!!

[memobekes]

Yeah I agree with this viewpoint. Invasions very rarely completely wipe out entire nations, but mostly a nation's culture is transformed.

We can also compare the situation of Anatolia with the Islamic past of the Iberian peninsula.

Contrary to popular belief, most Muslims during Moorish rule were natives who converted to Islam.

Therefore military and religious interventions rarely influence a territory's-country's genetical/anthropological structure as large population movements are not involved, which is why the overwhelming majority of modern day Anatolians are of native-autochtone origins, not Central Asian.

[Azalea]

So You're saying that the current population of Turkey is dominantly Central Asian? I understand that the first Turks that came to Anatolia were not fully mongoloid anyway, so we should not only look at the mongoloid part to detect the Turkic input but If that was the case then why do Anatolian Turks cluster better with other Anatolian ethnic groups than they do with central Asians such as Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc..? Yes, Anatolian Turks do carry Turkic genes but the preTurkic part is definitely far more than the Turkic input.

Not saying that I agree with Onur, but what makes you think that Central Asian Turks and apparently even non-Turks (Tajiks?) are pure and/or represent the first Turkic settlements in Anatolia?

[Transhumanist]

Therefore military and religious interventions rarely influence a territory's-country's genetical/anthropological structure...

Well, you said "rarely," so, perhaps this is one of the exceptions you have in mind. We have most individuals in the Near East, save for the religious minorities (e.g. Samaritans, Druze, Assyrians, etc.), walking around with a nonnegligible amount of Sub-Saharan African, and other varieties of admixture. Not only can we see it in the autosomal data, we see it in the mtDNA record, both ancient and modern. See a comparison of the Dodecad "African" component values and mtDNA L frequencies, below, for a few select modern populations from the ME:

The religious minority populations begin with the Druze. Druze and Samaritans are the two minority Levantine populations.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/mtdna_african.jpg

[orangepulp]

Not saying that I agree with Onur, but what makes you think that Central Asian Turks and apparently even non-Turks (Tajiks?) are pure and/or represent the first Turkic settlements in Anatolia?

I am not saying they are pure but since the Turks came from Central Asia I am sure Central Asians must have a better similarity with the first Turks than they do with todays Anatolian Turks.

My point is that today's Anatolian Turks are mostly preTurkic ( I am not denying the Turkic input) but Onur makes it sound like today's Anatolian Turks are the same with the first Turks that settled in Asia Minor. It doesn't make sense when we look at genetic plots and it brings up the question, what happened to the preTurkic population?

[memobekes]

Well, as the following chart shows, most other Middle Eastern groups also show minute SSA genetic markers:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/3720/behar2010k10.png

As you can see, the other groups (even the Saudis) do not have any of the red worth speaking of.

[Azalea]

I am not saying they are pure but since the Turks came from Central Asia I am sure Central Asians must have a better similarity with the first Turks than they do with todays Anatolian Turks.

Could be. But let's take a look at the facts:

1. Central Asia is a very diverse region with a complex history. Even modern Central Asian Turks show great diversity in DNA. For example, your average Central Asian Turkmen is genetically closer to a Anatolian Turk than to a Central Asian Kazakh or Kyrgyz. They even show clear Mediterranean & Southwest Asian admix. It's very wrong to lump all these people together and say 'Well, Turks don't cluster with Central Asians'.

I remember that Polako or another user made a genetic plot for Anatolian Turks, Central Asians and other West Asians. And it was clear that some Turks clustered with Central Asian Turkmens and vice versa.

2. We may not have DNA of the ancient Turks, but we do have DNA of other ancient Central Asian populations, which shows that there were also pure or close to pure Caucasoids living in Central Asia 2000 years ago. Also we have ancient descriptions of what certain Turkic groups looked like. The most Mongoloid Turkic groups like the Kazakh and the Kyrgyz for example differ drastically from how they were described 1000 years ago.

So when you take these facts in consideration, don't you think that you are being too confident about your opinion?


My point is that today's Anatolian Turks are mostly preTurkic ( I am not denying the Turkic input) but Onur makes it sound like today's Anatolian Turks are the same with the first Turks that settled in Asia Minor. It doesn't make sense when we look at genetic plots and it brings up the question, what happened to the preTurkic population?

