View Full Version : Anatolian Turks: Where would they fit of these choices? (Multiple choice)
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 04:41 PM
I did a thread like this once but it spiraled into trolling and argument, so please keep this one civil. Thanks :)
Is multiple choice.
Sultan Suleiman
10-10-2012, 04:44 PM
Do Anatolian Turks include the migrants from Balkans aswell?
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Do Anatolian Turks include the migrants from Balkans aswell?
It includes people living in what is now Turkey, be it west, central, east, or hopefully people will answer with all of them taken into consideration.
Either way, answer as you see fit. :thumb001:
Hopefully this time it can be discussed with some seriousness. I'll keep an eye on the topic just to be sure.
StonyArabia
10-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Balkans, Southern Italy and Southern Russia
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 04:48 PM
AFAIK there are no (recent) Balkan immigrants to Turkey. There are Turks with partial Balkan ancestry yes but I really doubt you'll find a full Balkanite in Turkey today.
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 04:48 PM
Balkans, Southern Italy and Southern Russia
Southern Russia? Like the Caucasus or actual ethnic Russians from the south?
StonyArabia
10-10-2012, 04:49 PM
Southern Russia? Like the Caucasus or actual ethnic Russians from the south?
The Caucasus, but many so called Russians in the South are mixed with Caucasian blood usually Adyghe or Osset on their mother's line. Kuban Cossacks were known to take Adyghe "wives", and the Terek Cossacks absorbed good number of Ossets.
Demhat
10-10-2012, 04:51 PM
I wouldnt consider recent Balkan immigrants as Anatolian Turks as much as I wouldnt consider recent Swedish or English immigrants in Germany as "Germans".
Anatolian Turks overlap with their neighbors. By looks they are mostly distinct. Genetically they are clearly West Asian.
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 04:52 PM
There is however recent Russian migration to Turkey (females mostly)
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 04:58 PM
I wouldnt consider recent Balkan immigrants as Anatolian Turks as much as I wouldnt consider recent Swedish or English immigrants in Germany as "Germans".
Anatolian Turks overlap with their neighbors. By looks they are mostly distinct. Genetically they are clearly West Asian.
What is recent, the so called Balkan immigrants were already mixed and considered themself as Turks, not just muslim Balkanites. That is why they left with their fellow Turks after Ottoman empire lost territory.
MarceloBielsa
10-10-2012, 05:03 PM
majority turks are similar to other mediterranean peoples, and i know a girl from istanbul with blonde hair and green eyes, height 175 cm, probably galads celts heritage
Only Sicily and Greece, though the overlap even with them is small. There are Turkish students in Sofia (from Anatolia) and they stick out.
Siberian Cold Breeze
10-10-2012, 05:17 PM
I think we need some group pictures for this poll..
Hayalet
10-10-2012, 05:22 PM
I wouldnt consider recent Balkan immigrants as Anatolian Turks as much as I wouldnt consider recent Swedish or English immigrants in Germany as "Germans".
Not sure what you are on about, but Anatolian and Balkan Turks are ethnically identical people who happen to live in Anatolia and the Balkans, respectively.
Yalquzaq
10-10-2012, 05:25 PM
But, but, but, Kurds of Turkey and Iraq or Iran are of same ethnicity even though they cannot even understand each other properly. :eek:
PS: The term "Balkan Turks" are confusing people here. They were Anatolian Turks who settled in Balkans during Ottoman era.
Not sure what you are on about, but Anatolian and Balkan Turks are ethnically identical people who happen to live in Anatolia and the Balkans, respectively.
Simple, like many self-hating kurds, demhat -probably- believes that Turks would be as hooked nose as kurds on average and as long as he sees not-hooked nose Turks he believes that these Turks must have European background, in fact Balkan. That's why he's trying to divide Turks.
What he doesn't understand is the minority of Turks look like kurds and the rest of Turks look non-kurdish and that must hit him very hard.
Prince Carlo
10-10-2012, 05:27 PM
A little bit with South Eastern Europeans.
There is however recent Russian migration to Turkey (females mostly)
I doubt it.
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 05:31 PM
Simple, like many self-hating kurds, demhat -probably- believes that Turks would be as hooked nose as kurds on average and as long as he sees not-hooked nose Turks he believes that these Turks must have European background, in fact Balkan. That's why he's trying to divide Turks.
What he doesn't understand is the minority of Turks look like kurds and the rest of Turks look non-kurdish and that must hit him very hard.
Well a Turk can be kurdic by genetics, nothing wrong with that. It's like a Englishman can be fully germanic. And hooknoses rule:thumb001:
A little bit with South Eastern Europeans.
I doubt it.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-270209-18000-russian-brides-call-antalya-home.html
Nation wide we are talking about hunderds of thousands of Russian females becoming Turkish.
And I welcome it, it is the way of my ancestors afterall.
Anatolian Turks are times closer to Kurds than any of Balkanites. Turks here need a massive eye-opener, and there it goes.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/311011316_016d43f052_z.jpg?zz=1
Hayalet
10-10-2012, 05:38 PM
Anatolian Turks are times closer to Kurds than any of Balkanites. Turks here need a massive eye-opener, and there it goes.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/311011316_016d43f052_z.jpg?zz=1
I don't know, he looks like a member of a certain ethnic group that's readily found in most Balkan countries.
I don't know, he looks like a member of a certain ethnic group that's readily found in most Balkan countries.
No. He doesn't look gypsy. He looks Anatolian Turk, of Iranid/Armenoid type.
StonyArabia
10-10-2012, 05:43 PM
majority turks are similar to other mediterranean peoples, and i know a girl from istanbul with blonde hair and green eyes, height 175 cm, probably galads celts heritage
I doubt it she is probably a Ukrainian immigrant or tourist. Though most likely an Adyghe or an Osset.
ficuscarica
10-10-2012, 05:44 PM
Greece and to some extent also Sicily.
Archduke
10-10-2012, 05:45 PM
Greece obviously.
StonyArabia
10-10-2012, 05:46 PM
Greece and to some extent also Sicily.
Sicilians are darker than many Turks actually. Turks can pass in Southern Russia, Greece, Balkans and probably some areas of Ukraine.
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 05:47 PM
Anatolian Turks are times closer to Kurds than any of Balkanites. Turks here need a massive eye-opener, and there it goes.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/92/311011316_016d43f052_z.jpg?zz=1
See, this man could be the most patriotic Bulgarian ever in terms of looks. And here the difference between us and you surfaces, we don't care how a person looks in Turkey. If you want to believe we all look like that. I don't care be my guest. :thumb001:
Sultan Suleiman
10-10-2012, 05:47 PM
What is recent, the so called Balkan immigrants were already mixed and considered themself as Turks, not just muslim Balkanites. That is why they left with their fellow Turks after Ottoman empire lost territory.
...
The Turks you refer to are Turkish speaking Balkanites which were assimilated. What's so wrong with you accepting that simple fact and stop forcing this retarded theory that Balkanian "Turks" were identical to the Anatolian ones. :picard1:
Sicilians are basically Europeanized Arabs. They are darker than many Turks and some how they are seen as White.
This goes to my signature as dumbest post of the month.
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 05:50 PM
...
The Turks you refer to are Turkish speaking Balkanites which were assimilated. What's so wrong with you accepting that simple fact and stop forcing this retarded theory that Balkanian "Turks" were identical to the Anatolian ones. :picard1:
I am not forcing anything on you, if you go by assimilation, anatolian Turks are as much assimilated as the Balkan ones. That is why there is no difference between us, no matter how you look at it.
Yalquzaq
10-10-2012, 05:52 PM
...
The Turks you refer to are Turkish speaking Balkanites which were assimilated. What's so wrong with you accepting that simple fact and stop forcing this retarded theory that Balkanian "Turks" were identical to the Anatolian ones. :picard1:
How is that so when we do know that Turks from Anatolia settled in Balkans during Ottoman era? These settlements are documented from Ottoman era.
What are Russians in Kazakhstan who settled there during Tsar and Soviet era? Russian speaking Kazakhs?
Same logic.
Hayalet
10-10-2012, 05:53 PM
He looks Anatolian Turk
Not at all. And this has nothing to do with wannabe Europeanism, that man seems many times darker than the average Kurd or Arab in Turkey. But then you need your sense of security. :icon_cheesygrin:
Not at all. And this has nothing to do with wannabe Europeanism, that man seems many times darker than the average Kurd or Arab in Turkey. But then you need your sense of security. :icon_cheesygrin:
I see Turks every day, and unlike Turks here I'm not hiding the truth. Average Anatolian Turk is way swarthier and more exotic than average Bulgarian, Albanian or even Greek.
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 05:57 PM
No. He doesn't look gypsy. He looks Anatolian Turk, of Iranid/Armenoid type.
Not really to me. I think he looks Afghan.
Most Turks I know are not that Iranid.
Are you sure he's not Kurdish?
He's from Faces of Tomorrow, people shown there are ethnic Turks.
StonyArabia
10-10-2012, 05:59 PM
This goes to my signature as dumbest post of the month.
It's well known that Sicily has good amount of Arab and Berber blood in them. However they also have Norman, French, and Spanish blood. They can fit easily in Turkey and so can Turks btw.
