The ethnicity of modern Turks - Historum

Niki86 · December 14th, 2012, 03:08 AM

I've heard several people in this forum say that modern Turks are not the same thing as Oghuz Turks who came from Central Asia but rather made up by various peoples who were turkified and islamicized. However they still seem to have a big percentage of mongoloid genes according to some genetics tests (around 10%). What's your opinion on this?

Ayazid · December 14th, 2012, 03:47 AM

There are some other threads in which this topic has been already discussed, particularly this one: Numbers of migrating Turks into Anatolia

Now, there is no agreement among historians concerning the Central Asian element among modern Anatolian population. Non-Turkish authors are generally more skeptical and consider Turks to be mainly pre-Turkic in origin, whereas the Turkish ones incline to the opposite view.

A Turkish author's opinion:

Quote:

Western and Turkish historians disagree over various questions concerning the ethnic and demographic change which occurred with the settlement of the Turks in Anatolia. The most important of these is the demographic number of these new Anatolians. The second is the question of whether these Turks were entirely or only in part nomads. Both western and Turkish historians have investigated the arrival and settlement of the Turkomans in Anatolia in two phases: before and after the Mongol invasion. In the first phase, which begins with the battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt), the Turkomans flowed en masse into Anatolia and began to settle. Not all of those who came were nomads, for among them were Muslim Turks who had become urbanised while in Central Asia. When these people arrived they settled in the towns in Anatolia and continued to pursue their professions there. Even in this early period the Turkish population quickly began to reach a majority in relation to the local population in Anatolia. In the second phase, which began with the Mongol invasions, a mass of nomads arrived from the regions of Transoxania, Khorasm, Azerbaijan and Erran. Many urbanised Turks arrived, too, fleeing together with the nomadic population before the Mongols and taking refuge in Anatolia. This period coincides with the reigns of Izzeddin Keykavus I and Alaeddin Keykubad I.

It has been suggested that the Turks came to Anatolia at a date much earlier than the battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt). Some western historians, however, such as Claude Cahen, have adopted a more cautious approach. They accept that in the first phase the Turks in Anatolia, while not yet reaching a figure greater than that of the local population, did attain fairly large numbers, but agree that the Turkish demographic superiority over the local population occurred and increased in particular after the Mongol invasion, that is, beginning in the first quarter of the thirteenth century.

The fact that western sources began to refer to Anatolia as ‘Turchia’ after the third crusade of 1189 led by Frederick Barbarossa indicates that Anatolia had by now become a Turkish region and that a process of ‘Turkification’ and, of course, parallel with this, one of ‘Islamisation’, had begun there. There is no doubt that this was a process begun by the Turkoman, whose numbers gradually increased, particularly in the rural areas, although the towns also had a share in this process. We are not in a position to give precise figures today for the numbers of the Turkish population in Anatolia in the invasion and settlement period or for the local population, and there is no great likelihood that we will be able to in the future. If we possessed the tahrir defterleri (survey registers) which no doubt existed in the Seljuk period, as was noted above, we would be in a position to provide such figures. However, although we do not have definitive data for the non-Muslim population being smaller than the Turkish population, particularly before the Mongol invasion, it is certain that after this invasion the Turkish population slowly rose, overtaking that of the non-Muslims, to attain demographic superiority. (p. 362-64)

The Cambridge History of Turkey vol. I Byzantium to Turkey 1071-1453 (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

ThePharaoh · December 14th, 2012, 07:05 AM

Only Turks of Inner Anatolian region have central Asian origins more than any other DNA in Turkey , and it is declining every passing day. Turks are maybe most mixed nation in the world along with North Americans . Greek, Armenian ,Kurdish , Mongol , Slavic , Natiove Anatolians ( hittite , Trojans) Celts , Georgian , Circassian etc.. I myseld am a mixture of Georgian , Circassian , Caucasion Turk ( Kipchak) and Laz

Savaran · December 14th, 2012, 12:15 PM

very few of Turks of Turkey are actually Turks. rest of them Islamized and Turkified (during atatürk era) Anatolians, Greeks, Armenians, Iranians, Slavs, Circassians, Arabs, Kelts, and even Indians.

Quote:

At an Afshar village whose oral stories tell they come from Central Asia they found that 57% come from haplogroup L, 13% from haplogroup Q, 3% from haplogroup N thus indicating that the L haplogroups in Turkey are of Central Asian heritage rather than Indian, although these Central Asians would have gotten the L markers from the Indians from the beginning. These Asian groups add up to 73% in this village. Furthermore 10% of these Afshars were E3a and E3b. Only 13% were J2a, the most common haplogroup in Turkey.

Ozan Arif is most nationalist singer (no doubt) of Turkey.

koseku · December 14th, 2012, 03:25 PM

my mother's surname is "Nişli" mean someone from "Niş"(a serbian city) but she is from Giresun(blacksea), my father is from Kırşehir(middle anatolia) my dad says they came from tabriz, azerbaijani iran many years ago. its just too fixed

because of ottoman empire's collapse

pnoozi · December 15th, 2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niki86

I've heard several people in this forum say that modern Turks are not the same thing as Oghuz Turks who came from Central Asia but rather made up by various peoples who were turkified and islamicized. However they still seem to have a big percentage of mongoloid genes according to some genetics tests (around 10%). What's your opinion on this?

The number of different groups that have populated Anatolia at one point or another is mind-blowing. Celts and Greeks come to mind. I find it fascinating.

**Efendi** · December 15th, 2012, 11:21 PM

Turks are mixture between Levant, Balkans, Caucassia...and many others, Thanks to our geographic position and our empiral past, Ottomans, Roman empires, and few others.

gavinlee · December 16th, 2012, 01:24 AM

Every ethnic group in the world is a mixture of every ethnic group in the world. All humans originated from Africa.

This is about the size of every ethnic origin question.

koseku · December 16th, 2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavinlee

Every ethnic group in the world is a mixture of every ethnic group in the world. All humans originated from Africa.

This is about the size of every ethnic origin question.

Turkey is built on Ottoman Empire's ashes. so it has all kind of race gens that Ottoman Empire's largest borders had. people migrated from there to Anatolia. other countries like Bulgaria, Romania has more specific race gens according to Turkey i think.

**Efendi** · December 16th, 2012, 10:03 AM

There is a willage named Polonez köy. Once a time there settled Polish people who migrated from Poland. There are many other willages where Polish melted amongst Turks.

There is a big family lineage in somewhere south east Anatolia named Macaroğulları. Hungarian-son. They migrated from Hungary, today they live like local Kurds. They have an Hungarian armour in the house.

There are black Turks in Muğla who migrated from Africa. It is unfortunate that they didnt have contrubution to Turkish culture.

Turkey has interesting geographical position, in the centre of the world where atract many people of many ethnicity in Its pot. Balkans, European, Slavs, Levants, Caucassians, Africans, Central Assians.... ....