How do you know? Yeah sure, it makes the most sence. And I wouldn't be suprised if it was actually true. But like I said, you are being way too confident. You should first take in mind that Anatolian Turks, let alone Turks in general, are also diverse. A Western Turk is genetically not the same as a Eastern Turk. A Turkish user at ABF made a calculation for Western Turks not so long ago. He came with a estimation of 25% 'Turkic' input for Western Turks if the first Turks were very Asian. He took the Siberian Turks as a proxy for the first Turkic settlements. So if the first Turks were not even that Asian, but more a mix of Asian-Mongoloid - which is more likely, a close to 50% Turkic input in certain regions in Turkey seems like a very likely suggestion. While probably the contrary counts for Eastern Turks and non-Anatolian Turks. That's why I think that you should be more careful when talking about Turks.

[orangepulp]

Could be. But let's take a look at the facts:

1. Central Asia is a very diverse region with a complex history. Even modern Central Asian Turks show great diversity in DNA. For example, your average Central Asian Turkmen is genetically closer to a Anatolian Turk than to a Central Asian Kazakh or Kyrgyz. They even show clear Mediterranean & Southwest Asian admix. It's very wrong to lump all these people together and say 'Well, Turks don't cluster with Central Asians'.

I remember that Polako or another user made a genetic plot for Anatolian Turks, Central Asians and other West Asians. And it was clear that some Turks clustered with Central Asian Turkmens and vice versa.

2. We may not have DNA of the ancient Turks, but we do have DNA of other ancient Central Asian populations, which shows that there were also pure or close to pure Caucasoids living in Central Asia 2000 years ago. Also we have ancient descriptions of what certain Turkic groups looked like. The most Mongoloid Turkic groups like the Kazakh and the Kyrgyz for example differ drastically from how they were described 1000 years ago.

So when you consider these facts, don't you think that you are being too confident about your opinion?

How do you know? Yeah sure, it makes the most sence. And I wouldn't be suprised if it was actually true. But like I said, you are being way too confident. You should first take in mind that Anatolian Turks, let alone Turks in general, are also diverse. A Western Turk is genetically not the same as a Eastern Turk. A Turkish user at ABF made a calculation for Western Turks not so long ago. He came with a estimation of 25% 'Turkic' input for Western Turks if the first Turks were very Asian. He took the Siberian Turks as a proxy for the first Turkic settlements. So if the first Turks were not even that Asian, but more a mix of Asian-Mongoloid - which is more likely, a close to 50% Turkic input in certain regions in Turkey seems like a very likely suggestion.


Like you said, some Turks cluster with Central Asian Turkmens and I am not denying that there are individuals that do cluster with Central Asians but in general many plots show Anatolian Turks clustering closer with West Asians. Yes, according to the region the admixture varies but even though I doubt the majority is more Turkic than preTurkic

See the plots:

Mcdonalds:
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6199/genomeorangepulpfull201.png
Polakos recent plot:
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/693/webga101.png

This is from 23andme, I marked all the Anatolian Turks. As you can see many plot near Southern Europe, some in Central Asian and some neither in Central Asia and neither in Southern Europe but in between. Now I know that this is due to the lack of West Asian samples but still this shows Anatolian Turks closer to West Asian populations. What differs us from the rest of the West Asians is our Turkic admixture, that may pulls some of us Eastwards depending on the percentage of the Turkic admixture.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8792/trgb.jpg

I am not very knowledgeable when it come to the history and genetics of the Turks as you are but I am just comparing Turkish DNA samples with other West Asian samples and there clearly shows an affinity.

[memobekes]

Türkü, are you still trying to prove that Anatolia is full of Central Asian genes?

Please read this post carefully:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=856541&postcount=32

The Seljuq Turks were mostly a hybrid group (possibly even more strongly Caucasoid) upon their arrival. Moreover, their numbers were very small as they were largely composed of warriors.

After the advent of these steppe invaders (hence the fall of the Byzantines at Manzikert), and with the implementation of Turkic sovereignty, a significant number of Anatolians accepted Turkish as their mother tongue (see here for further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification).

So what happened was that there was a gradual shift in language, not biology. The natives began to adopt cultural traits (religion for example).