Although Cyproits are indeed Europeanized Levantines they are darker than Syrians(non-Bedouins) for example and look Lebanese. The average Anatolian is much lighter and more European featured, they can't even come to how European looking Chechens, Ossets, Adyghe or Avars are.
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 06:02 PM
Cypriots cannot be darker than Syrians. Syrians have much more Arabian influence.
Mans not hot
10-10-2012, 06:02 PM
Joseph Capelli, why did you vote Poland?
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 06:03 PM
Joseph Capelli, why did you vote Poland?
He picked everything except Italy.
Mans not hot
10-10-2012, 06:04 PM
He picked everything except Italy.
Something telling me that he's trolling, but whatever.
MarceloBielsa
10-10-2012, 06:04 PM
I doubt it she is probably a Ukrainian immigrant or tourist. Though most likely an Adyghe or an Osset.
no no, she is turkish, sexy turkish girl
Sicilians are darker than many Turks actually
ahahahah no no, come to sicily my friend, there are many people with clear skin and blue or green eyes
we are not mulattos (ahahahahah) like thinking many americans for some stupid hollywood films
but, for me, most darker european nations is portugal
sicilians, portuguese and turkish are white peoples
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Something telling me that he's trolling, but whatever.
The reason for making these public vote is so people can't do that, but he did anyway. :lol:
Archduke
10-10-2012, 06:05 PM
Joseph Capelli, why did you vote Poland?
he fucked up your nordic dream, huh?
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 06:08 PM
I see Turks every day, and unlike Turks here I'm not hiding the truth. Average Anatolian Turk is way swarthier and more exotic than average Bulgarian, Albanian or even Greek.
We are swarthy and your pale daughters love us:thumb001:
Mans not hot
10-10-2012, 06:08 PM
he fucked up your nordic dream, huh?
You are wrong.
We are swarthy and your pale daughters love us:thumb001:
Not really. I haven't seen a blonde North Pontid Bulgarian girl to be in ecstasy because of swarthy Anatolid Turk.
Cypriots darker than Syrians, should I add this to my signature?
What's next btw? Bulgarians being Europianized Caucasians swarthier than Armenians?
Hayalet
10-10-2012, 06:11 PM
I see Turks every day, and unlike Turks here I'm not hiding the truth. Average Anatolian Turk is way swarthier and more exotic than average Bulgarian, Albanian or even Greek.
Your perception of truth is compromised by the fact that you are swarthier and more exotic than the average Bulgarian.
He's from Faces of Tomorrow, people shown there are ethnic Turks.
No, that project is about the photographer taking pictures of whomever he sees on the street.
In Western European cities, he casually includes African, South & East Asian immigrants and/or tourists in the composite faces:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2344/2401564030_bf23d1b1dc_b.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2065/2401560148_8e01a60b9d_b.jpg
memobekes
10-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Collectively in none of them.
Some Turkish-speaking Western Anatolians (where Ionian Greeks once lived) have similarities with Greeks and Southern Italians.
I'll confess I'm wrong if anybody finds me 5 Turkish girls who look like the girl on my avatar in 5 minutes.
Archduke
10-10-2012, 06:14 PM
We are swarthy and your pale daughters love us:thumb001:
That's why you raped them, because they love you so much.
Mans not hot
10-10-2012, 06:15 PM
Fuck you Dilberth
Demhat
10-10-2012, 06:17 PM
What is recent, the so called Balkan immigrants were already mixed and considered themself as Turks, not just muslim Balkanites. That is why they left with their fellow Turks after Ottoman empire lost territory.
For me, recent is someone known to be at least of half Balkanian origin
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 06:18 PM
I'll confess I'm wrong if anybody finds me 5 Turkish girls who look like the girl on my avatar in 5 minutes.
Dude in absolute numbers we have more of them than you do.
That's why you raped them, because they love you so much.
Why rape if a dollar bill and a piece of gum will do the trick:confused:
He voted for everything except Croatia lol.
Greece has 100% so far, until dandelion sees the thread.
Why rape if a dollar bill and a piece of gum will do the trick:confused:
Too sad it works only in Turkey.
Demhat
10-10-2012, 06:20 PM
Simple, like many self-hating kurds, demhat -probably- believes that Turks would be as hooked nose as kurds on average and as long as he sees not-hooked nose Turks he believes that these Turks must have European background, in fact Balkan. That's why he's trying to divide Turks.
I wouldnt consider a hooked nose ugly. at least not as ugly as your face :lol:
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 06:23 PM
Too sad it works only in Turkey.
I am going to stop btw to lower me to your level and make insults to Bulgarian people. They do not deserve it, I apologize to real Bugarians in my moment of weakness (that obviously doesn't include you)
I am going to stop btw to lower me to your level and make insults to Bulgarian people. They do not deserve it, I apologize to real Bugarians in my moment of weakness (that obviously doesn't include you)
I don't insult Turks. I just said you are swarthy and this is the bare turth. You even agreed.
Sikeliot
10-10-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm just going to remove all of the non-Southern Euro or Balkan options since you guys think it's funny to pick only those.
Sultan Suleiman
10-10-2012, 06:53 PM
How is that so when we do know that Turks from Anatolia settled in Balkans during Ottoman era? These settlements are documented from Ottoman era.
Turkish settlement was minimal...
Most of the today Turks from Balkans are assimilated Muslim natives. A third of Bosniaks left Bosnia after Austrians annexed us and there were no records of any mass Turkish migration there, just as there wasn't any in Greece.
Midori
10-10-2012, 07:12 PM
Nowhere really. They have Middle Eastern and Asiatic influence which separates them from Balkanites.
Although I'd say they overlap with Greeks most of all these for obvious reasons.
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 07:15 PM
ahahahah poor frustrated , internet is full of this turkish claims regarding the fact that girls love turkish especially greeks and ukrainians girls , continue to dreams
So lesbians like Turkish, Greek and Ukranian girls? Good taste I would say, what else can I say:confused:
i edited my post , i was wrong to write
i want say that :
ahahahah poor frustrated , internet is full of this turkish claims regarding the fact that girls love turkish men , especially for greeks and ukrainians girls , continue to dreams
Kazuma
10-10-2012, 09:31 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Turkish_people_in_Belgium.jpg
Is this crowd representative?
They are different from North African and Middle Easterners. I can't find an overlap with them. I've seen some balkans (bulgarians, albanians and bosnian) with a pontid/turanid/dinarid recombination that could resemble a turkish look (I mean the turanid/armenoid/east med features commons among anatolian).
However it's hard to say that the average turk could fit in balkan...
I can't vote
Annihilus
10-10-2012, 09:38 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Turkish_people_in_Belgium.jpg
Is this crowd representative?
Ofcourse they are, anybody holding my flag high is. We have different views with people in europe, we are cultural racists, not genetic.
Aviane
10-10-2012, 10:15 PM
Anatolian Turks could overlap nicely with Greeks, Sicilians and Iberians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Turkish_people_in_Belgium.jpg
Is this crowd representative?
They are different from North African and Middle Easterners. I can't find an overlap with them. I've seen some balkans (bulgarians, albanians and bosnian) with a pontid/turanid/dinarid recombination that could resemble a turkish look (I mean the turanid/armenoid/east med features commons among anatolian).
However it's hard to say that the average turk could fit in balkan...
I can't vote
a lot of peoples in this image can't pass as balkanians
Han Cholo
10-11-2012, 03:55 AM
Anatolian Turks could overlap nicely with Greeks, Sicilians and Iberians.
Iberians again?!? :picard1:
Prince Carlo
10-11-2012, 07:27 AM
Non Balkanic admixed Turks are too extreme even for Greece, let alone the rest of Europe.
Vojnik
10-11-2012, 07:30 AM
Simply Greece, Northern Greece is full of Anatolian refugees from the early 1900's.
Kazuma
10-11-2012, 07:34 AM
Simply Greece, Northern Greece is full of Anatolian refugees from the early 1900's.
I don't know...in this way Frenchs could overlap with North Africans
Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 07:34 AM
Turks have nothing to do with iberians or sicilians.
Fucking stereotypes, if someone is dark-haired, then he can pass in sicilia, iberia, north africa, afghanistan, greece, iran, arab countries... basically from caspian sea to atlantic ocean...right? :bored:
Talvi
10-11-2012, 07:42 AM
Where could these people pass??? They are all turks. Even the blonde guy. (I know some of these people personally, so theres no doubt in their turkishness)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/capnolagina/207971_10150166288597473_4458022_n.jpg
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/capnolagina/37502_420505903127_4424978_n.jpg
Prince Carlo
10-11-2012, 07:45 AM
Where could these people pass???
Central Asia mostly. :bored:
Talvi
10-11-2012, 07:47 AM
Central Asia mostly. :bored:
I think only the guy on on the right on the top picture could pass in Central Asia. Im living next to some girls from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyztan right now and they look nothing like that.
Prince Carlo
10-11-2012, 07:49 AM
Ok then Greece, Malta and Southern Central Italy. Nothing else.
Talvi
10-11-2012, 07:50 AM
Ok then Greece, Malta and Southern Central Italy. Nothing else.
