“Well, Byzanthium was just the name of the city, and Greek was the official tongue of the empire. But is it enough to make a whole empire built on the basis of Roman Empire Greek? Byzanthines have never called themselves Greeks, but Rhumoi, Roman. Anatolia was called "Rum" by Muslims, meaning "Rome". Just like the Ummayads called Al-Andulus so.”
It is true that Rums of the Byzantine Empire did not see themselves as Greeks or Hellenes. Interestingly, the Ottomans did not see themselves as Turks, either. Under these conditions, it really doesn’t make any sense to use our present-day ethnic identities in order to understand and explain what went on in the medieval Anatolia. However, this also doesn’t mean that there are no connections. I would like to remind you that those Romans, meaning Rums, that you assume do not exist any longer are still living with us. Even if we completely deny any connection between Rums of Byzantium and the present-day Greeks, we cannot deny that there is a group of people who still go by the name Rum in Turkey. Although very few of them is left now, we don’t call them Yunan (Greeks), but Rum (Romans). So, even if we stick to your argument, we cannot deny the fact that there is a group of people today who still go by the same identity and that historically we can link this group to the Rums of Byzantium. Furthermore, since nobody and no group exists in some kind of historical and cultural vacuum, this group that we call Rums is connected on the one hand to the present day Greeks because of language, culture and religion and on the other hand to the present day Turks because of culture, geographical closeness and having been living together for centuries.
[QUOTE] The genetic make-up of Anatolia does give the impression that it might not have been massive at all. [/QUOTE]
It was massive. And it continued until the Battle of Ankara (1402).
How can you be so sure, when you cannot really present a single shred of evidence to support your case other than some myths? I, on the other hand, can present some studies to back up my argument. For example, one study on Anatolian genes, titled Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia, states that “[a]nalysis of 89 biallelic polymorphisms in 523 Turkish Y chromosomes revealed 52 distinct haplotypes with considerable haplogroup substructure, as exemplified by their respective levels of accumulated diversity at ten short tandem repeat (STR) loci. The major components (haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1; 94.1%) are shared with European and neighboring Near Eastern populations and contrast with only a minor share of haplogroups related to Central Asian (C, Q and O; 3.4%), Indian (H, R2; 1.5%) and African (A, E3*, E3a; 1%) affinity” (127). The article also have the following discussion on the genetic influence of Turkish speakers (my apologies for a long quote):
“Various estimates exist of the proportion of gene flow associated with the arrival of Central Asian Turkic speaking people to Anatolia. One study based on analyses of six STR loci in 88 Y-chromosomes from Turkey suggested only a 10% contribution (Rolf et al. 1999). Another study
suggests roughly 30% based upon mtDNA control region sequences and one binary and six STR Y-chromosome loci analyzed in 118 Turkish samples (Di Benedetto et al. 2001). While it is likely that gene flow between Central Asia and Anatolia has occurred repeatedly throughout prehistory, uncertainties regarding source populations and the number of such episodes between Central Asia and Europe confound any assessment of the contribution of the 11th century AD Oghuz nomads responsible for the Turkic language replacement. These new Y-chromosome data provide candidate haplogroups to differentiate lineages specific to the postulated source populations, thus
overcoming potential artifacts caused by indistinguishable overlapping gene flows. The best candidates for estimations are Asian-specific haplogroups C-RPS4Y (Wells et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2003) and O3-M122 (Su et al. 2000). These lineages occur at 1.5% in Turkey (8/523). Using Central Asian Y-chromosome data from either 13 populations and 149 samples (Underhill et al. 2000) or 49 populations and 1,935 samples (Wells et al. 2001) where these diagnostic lineages occur at 33% and 18%, respectively, their estimated contributions range from 0.0153/0.329×100=4.6% to 0.0153/0.180×100=8.5%. During the Bronze Age the population of Anatolia expanded, reaching an estimated level of 12 million during the late Roman Period (Russell 1958). Such a large pre-existing Anatolian population would have reduced the impact by the subsequent arrival of Turkic speaking Seljuk and Osmanlı groups from Central Asia. Although the genetic legacy of Anatolia remains somewhat inchoate, our excavations of these new levels of shared Y-chromosome heritage and subsequent diversification provide new clues to Anatolian prehistory, as well as a substantial foundation for comparisons with other populations. Our results demonstrate Anatolia’s role as a buffer between culturally and genetically distinct populations, being both an important source and recipient of gene flow” (135).