Up until recent times, if you were a Muslim, you were automatically a "Turk".

[Azalea]

Orangepulp, I have to go now, I'll answer your post later.

Memobekes, I am not going to have a discussion with a Pan-Iranist racist like you. You showed your real face at ABF a few weeks ago, when I tried to have a civilised discussion with you. So there is no need for me to explain you things. Oh and just one thing: Why don't you start with learning the difference between the various Anatolian ethnic groups?

[memobekes]

1- I have never been a racist (I only put racists like the donkeys at ABF in their places). So think before making such daft comments.

You immediately push the "get-out" button the moment you're crackpot theories are challenged with generic and solid arguments.

[Onur]

My point is that today's Anatolian Turks are mostly preTurkic ( I am not denying the Turkic input) but Onur makes it sound like today's Anatolian Turks are the same with the first Turks that settled in Asia Minor.
No, i didn't say that. I just said that the percentage of 11th century Turks being only 10% in Anatolia is something impossible. Turks must have been the majority otherwise they couldn't assimilate the local Anatolians without any massacre to reduce their numbers and we know that there was no massacre at all.


You should first take in mind that Anatolian Turks, let alone Turks in general, are also diverse.
Go waaayy back Türkü. Let alone Anatolian Turks, even the Turks of 7th century in central Asia was so diverse and you can go back to the era of Huns, they were diverse too.

Turks ceased to be a tribe which consists with only a single one ethnic group much earlier times. This is also understandable from the general Turkic history. How come a people who managed to create empires as early as 7-10th century consists of a single ethnic group? This is something for the primitive tribes but not for the people who manages to create several states, empires in early medieval era.

[orangepulp]

No, i didn't say that. I just said that the percentage of 11th century Turks being only 10% in Anatolia is something impossible. Turks must have been the majority otherwise they couldn't assimilate the local Anatolians without any massacre to reduce their numbers and we know that there was no massacre at all.


If Turks were the majority wouldnt that make todays Anatolian Turk dominantly Turkic? Why do they cluster with other preTurkic populations of Anatolia then? As I said earlier, I am not giving a fixed amount but I doubt they were more in number than the locals.

Why is it difficult to understand that Turks were a strong people that invaded a greater nation? The Turks being the ruling class assimilated with the locals, whats hard to understand there? Especially if a people share the same beliefs its easier for people to intermingle.

[delicoban33]

No one can reject that Metehan, Atilla, Teoman, Kür-şad and others were Turks. If there are anyone who reject this, then that anyone should check his own race, nationality. Because we showed our race to whole world, who reject this is a loser. That's all i can say and we should close this topic.

[Onur]

If Turks were the majority wouldnt that make todays Anatolian Turk dominantly Turkic? Why do they cluster with other preTurkic populations of Anatolia then? As I said earlier, I am not giving a fixed amount but I doubt they were more in number than the locals.

Why is it difficult to understand that Turks were a strong people that invaded a greater nation? The Turks being the ruling class assimilated with the locals, whats hard to understand there? Especially if a people share the same beliefs its easier for people to intermingle.
I ask you same question again. How come 10% minority assimilates 90% majority without mass education system in 11th century? This is impossible without massacring them or expel them out to reduce their numbers and we know that neither of those happened in Anatolia.


You should read the history of Anatolia between Seljuk empire to the foundation of the Ottoman state. Seljuk state has been destroyed by the Mongols after the battle of Kosedag in 1243 AD and Ottoman state became powerful enough to challenge to the eastern Romans only after 1350 AD. This is rarely getting mentioned but between 1243 to 1350s, Byzantine missioners actively worked for converting Turks to christianity and let them share the same fate with very first Bulgars, aka assimilation. For example, they allowed 10.000s of Seljuk Turks leaded by the Sultan Keykaus to settle in today`s Varna, Bulgaria if they accept to be baptized and they agreed. They formed the very first despotate of Gagauzs [hint: Keykaus= Gokoghuz=Gagauz]. They also mass baptized the Turks in central Anatolia and called them as "Tourkopoulos" laters, meaning the sons of Turks and later these people became Karamanlides.