How about the guy with the glasses? And the blonde guy? They look quite European for me. I could see the guy with glasses fitting in in Germany quite easily.
beaver
10-11-2012, 07:51 AM
Balkans, Southern Italy and Southern Russia
I didnt find strong "Turks" on the Northern Caucasus. They were surprisingly ligther than I could imagine.
Kazuma
10-11-2012, 07:52 AM
The blonde guy could pass in half europe
Prince Carlo
10-11-2012, 07:53 AM
How about the guy with the glasses? And the blonde guy? They look quite European for me. I could see the guy with glasses fitting in in Germany quite easily.
I don't think so, but you should ask a German member. Leliana would be right.
Vojnik
10-11-2012, 07:54 AM
I don't know...in this way Frenchs could overlap with North Africans
No, it's not the same. Christian Turk refugees from Anatolia arrived in Greece in the early 1900's and are now assimilated and are considered a part of the Greek ethnos.
aherne
10-11-2012, 07:59 AM
I made no choice because by large they do not look European.
Greeks and especially Daghestanis (Avars, Tsakurs, etc), both very high on Anatolian elements, would be the most similar. Turks overlap with dark Romanians (since the swarthy element in latter is of Neolithic Anatolian origin and there is Turanid in Romanians as well), but overall Romanians are much lighter (even though among the darkest Europeans).
Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 08:05 AM
No, it's not the same. Christian Turk refugees from Anatolia arrived in Greece in the early 1900's and are now assimilated and are considered a part of the Greek ethnos.
exactly..such as Karamanlides...they were simply grandsons of Turkopoles (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50243&langid=3), the christian Turkish warriors of byzantine empire.
Siberian Cold Breeze
10-11-2012, 08:12 AM
I didn't vote either..actually some options from caucasus region would be helpful not only Europe .
beaver
10-11-2012, 08:20 AM
I didn't vote either..actually some options from caucasus region would be helpful not only Europe .
Until the first ment in Metro. They know who is Russian, who not. Better than TA can.
Hayalet
10-11-2012, 08:48 AM
With all due respect, this kind of threads are useless in my opinion. "Fitting" is quite arbitrary and there is a difference between 25% rather than 75% of X people fitting in Y country. If you want to compare the average looks between ethnic groups, you can use the averaged faces I created of the athletes from London 2012:
Turks (44 men, 61 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/5e451127.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/ac5f746d.jpg
Europe
Bulgarians (38 men, 25 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/79479fe9.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/1087f653.jpg
Greeks (67 men, 36 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/c689a56d.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/00de4732.jpg
Italians (158 men, 122 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/241fea48.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/a5f695b6.jpg
Romanians (54 men, 49 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/b933b65d.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/50effd4c.jpg
Serbs (81 men, 36 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/1ef32523.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/3f2adb45.jpg
Hayalet
10-11-2012, 08:48 AM
Asia & the Caucasus
Arabs of the Levant (17 men, 17 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/36ab15b4.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/7253aebd.jpg
Armenians (19 men, 4 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/5df5e432.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/c2c016b3.jpg
Azeris (29 men, 4 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/bc8cc3dc.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/0539a1c8.jpg
Georgians (25 men, 5 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/2b1db8b1.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/c791218c.jpg
Iranians (45 men, 8 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/ee1e3f04.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/6a8940ee.jpg
Uzbeks (28 men, 3 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/a94306f4.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/38ca48ff.jpg
Sikeliot
10-11-2012, 01:37 PM
Turks have nothing to do with iberians or sicilians.
Well Iberians definitely not.
Sicilians and western Turks at least, have in common that they both have Greek ancestry.
Prince Carlo
10-11-2012, 05:15 PM
Armenians (19 men, 4 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/5df5e432.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/c2c016b3.jpg
Azeris (29 men, 4 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/bc8cc3dc.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/0539a1c8.jpg
Iranians (45 men, 8 women)
http://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/ee1e3f04.jpghttp://i876.photobucket.com/albums/ab329/786512/lo12/01/6a8940ee.jpg
Who is that retard that thinks that Armenians, Iranians and Azeris are all dark skinned? I think that most of them would fit in Northern Caucasus without a problem.
Anatolian Eagle
10-11-2012, 05:23 PM
Crowd pictures of Turks (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55504)
There are many crowd pictures of Turks in above thread for comprasion.
Han Cholo
10-11-2012, 07:26 PM
Crowd pictures of Turks (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55504)
There are many crowd pictures of Turks in above thread for comprasion.
Around 20% can "pass" (though not perfectly) as slightly/mildly mixed Iberian Latin Americans. The rest either look too Balkanoid or Middle Eastern. Pure Iberians are out of the question.
Yalquzaq for example, in the last pic he posted could pass very convincently where I live.
Crowd pictures of Turks (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55504)
There are many crowd pictures of Turks in above thread for comprasion.
+1
Pecheneg
10-11-2012, 08:42 PM
Sicilians and western Turks at least, have in common that they both have Greek ancestry.
This is also another stereotype. :bored:
Whatever..
Han Cholo
10-11-2012, 08:52 PM
This is also another stereotype. :bored:
Whatever..
Indeed. Western Turks also have higher Central Asian contribution than the rest of Turks in Central or Eastern Turkey.
Siberian Cold Breeze
10-11-2012, 08:56 PM
Actually every etnic Turkic family has someone or two in family look CA ,shows the phenotype i observe .
exceeder
10-11-2012, 09:35 PM
None of the above. Only atypically as Greeks or Balkanites but most don't fit in any of the options IMO.
Anusiya
10-11-2012, 09:57 PM
In Anatolia! :D
In Anatolia! :D
This is also valid for your Yunanistan too since at least half of your Greek people are originally from Anatolia and most of them was speaking Turkish as a mothertongue for centuries in the past.
alb0zfinest
10-13-2012, 01:36 PM
Spain, Italy, Sicily, Bulgaria (to a certain extent), Greece, Romania (to a certain extent)
Aviane
10-13-2012, 06:57 PM
Spain, Italy (only Calabria and Basilicata), Sicily, Bulgaria (to a certain extent), Greece, Romania (to a certain extent)
I agree with most of this.
Yes Anatolian Turks can fit in the most Mediterranean parts of Europe at large.
End of story. :cool:
Han Cholo
10-16-2012, 05:28 AM
Spain, Italy, Sicily, Bulgaria (to a certain extent), Greece, Romania (to a certain extent)
And not Albania?
Insuperable
10-16-2012, 05:43 AM
And not Albania?
He will give you that old cliche stuff how they do not look Dinarid
Englisc
12-04-2012, 05:37 PM
Many Anatolians are of Greek descent, so I voted for Greece.
Many Anatolians are of Greek descent, so I voted for Greece.
Any valid source for your claim? :rolleyes:
Many Anatolians are of Greek descent, so I voted for Greece.
The correct sentence would have been like "Many Greeks are Anatolian descent" because Anatolia has 13.000 years old proven history and many different civilizations. Greeks are only a small part of Anatolian history. Even lesser than Turks because it is the Turks who rules this place for the last 1000 years and present time.
The Romans also played a bigger role than Greeks in the history of Anatolia. The most of the archeological remains in Turkey are from Roman era with Latin engravings. The monuments from hellenistic period are much lesser in number and significance.x
Italians didn't invade Anatolia and Aegean islands based on nothing in WW-1. Mussolini also invaded today`s Greece and all the Aegean islands in WW-2 again because they claimed that these places was part of Roman empire and should belong to Italians as inheritors of it, not to the pseudo-hellenic state.
Queen B
12-05-2012, 11:17 AM
Any valid source for your claim? :rolleyes:
1.The presence of Greeks for thousands of years in today's Turkey. If they ''dissapeared'' as some Turkish citizens here claim , the only possible way is to be mixed/integrated with other population, to create the modern Turkish citizens ;)
2. The fact that ''Orthodox+Muslim -> Muslim'' under Ottoman empire
3. Turkification (conversion to Muslim) process by putting higher taxes to Christians.
Englisc
12-05-2012, 03:03 PM
Any valid source for your claim? :rolleyes:
Youknow, the Greek settlement of Northern and Western Anatolia. I barely think they were all wiped out.
Youknow, the Greek settlement of Northern and Western Anatolia. I barely think they were all wiped out.
Are you serious sistaaaa :eek: ?
I thought -we barbarians- killed them all, so basically they are all wiped out.
archangel
12-05-2012, 03:38 PM
yeah us barbarian Türks are the real enemy of civilized people,fear from us:thumb001:
Siberian Cold Breeze
12-05-2012, 04:47 PM
Southwestern Turks look more Eurasian than Mediterrannean though they are geograpically closer to Greece they don't look Greek, throw the myth out ..
Partizan
12-14-2012, 06:09 PM
Southwestern Turks look more Eurasian than Mediterrannean though they are geograpically closer to Greece they don't look Greek, throw the myth out ..
Yup, also genetically Western Anatolia is more Mongoloid than rest of Turkey.
Gospodine
12-27-2012, 09:31 AM
I picked Bulgaria and Greece.
There's a minority of atypical examples on both sides of the Aegean who could easily pass in their neighbouring states but realistically, as a whole; Turks are way too diverse to be said to resemble another country collectively.