I could present a couple more studies on the subject, but I see no need at the moment. The studies give the impression that there was no massive displacement of the Anatolian population in the 11th century. On the other hand, I should add that we cannot say these results are conclusive as far as getting to the exact figures and interpreting these figures are concerned. However, it is clear that it is very difficult to support the interpretation that the present day Anatolian population is mainly Turkic, that is, Central Asian. This is the genetic front. The situation doesn’t change much when we go to the historical studies, either, since so far there has been nothing suggesting that there was a massive population displacement. It seems that the Turks of Anatolia need to be classified in a different category.
The Turks did not displace the people of Anatolia upon their arrival and throughout the Seljuk and Ottoman Empire.
Most of the "Turks" in Turkey today Turkified Anatolians to a major extent and Muhacirs from the Balkans,Crimea and the Caucasus to a minor extent.
So,Anatolia only its native population with exchange population of the Greeks to Greece and the massacres of the Armenians and Assyrians.
The Turkic people who conquered Anatolia,were small in numbers,but superior in warfare.
So Islamization was the Turkifying key.But it should be remembered that people did not recognize themselves by ethnicity in the Ottoman Empire,but religion,the millet system.So since Muslims were taking direct orders from the Sultan,the Turkish language was acquired.Though not all Anatolian Muslims spoke Turkish or Osmanli.
The word Turk was not used by the Ottomans but foreigners saw them as "Turks" including in the Balkans where converting to Islam means you have "turned Turk".Turk was a derogatary word used to the peasants in Anatolia who were uncivilized and wild(among the Ottomans).
It was with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,did the identity "Turk" really came alive.As citizen of the Republic of Turkey.
Just something to think about: We seem to assume that today's ethnic identites were around a thousand years ago. For example, we keep mentioning a group called Turks, but there is no such a group since none of the Turkish groups used this term. Therefore, we should probably drop this term and not use it until it did become a term used by Turkish speakers.
What I find interesting in this argument is that once we quit using this term in describing the arrival of the Turks, then we may realize that what we have is birth of a new group called Turks. In other words,what arrived in Anatolia in 1071 were not Turks, but various groups and tribes; these groups and people became Turks after they arrived in Anatolia.
The first ever Turkic people to arrive in Anatolia were peoples under the Seljuk Empire which is a confederation of Turkic tribes of the Oghuz branch of Turkic peoples.
After the Seljuk Empire came to an end,the tribes under it started forming their own principalities of which,the Sogut(If I'm not mistaken,this is their original name)tribe which was to be renamed Osmanli became the dominant tribe which became known to the world as the Ottoman Empire.
I am a bit sceptic. We know that groups of people arrived in Anatolia at that time and we know that some of these people spoke some form of Turkish. But do we really know that these were Turkic peoples? We may say some Turkic language speaking tribes or tribal groups arrived. There were also many individuals. Perhaps in the beginning the number of the individuals were more than the number of people who arrived in some form of a tribal structure.
By the way, I wouldn't see the Seljuk Empire as a confederation of Turkic tribes of the Oghuz branch. The Seljuks were Oghuz, but they did not organize their empire on such a basis. Likewise, not all the principilaties that came later were tribal. Although it is assumed that the Ottomans were from the Kayı branch of Oghuz, we do not really know if this information is correct. We do not even know that we could define them as an Oghuz tribe.