These people lives in Greece now, so here is one of the explanation to your "why Turks clusters with Greeks, Armenians" question. I can give you more examples like that if you want. All are written in Byzantine chronicles.

Also, this is Anatolia, the center of the world in 11th century, not some isolated place in the depths of Amazon forests. If Turks assimilated the locals then why there is no single mention of this events in Byzantine, European, Arabian, Armenian chronicles? Do you think Byzantines wouldn't write this if Turks would assimilate their orthodox peoples? BUT we have records of exact reverse of it. A lot of Armenian chronicles mentions about the number of Turks who migrated to Anatolia after 1071 AD. They describe it as "They were numerous as sands in the shore and populated everywhere in Anatolia in few decades".

[Altay]

Most of people think that Turk is a race, but as i learnt from my Turkish friends; Turk is a culture connection. An Arab, Kurdish, Gipsy, Armenian etc. The Turk is not what you guess, The Turks in your mind are Hunnic people. Well, i am the liar of my friends.

No one can reject that Metehan, Atilla, Teoman, Kür-şad and others were Turks. If there are anyone who reject this, then that anyone should check his own race, nationality. Because we showed our race to whole world, who reject this is a loser.
Multiple personality disorder?

[Romanion]

We can also compare the situation of Anatolia with the Islamic past of the Iberian peninsula.

Contrary to popular belief, most Muslims during Moorish rule were natives who converted to Islam.

Therefore military and religious interventions rarely influence a territory's-country's genetical/anthropological structure as large population movements are not involved, which is why the overwhelming majority of modern day Anatolians are of native-autochtone origins, not Central Asian.

This man hit is spot on. In Anatolian, be it Greek or Armenian, would convert to islam then learn the language of the people speaking it; the Turks. Turkish lanugage was the tounge of the sultan as well, so to be involved in politics you have to speak it. This process over 700 years made Turkish the linga-franca in anatolia. And dispite all this, by the end of teh 19th centuray, large population of anatolia, even if they knew how to speak Turkish, would know many other languages as well.

Onur likes to think everyone in Anatolia are from central asia because he doesn't like to think he is a Pomak.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

I guess people want to exclude our central asian connection ,they feel more secure that way.Altaic culture is not something they feel confident with.
Main reason, I assume Middlestern culture seems more familiar to them, since Europe-Middleastern cultural connection dates back to Roman Empire times ,even much eariler than our first encounter with Middleastern culture.
Neglecting main component( Altaic) of our language ,history,folklore you get yourself rid of decoding an ultra unknown culture.
Second reason may be they feel emphaty for Middleastern people ruled by Turks ,i saw here Europeans are much more tolerant to Arabs and other middleastern people ,That basicly shows we are already in a different category .That's why, so much fuss going on about us and only us at every forum.

[Romanion]

I guess people want to exclude our central asian connection ,they feel more secure that way.Altaic culture is not something they feel confident with.
Main reason, I assume Middlestern culture seems more familiar to them, since Europe-Middleastern cultural connection dates back to Roman Empire times ,even much eariler than our first encounter with Middleastern culture.
Neglecting main component( Altaic) of our language ,history,folklore you get yourself rid of decoding an ultra unknown culture.
Second reason may be they feel emphaty for Middleastern people ruled by Turks ,i saw here Europeans are much more tolerant to Arabs and other middleastern people ,That basicly shows we are already in a different category .That's why, so much fuss going on about us and only us at every forum.

We're not talking about culture, we're talking about the people. Of course Turks speak a central asian language, with arabic religion that learned politics from the Persians.

[Riki]

I dont think I read any where here people writing that Turk is a Race.
My impression is that are only 5 Races;

1) Caucasoid.
2) Mongoloid
3) Australoid
4) Negroid
5) Capoid

Followed by the Sub-Races.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

We're not talking about culture, we're talking about the people. Of course Turks speak a central asian language, with arabic religion that learned politics from the Persians.

How can you seperate culture-people-nation?
People? These people are a nation..and have an identity defined by culture.
National identity= language ,myths ,history ,folklore ,music,cousine ..what else?


learned politics from the Persians.

yes ,everything we learnt from some Indo-Eu folks ..:))))
Fact is ,Persians lost Central Asia and Anatolia to us and Mongols.
I hardly think we needed politics for it !