Gaijin
12-27-2012, 09:35 AM
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7590386142_108598a509.jpg
kabeiros
12-27-2012, 10:02 AM
Southwestern Turks look more Eurasian than Mediterrannean though they are geograpically closer to Greece they don't look Greek, throw the myth out .. This is because a lot of Eurasian peoples settled in western Anatolia through the centuries of the Ottoman Empire. During the ancient, hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods western Anatolia was basically Greek with some other Indo-European speaking tribes who were close to Greeks and Cretans, like Lycians, Trojans etc.
Partizan
12-27-2012, 10:07 AM
This is because a lot of Eurasian peoples settled in western Anatolia through the centuries of the Ottoman Empire. During the ancient, hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods western Anatolia was basically Greek with some other Indo-European speaking tribes who were close to Greeks and Cretans, like Lycians, Trojans etc.
She means "Turanid" I guess.
Siberian Cold Breeze
12-27-2012, 10:30 AM
This is because a lot of Eurasian peoples settled in western Anatolia through the centuries of the Ottoman Empire. During the ancient, hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods western Anatolia was basically Greek with some other Indo-European speaking tribes who were close to Greeks and Cretans, like Lycians, Trojans etc.
http://i.imgur.com/p4tPy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IfUmP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NQO3C.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Bdtkj.jpg
I don't think these people are descendants of Greeks or if u look like them, we are close relatives really.
Aegean villages are full of these people.
Siberian Cold Breeze
12-27-2012, 10:37 AM
And this one is from a village hand made crafts shops ..These aunties make hand made silk dresses and ornements .
removed
Turks are way too diverse to be said to resemble another country collectively.
Turks are not more diverse than any Balkan state including Greece.
I picked Bulgaria and Greece.
There's a minority of atypical examples on both sides of the Aegean who could easily pass in their neighbouring states but realistically, as a whole; Turks are way too diverse to be said to resemble another country collectively.
This is one of the best comments within this thread done so far :thumb001:
This is because a lot of Eurasian peoples settled in western Anatolia through the centuries of the Ottoman Empire. During the ancient, hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods western Anatolia was basically Greek with some other Indo-European speaking tribes who were close to Greeks and Cretans, like Lycians, Trojans etc.
What is Western Anatolia for Greeks ? (No, I am not taking the piss) Can you post a map that shows according to you the Western Anatolia? Since some people see Western Turkey as just the Western part of Istanbul :D
d3cimat3d
12-27-2012, 05:10 PM
Southwestern Turks look more Eurasian than Mediterrannean though they are geograpically closer to Greece they don't look Greek, throw the myth out ..
True. S-W Turks look like they could be 1/2 Turkmen.
http://i49.tinypic.com/64j79y.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/902jrn.png
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html
This is because a lot of Eurasian peoples settled in western Anatolia through the centuries of the Ottoman Empire.
Probably because they wanted good beaches. :D
kabeiros
12-27-2012, 10:42 PM
Turks are not more diverse than any Balkan state including Greece. Turks have a lot of Turanian and Arabian looking individuals -which are practically absent from the Balkans- in addition to the local East Mediterranean type, therefore Turks are more diverse than Greeks or any Balkan ethnic group.
kabeiros
12-27-2012, 10:47 PM
What is Western Anatolia for Greeks ? (No, I am not taking the piss) Can you post a map that shows according to you the Western Anatolia? Since some people see Western Turkey as just the Western part of Istanbul :D When I say western Anatolia I mean what you call Marmara region (the Asian part), Aegean region and the west part of Mediterranean region. Ancient Troas, Mysia, Ionia, Doris, western part of Lydia and Lycia etc.
Turks have a lot of Turanian and Arabian looking individuals -which are practically absent from the Balkans- in addition to the local East Mediterranean type, therefore Turks are more diverse than Greeks or any Balkan ethnic group.
Bullshit!
What Arabian you talking about? Neither DNA wise nor phenotype, Turks absolutely have no relation with Arabs except some people who lives in the 1-2 cities bordering Syria.
On the other hand, we have slavic looking (and speaking) Greeks in the Macedonia section as well as Anatolian Turkish lookalike types, Dinarid Albanian types, Afro haired Lebanese/Syrian type islander Greeks, Armenoid looking Greeks, northern med Italian lookalikes and more others.
Greeks are equally or more diverse than Turks while majority of Turkish people have more or less similar Alpine look.
Sikeliot
12-27-2012, 11:30 PM
On the other hand, we have slavic looking Greeks in the Macedonia section as well as Anatolian Turkish lookalike types, Dinarid Albanian types, Afro haired Lebanese/Syrian type islander Greeks, Armenoid looking Greeks and so on.
You forgot the most common type.. Sicilian looking Greeks. ;)
You forgot the most common type.. Sicilian looking Greeks. ;)
Thanks for the reminder, edited my post :thumb001:
Sikeliot
12-27-2012, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the reminder, edited my post :thumb001:
Although Sicilians themselves can go from looking like Nordic people to looking like Syrians themselves, so there is a similar range except for a lack of truly "Balkan" looking people and Slavic types.
I'd almost argue that the only people today with significant original Greek blood are some islanders (Rhodes, Chios, Crete), people in some parts of southern Italy (Calabria, eastern Sicily). "Greeks" today have too much Balkan Slavic, Albanian, and Anatolian Greek (come on, there has to have been admixture with nearby Anatolians) to all be of the same origin genetically, and it shows in their faces.
Bullshit!
What Arabian you talking about? Neither DNA wise nor phenotype, Turks absolutely have no relation with Arabs except some people who lives in the 1-2 cities bordering Syria.
On the other hand, we have slavic looking (and speaking) Greeks in the Macedonia section as well as Anatolian Turkish lookalike types, Dinarid Albanian types, Afro haired Lebanese/Syrian type islander Greeks, Armenoid looking Greeks, northern med Italian lookalikes and more others.
Greeks are equally or more diverse than Turks while majority of Turkish people have more or less similar Alpine look.
I think he means Turks originating from Southeastern as well as Eastern region of Turkey.
http://www.online-utility.org/image/ImageCache?file=c/c8/Turkey_Regions_map-en.svg/800px-Turkey_Regions_map-en.svg
If so, then he's right, it's easy to confuse people from these regions as well as cities bordering these regions with Arabs, Armenians, Kurds etc. The Turks originating from these areas as well as in bordering cities can look off-Turkish. Or put that way not very Turkish looking, but they are part of our diversity :)
kabeiros
12-28-2012, 12:11 AM
On the other hand, we have slavic looking (and speaking) Greeks in the Macedonia section this Slavic looking Greeks don't look like Russians or Belorussians but like Serbs or Bulgarians, who don't look like the original Slavic type but like a mix of Slavic and Balkanic
as well as Anatolian Turkish lookalike types, there is not an Anatolian Turkish type, just an Anatolian one, which by the way looks like Armenian/Greek/Southern Italian
Dinarid Albanian types, Dinarid doesn't mean Albanian, it means of the Dinarid type (common throughout Europe)
Afro haired Lebanese/Syrian type islander Greeks, Greeks from the islands don't have Afro hair, some of them have wavy hair which look beautiful IMO
Armenoid looking Greeks, Very few Greeks look Armenoid, Turks on the other hand have this type in abundance because a lot of Armenians were assimilated into the Turkish nation
Greeks are equally or more diverse than Turks while majority of Turkish people have more or less similar Alpine look.
Greeks look 100% Caucasoid, while Turks look mixed race (Mongoloid + Caucasoid) which by using the simplest form of logic means that Turks are more diverse. Next!
rhiannon
12-28-2012, 03:54 AM
I did a thread like this once but it spiraled into trolling and argument, so please keep this one civil. Thanks :)
Is multiple choice.
I'd vote but it hasn't ever been clear to me what an Anatolian Turk is relative to a regular Turk lol
Gospodine
12-28-2012, 08:43 AM
On the other hand, we have slavic looking (and speaking) Greeks in the Macedonia section as well as Anatolian Turkish lookalike types, Dinarid Albanian types, Afro haired Lebanese/Syrian type islander Greeks, Armenoid looking Greeks, northern med Italian lookalikes and more others.
Greeks are equally or more diverse than Turks while majority of Turkish people have more or less similar Alpine look.
I think you just inadvertently proved yourself wrong there Onur.
If we're going by a phenotypical spectrum there is absolutely more diversity in Turkey than say Greece, Bulgaria or Macedonia.
Almost everything is present in Turkey; from Afro-Turks and fully Central Asian Mongoloid types in remote villages (Avshar Turkmen) that were host to the original Turkic migrations in the 7th century.
If you go by Y-DNA you also don't get that kind of breakdown in any Balkan population (it's like an A-Z of haplogroups):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Turkey_Y_chromosome%28in_20_haplogroups%29.png
Autosomally you can see Turkey has more admixtures than any other European population:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TQKOBi94S8I/AAAAAAAAAQM/53U_glW2Ivs/s1600/ADMIXTURE_10.png
I too cant agree with Onur başkan, It's impossible not to be diversed for a place like Anatolia where crossroads for 3 continents on top of that heavy migrations from balkans to levant, from crimean to northern kavkaz in last century due to obvious reasons..
More than half of the people voted for Bulgaria. What a joke.
Partizan
12-28-2012, 10:26 AM
More than half of the people voted for Bulgaria. What a joke.