What these people called themselves is important. If they didn't see themselves as Turks then we cannot say that they were Turks. If those who arrived in Anatolia didn't think themselves as Turks then Turks didn't arrive in Anatolia. Just because these people spoke some form of Turkish and that there is a country called Turkey in the same land that these people arrived in a thousand years ago does not make these people Turkish. Turkishness is a cultural construct. It cannot exist before it is constructed. Likewise, there are no Turks before Turkishness is constructed culturally.
PS. Can I ask why you are interested in Turkish or rather Turkic history?
Well,I'm intrested in Turkey's ancient,Roman,Byzantine,Ottoman and modern story because it's all very colourful,very intresting.Some important things happened.
Anatolia being a crossroad of east and west,home to over a dozen civilizations.That's more than something to look at,to talk about and to discover.
By the way,foreigners are the ones who called these Muslim people who invaded Anatolia as Turks.Cant remember who was it who called the Ottoman Empire "Turchia".The Greeks say Turkokratia which meant "rule of Turks".
And if you know,in the Balkans,among Balkanian during the Ottoman era,becoming a Muslim means you "turned Turk".
Slobodan Milosevic even once said "the Muslims are dirty Turks who breed like rabbit and should be sent back to Mecca".
Also,foreigners even called the Ottoman Empire territory as Turkey.
Then I realised,Turkey means land of Turks,and foreigner saw them as Turks.
One to thing to remember,the word Turk is a derogatory word in the Ottoman Empire.
Got to remember that the language of the Ottomans were a mixture of Turkish,Arabic and Persian.They may have acquired Persian and Arab,due to their long stay in Persia and then Arabia.Not only that,the culture that the Seljuks brought and the ottoman imposed were also Arabic and Persian mixture.
The Seljuk thing,about them being a confederation,I got that from a book.
In the Seljuks there were principalities like Karaman,Kermiyan and others.
So I got most of these information from books I've read
Normally I wouldn't be this late answering a post, but this week has been extremely busy for me.
I agree with you on your statement that it was the foreigners who called the Muslim people who invaded Anatolia Turks. It is really difficult to tell how many of them were Turks, though it is likely that quite many of them were Oghuz. However, we also know that in the beginning both Byzantines and Armenians called these newcomers Persians and Taciks(people living in north of Afghanistan and speaking an Iranian language). About the name Turchia, it seems that Italians were the ones who called Anatolia the land of Turks. It is possible that they were thinking politically here, not culturally.
I also agree with the meaning of the expression "turning Turk". Obviously for most people the term Turk was a religious/linguistic designation.
About the confederation argument, Seljuk rulers used to divide their realm between their sons and from time to time they had vassals. But they were not a confederation in the sense that they were made up of a bunch of tribes or even principilaties. There were different Turkic speaking/Muslim groups that existed together with the Seljuks, but these were not under the rule of the Seljuk rulers. For example, Danishmends, one of these groups, was situated in Tokat-Sivas area and fought the Seljuks for the control of Anatolia for many years. These were independent groups until their territories were conquered by the Seljuks. Karaman, Kermiyan and others of the same era appeared later in the second half of the 13th century, whereas the Danishmends and the first generation Muslim states appeared right after 1071 and lasted until nearly the end of the 12th century.The second generation political groups (principilaties) did acknowledge the political hegemony of the Seljuk state in some form and for a short period, but this seems to be because of the Mongol power behind the Seljuk state rather than the Seljuk power itself.
Aydin
Saruhan
Mentese
Kermiyan
Hamid
Tekke
Karesi
Kastamonu
Karaman
Danismend
Since the word Turk,for the Ottomans,were derogatory,which I've read meant as wild,uncivilized,ignorant,uncouthed person.
Though what is ironic,is that,from a book I read on Islamic history on the Seljuk Turks section,that as they went through Persia and Arabia,the story during those times and areas about them,their description of the Seljuks depicts them as wild barbarians.
I'll type that out from the book for you guys to read sometime later.