To me it is rather funny how some Bulgarians didn't vote Bulgaria but relatively far away countries/regions(France, Albania, Serbia, Sicily).
If I should be honest, Turks can't fit anywhere in Europe, since Semito-Mongoloid faces are foreign here.
Sikeliot
12-28-2012, 10:34 AM
To me it is rather funny how some Bulgarians didn't vote Bulgaria but relatively far away countries/regions(France, Albania, Serbia, Sicily).
I don't vote on my own threads.. but I would vote Bulgaria if I was going to. I certainly think Bulgarians are closer to Turks than to Russians and Poles.
The basis for picking Sicily is the common Greek ancestry in both places, and the Neolithic component to the genes. I find Turks distinctive even from Greeks who IMO look more Armenian in the more exotic cases.. but I have been told by many Turkish users here that I would pass as a Turk.
Albanians actually do look Turkish sometimes. Serbs, I wouldn't pick. I've seen only few Anatolian looking ones.. and Serbs are more stereotypically "Slavic" looking than Bulgarians and Macedonians.
Queen B
12-28-2012, 10:34 AM
Although Sicilians themselves can go from looking like Nordic people to looking like Syrians themselves, so there is a similar range except for a lack of truly "Balkan" looking people and Slavic types.
I'd almost argue that the only people today with significant original Greek blood are some islanders (Rhodes, Chios, Crete), people in some parts of southern Italy (Calabria, eastern Sicily). "Greeks" today have too much Balkan Slavic, Albanian, and Anatolian Greek (come on, there has to have been admixture with nearby Anatolians) to all be of the same origin genetically, and it shows in their faces.
I hear all time to Slavic looking Greeks, yet NOONE have pointed out ONE of them in any thread.
this Slavic looking Greeks don't look like Russians or Belorussians but like Serbs or Bulgarians, who don't look like the original Slavic type but like a mix of Slavic and Balkanic
there is not an Anatolian Turkish type, just an Anatolian one, which by the way looks like Armenian/Greek/Southern Italian
:thumb001:
Greeks from the islands don't have Afro hair, some of them have wavy hair which look beautiful IMO
Afro? Afro? :rotfl:
Greeks look 100% Caucasoid, while Turks look mixed race (Mongoloid + Caucasoid) which by using the simplest form of logic means that Turks are more diverse. Next!
If we browse through the Turkish threads, we ll see way more diverse looking Turks, its hilarious even to mention it!
I too cant agree with Onur başkan, It's impossible not to be diversed for a place like Anatolia where crossroads for 3 continents on top of that heavy migrations from balkans to levant, from crimean to northern kavkaz in last century due to obvious reasons..
Exactly.
Sikeliot
12-28-2012, 10:35 AM
I hear all time to Slavic looking Greeks, yet NOONE have pointed out ONE of them in any thread.
I can show you some if you want to see.
But I have been told by many Turkish users here that I would pass as a Turk.
I've just seen your long lost brother yesterday while wandering in Istanbul streets :D
Sikeliot
12-28-2012, 10:42 AM
I've just seen your long lost brother yesterday while wandering in Istanbul streets :D
See. I knew it :D
But overall I find Turks distinctive. I could tell a crowd of Turks from a crowd of Greeks much of the time. A lot of Turks to me have Iranid elements to them which seem to have skipped over Armenia.
I don't vote on my own threads.. but I would vote Bulgaria if I was going to. I certainly think Bulgarians are closer to Turks than to Russians and Poles.
Many Turks have obvious Mongoloid features and swarthy skin, both are totally foreign for Bulgaria. While Russians and Poles (unless those who are very fair and very Baltid) can easily fit in Bulgaria. Bulgarians look more like their European neighbors of course (or even Georgians if you want) than to Russians and Poles, but not to Turks.
Serbs are more stereotypically "Slavic" looking than Bulgarians and Macedonians.
Only in Sorab's threads.
I hear all time to Slavic looking Greeks, yet NOONE have pointed out ONE of them in any thread.
He means Greeks who can pass as Serbs or Bulgarians.
Sikeliot
12-28-2012, 10:50 AM
He means Greeks who can pass as Serbs or Bulgarians.
Let's put it this way. When I am making guessing threads where people have to tell a Sicilian from a Greek, and choosing the Greek photos for it, I have to be aware not to choose anyone who looks too "Balkan" (i.e. you'd mistake them easily for Bulgarian, Serb, even Croatian sometimes) so as to make it not too easy to guess.
Midori
12-28-2012, 01:46 PM
I've seen only few Anatolian looking ones.. and Serbs are more stereotypically "Slavic" looking than Bulgarians and Macedonians.
I agree.
I too cant agree with Onur başkan, It's impossible not to be diversed for a place like Anatolia where crossroads for 3 continents on top of that heavy migrations from balkans to levant, from crimean to northern kavkaz in last century due to obvious reasons..
I didn't say that Turkey is not diverse but i just said that Balkans (incl. Greece) is as much as diverse as Turkey if not more.
And you really think Balkans was free from that heavy migrations? The number of different group of people who lived and passed from Balkans is no less than we have in Anatolia. You can also add countless of wars and the dark plague ravaged past in Balkans by killing most of it`s population in the early medieval era while Anatolia was free from plague. The political climate and population movements was much more intense in Balkans. Anatolia was much more calmer comparing to Balkans.
The proof of intense population movements in Balkans is that we don't even know about the origins of several Balkan peoples. Can you prove me the origin of Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romanians? We only have theories about all of them. Now think about the origin of people who lives in Anatolia like Armenians, Turks etc. Why we can explain the origins of all these different peoples in Anatolia with numerous concrete proofs while we cant do that in Balkans? Tell me what can be the reason of this?
Gospodine
12-29-2012, 08:31 AM
And you really think Balkans was free from that heavy migrations?
No one claimed that.
The proof of intense population movements in Balkans is that we don't even know about the origins of several Balkan peoples. Can you prove me the origin of Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romanians? We only have theories about all of them.
All true. But the bottom line is there is no easy route from Central Asia to the Balkans nor from North Africa or beyond the Iranian Plateau to the Balkans.
Especially not in the time and era of most of these massive migrations we speak of (Xiognu-Hunnic, Vandal-Gothic, Iranic steppe nomads, Slavo-Avarian, the Caliphate, Moors, Mongols, etc.)
Our incredibly mountainous geography (Carpathians, Dinaric Alps, the Balkan Mountains chain) precludes a lot of gene flow from that area.
Anywhere you find mountains in the world you find an anthropological museum: the Basques in the Pyrenees, the North-West Caucasian groups in the Caucasus, scattered IE survivor populations in the Pamir Mountains, the Uyghurs who are partial descendants of the Tocharians, the Himalayas, etc.
The Balkans is a confusing example to many people not from the Balkans because they assume that with this many invasions and occupations SOMETHING must have changed drastically.
Yes, there has been measurable input from distant parts of the world that is still detectable in the Balkans; you can find Avarian Central Asian genes in Croatian Islander populations or heavy Levantine/Phoenician genetic input in many coastal Greek and Albanian cities that were once trading powerhouses.
But as with the rest of Europe, our genetic lineage was finalized in the early Neolithic and all these subsequent migrations occurred long after.
To say that the Balkans is Turkey; to imply that our collective ethnogenesis was two ancestral populations meeting and fusing together (IE Anatolians + Turkic tribes) is completely wrong.
Now think about the origin of people who lives in Anatolia like Armenians, Turks etc. Why we can explain the origins of all these different peoples
There are numerous flaws and holes in the ethnogenesis of Turks, Armenians, Kurds and various other Iranic/Turkic minorities.
Your identity is nowhere near as simplistic as you (perhaps unintentionally) make it out to be.
E.g. Once upon a time we were Anatolian, along came the Turko-Mongols and here we are.
Before Anatolia was ever Turkic or Hellenic it was a mish-mash of Semitic-speaking Mesopotamian powers (Assyrians, Akkadians) and IE-speaking Iranic/Anatolian populations (Medians, Hittites, Mitanni, Lydians, Hattians, Phrygians) with isolated pockets of linguistic and cultural oddities like the Colchians, Hurrians, and Urartians.
No one is sure if the Anatolian speakers came via the Balkans or the Caucasus or at what point, no one knows exactly when Anatolian branched off from IE or what relationship it has to the other groups, no one is sure of the linguistic affiliation of several groups (only speculated) Mittani, Phrygians, Hurrians, Colchians, the evolution of several key IE languages like Armenian, Greek and Persian is theorized to stem from a Greco-Aryan sub-group but the origin and spread of that hasn't been determined, nor has the historical origin or proto-language of any of the Caucasian languages been determined.
It's likely the Anatolians weren't even distinctly "Anatolian" but just differing late stage IE cultures that migrated south from the steppes.
What I'm saying is... Turkey is not the Balkans and the Balkans is not Turkey.
Two very diverse regions of the world, yet diverse is different ways.
Turkey is more a historical example of the elite dominance model (minority groups imposing a cultural/linguistic/social revolution) while the Balkans is essentially layers upon layers of substrates that trace back to the Balkan refuge during the LCM which repopulated large parts of Northern and Eastern Europe (hence the diffusion of Hg I). Differing ethnic groups have preserved these substrates to differing degrees but the substrates are there in some shape or form in almost every ethnic group.
...
To say that the Balkans is Turkey; to imply that our collective ethnogenesis was two ancestral populations meeting and fusing together (IE Anatolians + Turkic tribes) is completely wrong.
......
There are numerous flaws and holes in the ethnogenesis of Turks, Armenians, Kurds and various other Iranic/Turkic minorities.
Before Anatolia was ever Turkic or Hellenic it was a mish-mash of Semitic-speaking Mesopotamian powers (Assyrians, Akkadians) and IE-speaking Iranic/Anatolian populations (Medians, Hittites, Mitanni, Lydians, Hattians, Phrygians) with isolated pockets of linguistic and cultural oddities like the Colchians, Hurrians, and Urartians.
Thanks for a lengthy response but you do a fundamental mistake here. You claim that Anatolian population movements and history is as shallow as Balkans but you are comparing the two with a great timing difference.
You are talking about Anatolia in 2000-3000 BC (Hittites, Akadians etc.) and you claim that Anatolia has shallow points too but mate, we are talking about Balkans in 500-1300 AD here. You cannot compare the amount of historical knowledge of two different geography with a 3000 years old time difference. You should compare Anatolia with Balkans by using the same time period and if you do that, you can see that Balkans has much more shallow, uncertain history.
Gospodine
12-29-2012, 03:06 PM
You are talking about Anatolia in 2000-3000 BC (Hittites, Akadians etc.) and you claim that Anatolia has shallow points too but mate, we are talking about Balkans in 500-1300 AD here..
Yes in that instance I mentioned only migrations from the 4th century to the 12th century AD but we can easily go back further to find equivalent contemporary movements and expansions that match pre-historic Turkey.
The Neolithic Balkans is anything but shallow or uncertain. The lack of discussion about it stems from the fact that it is just not a popular region of the world for various political reasons and hence not much research is openly disseminated.
Around the same time or earlier than when the IE-forefathers of the Anatolians were dwelling on the Black Sea (Yamna Culture, 3000BC), the Neo-Babylonian states were ruling the fertile Crescent (2300BC) and the Indo-Iranians were expanding out of the Iranian plateau (2000BC-900BC)... the Balkans was full of competing, clashing Neolithic states in various stages of development:
Vinca Culture (5500-4500BC)
Starcevo-Cris Culture (5500-4500BC)
Hamangia Culture (5200-4500BC)
Varna Culture (4400-4100BC)
Cucuteni-Trypillians (4800-3000BC)
Ezero culture (3300-2700 BC)
Butmir culture (2600-2400BC)
Mycenaean/Minoan Greece (2000BC -)
Thraco-Illyrians (1500BC -)
Hallstatt (1200BC -)
These weren't people scratching crude drawings onto cave walls; the Cucuteni-Trypillians had settlements of comparable sizes (15,000 inhabitants) to Sumerian city states around 4000BC, well before the peak of Sumerian civilization. Proto-writing (Tartaria tablets, Gradeshnitsa tablets, Dispilio tablets), organized religion, and specialization of labour and tools were all present.
The Vinca culture is responsible for some of the world's earliest copper tools; they made sculptures of deities and mined raw metals, domesticated animals... they were the "Old European" contemporaries of the Fertile Crescent's booming organized farmers.
These cultures are a continuum of people outlined by Marija Gimbutas as being part of "Old Europe" (Pre-IE); who pioneered the Kurgan hypothesis for IE expansion.
They left behind a pretty sizable archaeological record compared to a lot of other European Neolithic cultures we only have fragments of.
The successive IE expansions (whether invasion or assimilation) over the next millenia coupled with changes in weather that destroyed Neolithic farming temporarily, coincided with the fall of most of these cultures and while we don't know exactly what happened after this period of history (Neolithic to Iron Age is where things get confusing), the most likely product of this fusing of indigenous Neolithic cultures and invading Indo-European cultures was the Paleo-Balkan peoples (Illyrians, Dacians, Thracians, Moesians, Pannonians, Paeonians, Dalmatians, Veneti, etc.)
As we all know tying Paleo-Balkan origins to modern Balkan ethnic groups is a sensitive and difficult task, as is pinning down the when, where and the why of how the Turkic migrations were so successful in Anatolia, but like the example of Turkey, we have a good idea of the precursors of modern Balkan peoples just as we have a good idea of the precursors of modern Turks.
It's the lack of a concrete archaeological trail that we can't find because we're talking about (both in the case of Turkey and the Balkans) sedentary, semi-nomadic, highly-militaristic, fiercely xenophobic cultures here who wrote little to nothing, never settled in one place for too long and never really considered themselves a united, homogenous group.
We have the dots, we just probably won't be able to connect them... ever.
I never said Turkey's history is shallow by the way.
I said late Neolithic Turkey is more diverse (linguistically and ethnically you have Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, likely Proto-Caucasian and even influences from Elamo-Dravidian) than the Balkans, which remained very homogenous up until the arrival of the early IE speakers.
But the Balkans had far more numerous cultures residing in the same area compared to Anatolia which tended to be dominated by one successive group at a time.
So like I said before; they're diverse but in very different ways and I think this is reflected phenotypically in both regions.
In Turkey you can find pretty much anything and everything; in the Balkans you can find the gamut of European phenotypes and most Near Eastern ones but there is a more harmonious spectrum of appearances that stems from the fact that it managed to remain more homogenous until more recently.
(It's really a lot less exotic than I think the Nordicists on here believe it to be.)
Gospodine
12-29-2012, 03:08 PM
Sorry for the long post.
Sorry for the long post.
Don't be sorry, thanks to you again. it`s something rare to see such a willing intelligent responses from a Balkanian in this forum. Maybe it`s because you are from Australia, probably thats why ;)
I agree with your comments. There was so many different groups in Anatolia as you said because this territory was the center of the old world trade routes. If someone desires to control all the trade routes by land and sea, then they had to occupy and control Anatolia. This place was the center of the world before the advancement of long distance sea travel and discovery of America.
I also wanna say something about this since i already discussed this issue before with an archaeology prof. in my university;
It's the lack of a concrete archaeological trail that we can't find because we're talking about (both in the case of Turkey and the Balkans) sedentary, semi-nomadic, highly-militaristic, fiercely xenophobic cultures here who wrote little to nothing, never settled in one place for too long and never really considered themselves a united, homogenous group.
There are some special difficulties about the archeology of nomadic peoples. The archeology techniques are totally different when it comes to that. It`s nothing like the archeology technique of sedentary cultures and it requires a special knowledge of most archeologists in the world lacks because most of them are specialized on Grecque-Roman, Egyptian etc. sedentary people`s archeology.
The findings are totally different for nomadic cultures. As you know, we cant find giant concrete buildings or written texts most of the time. Most of these nomadic cultures used runic writings and they wrote it on the wooden tablets and unfortunately wooden tablets cannot endure in time. Not that they didn't write anything, in fact they wrote a lot. You can read from Chinese chronicles that Huns was extensively using writing but on a wooden tablets due to practicality when it comes to carve runic letters. They also mostly burned their dead and it`s not easy to find mummies either. Most of nomadic peoples only buries the ashes of the dead people if he was an important person but regular people`s bodies gets burned and their ashes thrown into the air.
There are other difficulties of nomadic people`s archeology but i think you get my point. So, thats exactly why it`s difficult to find precise proofs of Balkan history.
Siberian Cold Breeze
12-29-2012, 10:26 PM
Gospodine
Agree all ,same as Onur, but only one thing I want to spaculate .
fiercely xenophobic
Can a nomadic or semi nomadic community be xenophobic?
Nomadic life encourages exogamy ,not endogamy
They are mostly more adventurous and daring people than sedanteries
They don't surround themselves with walls and live in buildings but travel all the time.
They meet people from all races and cultures.A black person or blond person is familiar to them .
They transfer or modify cultures,tend to be less conservative and less dogmatic.
Am I right?
Gospodine
Agree all ,same as Onur, but only one thing I want to spaculate. Can a nomadic or semi nomadic community be xenophobic?
You are right SCB. I think he wrote that by mistake.
Linet
12-29-2012, 11:26 PM
Although Sicilians themselves can go from looking like Nordic people to looking like Syrians themselves, so there is a similar range except for a lack of truly "Balkan" looking people and Slavic types.
I'd almost argue that the only people today with significant original Greek blood are some islanders (Rhodes, Chios, Crete), people in some parts of southern Italy (Calabria, eastern Sicily). "Greeks" today have too much Balkan Slavic, Albanian, and Anatolian Greek (come on, there has to have been admixture with nearby Anatolians) to all be of the same origin genetically, and it shows in their faces.
You are amazing....:blink:
You try to prove yourself more Greek than the Greeks themselves :loco:... get back to your senses darling :baby2000:
Can someone pass me popkorn.
PS: I prefer salty ones :d
Siberian Cold Breeze
12-30-2012, 12:55 AM
http://i.imgur.com/4OHrm.jpg
sıcacık ,çıtır çıtır :D
kabeiros
01-01-2013, 05:08 PM
Don't be sorry, thanks to you again. it`s something rare to see such a willing intelligent responses from a Balkanian in this forum. Maybe it`s because you are from Australia, probably thats why ;)Maybe you love each other because he's a Bosnian Muslim
So, thats exactly why it`s difficult to find precise proofs of Balkan history. I assume that you exclude Greeks from the Balkans, in which case you are probably right. Because it would be very difficult to find a better recorded history than the Greek one
Azalea
01-01-2013, 05:51 PM
http://i.imgur.com/4OHrm.jpg
sıcacık ,çıtır çıtır :D
Uff canim cekti valla. :D
Siberian Cold Breeze
01-02-2013, 03:16 AM
Sorma ,benim de :D
rashka
01-02-2013, 04:33 AM
E.g. Once upon a time we were Anatolian, along came the Turko-Mongols and here we are.
Before Anatolia was ever Turkic or Hellenic it was a mish-mash of Semitic-speaking Mesopotamian powers (Assyrians, Akkadians) and IE-speaking Iranic/Anatolian populations (Medians, Hittites, Mitanni, Lydians, Hattians, Phrygians) with isolated pockets of linguistic and cultural oddities like the Colchians, Hurrians, and Urartians.
You can include Slavs in that Anatolian pre-Ottoman mish-mash.
rashka
01-02-2013, 04:44 AM
These weren't people scratching crude drawings onto cave walls; the Cucuteni-Trypillians had settlements of comparable sizes (15,000 inhabitants) to Sumerian city states around 4000BC, well before the peak of Sumerian civilization. Proto-writing (Tartaria tablets, Gradeshnitsa tablets, Dispilio tablets), organized religion, and specialization of labour and tools were all present.
The Vinca culture is responsible for some of the world's earliest copper tools; they made sculptures of deities and mined raw metals, domesticated animals... they were the "Old European" contemporaries of the Fertile Crescent's booming organized farmers.
These cultures are a continuum of people outlined by Marija Gimbutas as being part of "Old Europe" (Pre-IE); who pioneered the Kurgan hypothesis for IE expansion.
They left behind a pretty sizable archaeological record compared to a lot of other European Neolithic cultures we only have fragments of.
They were also wearing mini skirts and fancy blouses!
Gospodine
01-04-2013, 08:13 PM
Can a nomadic or semi nomadic community be xenophobic?
Maybe xenophobic was the wrong word but they are fiercely resistant to subjugation and repression and with that comes a certain lack of willingness to centralize power.
I mean look at the Mongols before Genghis united them. You had 10 confederations who warred with one another for hundreds of years (Genghis himself was captured and enslaved by a rival clan as a child).
As soon as Genghis and Ogedei die (and he could have easily been murdered but we'll never know), all of his descendants break off a piece of the empire for themselves and appoint all of their team mates to positions of power.
If steppe nomads ever do come together to unite against another regional power it only lasts for a brief period time before they fragment due to a lack of central organization.
I guess I was trying to say that a nomadic way of life favours self-reliance and a lot of the time, isolation as well, which sort of leads to a difficult transition to something like a theocratic monarchy/republic, like that of Rome or the Caliphate for instance.
They don't surround themselves with walls and live in buildings but travel all the time.
They meet people from all races and cultures.A black person or blond person is familiar to them .
They transfer or modify cultures,tend to be less conservative and less dogmatic.
Am I right?
I agree with all that.
There is something very egalitarian and merit-based about a steppe nomad culture. Which is what made them so attractive to all the legions of people who joined them as the Xiongnu/Huns moved West towards Europe or as the Mongols marched to Baghdad.
Almost all of the major ones throughout history have been highly multi-ethnic, and to a lesser degree multi-faith as well.
The other thing I wanted to mention in relation to Balkan/Turkish pre-history is that there is a tendency in both Turkey and the South Slavic nations to totally disregard the history of both regions prior to the arrival of the Turks and Slavs respectively.
Supposedly because the Oghuz/Gokturk/Pechengs and Slavs are a more "glorious", noble and admirable group of people (I have no clue as to why, but I'm guessing because of their military successes against traditionally stronger powers) and because their influence was far more geographically pronounced (at least linguistically) people tend to focus on them to a greater degree as if both areas never amounted to anything before these people showed up.
The fact of the matter is the Slavs and Turks both exploited a power vacuum in the regions they entered and simply adopted almost everything that was already pre-existing, culturally, social and politically. Because they both came from that "nomadic" mindset they had no objections to inter-marrying with the much more numerous native populations and along with that, they had no objection to simply settling down and forgoing their semi-nomadic, pastoralist lifestyles.
They weren't even that great of a people when it come to military strategy prior to the AD era; I mean for at least a millenia the Slavs had always been kept beyond the Carpathians and Dnieper Basin by a Romano-Germanic-Iranic "wall" and the long before the Turkic tribes ever entered Central Asia it was Scythian, Sogdian, Persian and Helleno-Bactrian. Today the influences still remain in certain areas.
I don't get all this Slav-worship and Turk-worship in both regions. They were massively influential and technologically developed well before a bunch of horse-riders with bows and arrows showed up and taught them a new language basically.
That's why I don't get Pan-Turkism and Pan-Slavism because they're both based on the loosest possible definitions of cultural continuity, just so they can round up as many populations as possible in an attempt to counter-act the influence of traditionally-percieved enemies in the region be be they Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Russians, Germans, Albanians or the Catholic World.
They never started out with some noble intention of awakening the Slavic-speaking or Turkic-speaking world to realise their true history and ancestral roots; realisitically they both developed as Separatist/anti-Imperalistic political movements that strived for independence from larger superpowers. Pan-Turkism sought to diminish Czarist Russia's and later Stalinist Russia's influence on Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan and Pan-Slavism was principally against the Austro-Hungarians.
Turks should be far more conscious of pre-Turkic and Neolithic Anatolia and same goes for Balkan people, especially South Slavic ethnic groups.
There's nothing remotely undeserving of admiration in the Assyrians, Hurrians, Urartians, Hittites, Anatolian Indo-Europeans and in all of the Neolithic Balkan cultures I mentioned.
These are fantastically innovative and important cultures as well; some of them superpowers in their own right well before anyone had ever heard of the Turkic or Slavic invaders. Ignoring them in favour of romanticizing a bunch of militaristic horse riders is just pure superficiality; everybody wants to be associated with and pretend to descend from warriors, glorious empires, fierce noble savages whose neighbours feared them.
Bullshit. Civilised specialization of labour, development of large, self-sustaining settlements, domestication of animals and a mastery of tools and pioneering language and writing is just as important as raping and pillaging to the human psyche.
Why does history have to be like a cheesy Hollywood film?
Siberian Cold Breeze
01-04-2013, 09:57 PM
Why does history have to be like a cheesy Hollywood film?
Thank you for long answer i prefer to read carefully before answering because there are things I agree and things I don't esp the ones -only but a theory a bunch of horsemen came and taugt language is highly eurocenterist one with no real proof (they tend to underestimate nomadic people),other one is why I should be interested in Urartu Hitit etc ,they have nothing appealing for me ,not my origin not my ,history not my language May be interest of some people for their artistic value and archelogical reasons but not mine..Same goes for Egypt.. Also I am not a fan of civilisations, means nothing but enslavement of nature to me .
Besides I am quite sleepy I can make mistakes.
Gospodine
01-04-2013, 10:25 PM
other one is why I should be interested in Urartu Hitit etc ,they have nothing appealing for me ,not my origin not my ,history not my language
Well firstly because they all geographically spanned Anatolia, secondly because modern-day Turks likely descend in part from them and thirdly because they were advanced civilizations in their own right (even more-so than the Turkic tribes that came to Anatolia if we look at people like the Assyrians).
I think my point still stands. Anatolia is more than simply Turkic tribes and the Balkans is more than simply Slavic invaders.
I'm honestly getting sick of hearing the words Turk and Slav on here. What do they even mean?
Compare a Kyrgyz to a guy from Izmir or a Belorussian to a Macedonian. Not only will they not be able to communicate, they won't look anything like each other and culturally they'll be world's apart.
People wouldn't consider it acceptable to generalize all the Neo-Latin countries in Europe as one big group or all of South and Central America, when really you can from a historical perspective, but it's okay to just see millions of Slavs and Turks as a giant monolithic block of "oneness".
It's stupid.
Siberian Cold Breeze
01-05-2013, 12:14 AM
Well firstly because they all geographically spanned Anatolia, secondly because modern-day Turks likely descend in part from them and thirdly because they were advanced civilizations in their own right (even more-so than the Turkic tribes that came to Anatolia if we look at people like the Assyrians).
I think my point still stands. Anatolia is more than simply Turkic tribes and the Balkans is more than simply Slavic invaders.
I'm honestly getting sick of hearing the words Turk and Slav on here. What do they even mean?
Compare a Kyrgyz to a guy from Izmir or a Belorussian to a Macedonian. Not only will they not be able to communicate, they won't look anything like each other and culturally they'll be world's apart.
People wouldn't consider it acceptable to generalize all the Neo-Latin countries in Europe as one big group or all of South and Central America, when really you can from a historical perspective, but it's okay to just see millions of Slavs and Turks as a giant monolithic block of "oneness".
It's stupid.
Seems like you are repeating same
But you forget that language ,history , culture and DNA is not same thing..Flesh and bones do not carry the knowledge of life..Cultural heritage do.
We may be evolved differently from Kırgız in time (because we are one of Turkic tribe ,Kırgız another ,my tribe is not Kırgız )
That is the fate of most nomadic tribes .They end up geographically distant places ,India ,Afghanistan ,China ..That doesn't mean I will replace it with nearest one..We are not Chinese ,we didn't settle same area for thousand years Even China is made up different ethnicities,also two main dialect ,Cantonese can't understand Mandarin .Cantonese is not Chinese?
Our history has a beginning and a route ,like a river or a tree ..
So i m interested in the origin of my culture.Especially my folk culture is Turkic, not Hitit ,Urartu or some other prehistoric dead Anatolian culture.People came here with their music ,literature ,proverbs ,food preparing methods created an offshoot of CA.Turkic lifestyle. .A complete cultural treasure of centuries ,we inherited..I can trace them back to CA..
The other one takes me to some prehistoric graveyard ..dead end..
Durrerque
01-09-2013, 11:09 PM
Greece, Sicily, only some parts of Italy (Calabria, Basilicata, and to some part Tuscany), only some parts of the Balkans (Such as Bulgaria and Albania, although most would not pass so easily) and Spain and Portugal (due to it being a mostly wholly Mediterranean country).
Pleurat
08-28-2013, 12:54 PM
They do not fit as a whole in any of the countries above.
WOOHP
08-28-2013, 03:54 PM
Lol Anatolians don't fit in France or Ukraine, how can you even put these options when not even Balkanites have a clear and significant overlap with them?
Greece mainly. Some Balkanites too probably.
Hellenas
08-29-2013, 03:11 AM
No, it's not the same. Christian Turk refugees from Anatolia arrived in Greece in the early 1900's and are now assimilated and are considered a part of the Greek ethnos.
What a bunch of crap by the anti-Greek Fyromian Greek-Macedonian wannabe. The 1900's refugees from the Greek colonies of Asia Minor were Greeks not "Christian Turks", that's just a propaganda of Fyromians and Turks as well, of the two anti-Greek allies. Turkey is 15% mongoloid genetically, the average Turk is 7% mongoloid genetically and the Greeks are only 0,2%(UNDER ZERO) mongoloids=Turks. In case Greeks were mixed with Turks we should be mongoloids, but we are not as well. Greeks are clean from Turkish blood, go read some genetics you moron liar.
Anatolian Turkish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries.
Principal component (PC) analysis reveals a significant overlap between Turks and Middle Easterners and a relationship with Europeans and South and Central Asians;
For example, supervised STRUCTURE (K= 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42-49), 40% European (95% CI, 36-44) and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13-16), whereas at K= 4 the genetic ancestry of the Turks was 38% European (95% CI, 35-42), 35% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 33-38), 18% South Asian (95% CI, 16-19) and 9% Central Asian (95% CI, 7-11).
www.khazaria.com/genetics/anatolian-turks.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x/abstract
http://hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/93/turks-40-59-3-europeans#ixzz2dKHluw00
THE DNA OF THE INHABITANTS OF GREECE
(by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
Author: Constantinos Triantafyllidis *
4. Origins of the Neolithic Greece
In addition, the Y chromosome DNA of Greeks was investigated by 6 different research groups relating 925 men. From a thorough study of the data revealed that the genetic composition of the Greeks at a rate of 99.5% are Caucasians (white). The contribution to the genetic makeup of of the Greeks from other groups (blacks or Mongolians) is of a minimal percentage (less than 0.5%).
* Emeritus Professor of Genetics and Human Genetics - Department of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
http://hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/44/updated-dna-inhabitants-greece#ixzz2dKN7Z4pX
Greek refugees from Asia Minor always were referred by official sources as Greeks(colonizers from mainland Greece), never as "Turks".
http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n606/Hellenas1977/Hellas1/AsiaMinorGreeks2.jpg
Original Asia Minor Greeks.
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/mikrasiates-serron-xania.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/epi1.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/epidavros-mikras/epi2.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes00.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes2.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes1.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes3.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes4.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes5.jpg
http://mikrasiatis.gr/wp-content/gallery/rizes2013/rizes9.jpg
Modern Asia Minor Greeks.
"Greek refugees is a collective term used to refer to the Greeks from Asia Minor who were evacuated or relocated in Greece following the Treaty of Lausanne and the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_refugees
"The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey (Greek: Ç ÁíôáëëáãÞ, Turkish: Mübadele) was based upon religious identity, and involved the Greek Orthodox citizens of Turkey and the Muslim citizens of Greece. It was a major compulsory population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
Never a Turk became a Greek, as the punishment to change your religion and to become from a moslem a christian was death, that was the Ottoman law as well. As for rapes, something that many band, well, a Greek girl that raped by a Turk had two choices, 1:commit a suicide, 2:kill the baby, so much patriots the Greeks used to be back then and the Turks faced by the Greeks as the devil faced by fanatic christians, they were the evil. From the other hand the Turks Ottomanized almost the whole Greek-Byzantine population of Asia Minor and they always used to steal small Greek children by turning them to Jenissaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary . Western coastal Turks for the most part are turkified ancient Hellenes in fact(Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians). Also you must know that when someone throw out of his mouth the word 'turkic' he mean mongoloid-turanid as well.
As for the 'Turks', they are mixed with us, not we with them...
Genetic composition of the Greeks.
(A research by USA's Stanford & Italy's Pavia universities)
"From Greece analyzed the genetic makeup of 143 men. Particular attention was Investigation of haplogroups E and J of chromosome Y. We transmitted our genetic code and the rest of Europe. Of particular importance is the fact that the investigation had not revealed mongolic source of the DNA of the Greeks. That is important, because the Turks had occupied Greece for 400 years and everyone expected that there would be some relationship to the DNA of the two peoples. And, yet, has not affected one iota. With 400 years of slavery we expected that there would be some Mongolian signature. Not found something and not just talking about a study talking about the results of other 7 studies, several researchers who make this result. Specifically, 925 Samples of Greek men, shows that only 0.4% of Greeks are not Caucasian. It does not change it for anything. The Greeks are Caucasian race".
http://hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/70/updated-dna-greeks-clean
Hellenas
08-29-2013, 03:17 AM
exactly..such as Karamanlides...they were simply grandsons of Turkopoles (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50243&langid=3), the christian Turkish warriors of byzantine empire.
The turkophone Karamanlides were/are Greeks.
Karamanlides
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Karamanli_wedding_ceremony.jpg
The Karamanlides (Greek: ÊáñáìáíëÞäåò; Turkish: Karamanlılar), or simply Karamanlis (Also referred to as Cappadocian Greeks or Greeks of Cappadocia), are a Greek Orthodox, Turkish-speaking people native to the Karaman and Cappadocia regions of Anatolia. Today, a majority of the population live within Greece, though there is a notable diaspora in Western Europe and North America.
Karamanlides is an umbrella term used to describe all Greek Orthodox Christians in Central Anatolia who had adopted Turkish as their primary language. It is derived from the 13th century Beylik of Karaman. They were the first Turkish kingdom to adopt Turkish as its official language and originally the term would only describe the inhabitants of the town of Karaman or from the region of Karaman. Since there is no significant presence of established Christians in the area, the title is now most often used as a label for the local Muslim inhabitants.
Language
Historically, the Karamanlides adopted and spoke a dialect of the Turkish language. Its vocabulary drew overwhelmingly from Turkic words with only minimal Greek loan words. The language should not be confused with Cappadocian Greek, which was spoken in the same region during the same timeframe, but is derived from the Greek language. It should be noted while their spoken language was Turkish, they employed the Greek alphabet to write it.
Origins
The second theory states that Karamanlides are the direct descendants of Greek-speaking Byzantines. Despite their linguistic Turkification, they maintained their Greek Orthodox faith. This theory is also likely as 19th century linguists were able to travel through Karamanli-speaking regions of Cappadocia and document the few remaining Greek words that mostly elderly residents could remember. Hence the process of Turkification was documented.
Nonetheless, in the age of nationalism in the 19th century, most Karamanlides identified with a sense of Greekness as distinct from their fellow Turco-phone neighbours; largely resulting from their adherence to the Greek Orthodox Church.
Many Karamanlides were forced to leave their homes during the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karamanlides
http://hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/50/turkophone-karamanlides-greeks
alb0zfinest
08-29-2013, 03:18 AM
As a minority almost every ethnicity can overlap with one another because you always have a few odd individuals. That said, that is all that overlap, specific individuals, or almost a whole people but from a specific region from that country, almost never entire populations so I'm not sure what purpose these threads have?
Anyways on topic: Some western Turks can probably fit all over the Balkans, considering that some Turks have Balkan ancestry, and the overlap pretty much ends there.
Hadouken
08-29-2013, 12:59 PM
armenia and northern iran i would say
justme
09-11-2013, 08:28 PM
Western Turks...? Greece, Albania Armenia, Syria and Kosovo more like...
Ianus
09-11-2013, 08:42 PM
For me noone of this choices is right.
As someone who sees Bulgarians and Anatolian Turks daily, I can only laugh at 61 people.
Maleficent
09-12-2013, 11:13 PM
Realisticslly they look like Cypriots, Armenians, Kurds, and Levantines. In Europe, Bulgaria and Greece the most, Albania and Bosnia to a lesser extent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.