Why does Timuçin Binder have to accept Cavalli-Sforza's work? This sounds like a threat. Not very nice. I did not know that his work was a dogma, to be acepted without questions. In that case, what are we going to do with all those "western anthropologists" who are questioning his work? Especially in regards to the neolithic population movements that he claimed his work supports. At any rate, you probably have no access to Timuçin Binder's original article published in Virgül (December issue) where one of the works he uses to question the myth of the Central Asian migration is Cavalli-Sforza's.

You should probably check your sources or reread them with a critical eye. Considering what you wrote, I hardly think that you did enough reading. Mycenean would be better to use in connection with the disappearance of the Hittite state. By the way, they were not the only culture in Anatolia at that time. The tsunami argument is very creative, but, as someone has already mentioned, simply does not make sense.

the rum don't have different cultures or dialects.
Their dialects lean more to the ancient Greek.
That is because they were cut off from information and interaction with
greece nowadays, who did evolve in language.
You should check that the pontian (or rum) is more similar to ancient greek than
modern greek is.

and hittite doesn't have a single but not a single relation with turkishness.
Unfortunately, the turkisch media and gouvernment try to make a link with it.
Always on grounds of some incredible theories.

Alleges on Turkish and Hittite relations were given up nearly 5 decades ago. Unfortunately you're million light years away from this reality.

Have I mentioned such a connection? I don't think anyone is making such a link anymore. That is an old story. You should probably update.

However, it seems that one can make such a connection genetically by stating that both the Hittites and some sections of the Turkish population share ancestors or that the ancestors of the some people in Turkey were once Hittites. What can we do with this, I do not know, but it is possible to redefine Turkishness differently and make such a connection. For example, one may redefine it as such to include all those who share the same geographical past. Now that would probably not be an ethnic identity of the sort based on blood connection, but would it be unacceptable? It does make sense and it can be supported. How about that?

well, that is exactly what i mean.
Thus, Turkey is not a country formed only by Turks who came from central
asia. (these were actually a minority approx. 10 or 20 000)
The turks of turkey have genetically more in common with Greeks (for a great part), assyrians, armenians, kurds, "hittites", etc. then with Turks in central asia.
That is why i always refer to you as "cousins".

Ok, it is true that these people accepted the ideology of turkishness (whatever that may be, i'm not justified to judge over that matter)

The thing and the problem is that a lot of propaganda is (or was ?) being made
to erase greek (or yunan or rum it is the same) traces from the territory of Turkey, in order to prove a long history (even before Christ) of turkishness in what is turkey.

Pontian dances and music look much more similar to those of the Pontian Turks and Laz then they do those of mainland Greece wouldnt you agree? e.g. kemençe is used by Pontian Rum but it isnt used by mainland Greeks is it.

can you give examples of what you mean, like examples of Ancient Greek compared to modern Greek and Pontian dialect

It is quite naive to believe such a thing even in Turkey

In fact in 2003 Turkish TV together with some foreign help made a very good Hittite documentary - narrated by jeremy irons and Turkish actors playing in it. It depicts the typical life of Hittites - (shows their good relation with Greeks etc.)..in original costumes....and talks about Kommagene culture also if I am not mistaken (they were apparently Greeks - I hadn't known!)

And the actors indeed speak archaic Hittite lang. and it was shot in the places where Hittites actually lived. It's very good - about 2 hours.

http://www.thy.com/en-INT/skylife/archive/...3_7/konu3.htm#1



THE HITTITES
Hititler

Written and directed by Tolga Ornek

Narrated by Jeremy Irons

Cast: Yesim Alic, Haluk Bilginer, Sanem Celik, Gurhan Elmalioglu, Atilla Eroglu, Huseyin Koroglu, Fikret Kuskan, Burak Sergen, Cuneyt Turel

2003, 120 minutes. In English.

The grea-*test*-('") military and political power of its time...
The most formidable rival of the ancient Egyptians...
The missing cultural link between the ancient East and West...
A 3500-year-old civilization...
The empire that forever changed the landscape of the Near East and the world...



The Hittites...

Narrated by Academy Award winner Jeremy Irons and accompanied by an unforgettable musical score performed by the Prague Symphony Orchestra, The Hittites tells the story of a great empire, a -*test*-('")ament to one of the most dynamic and turbulent periods in human history: the Late Bronz Age, when the ancients lived by the words, "conquer or be conquered". Filmed in more than 100 days of principal photography in 40 locations across Asia, Europe and Africa with a gifted cast and crew of 400, it is the first feature-length film about this magnificent and mighty civilization. Based in Istanbul, skilled artisans and craftsmen built more than 23,000 props, models, costumes and sets, including a 1/40th scale model of Hattusa, the ancient Hittite capital, full-scale working chariots, and replicas of ancient statuary, pottery, armor and weaponry - making The Hittites one of the most ambitious and comprehensive documentary ever attempted.


Friday, November 26 at 9 p.m.
Saturday, November 27 at 7 p.m.

Harvard Film Archive, Main Auditorium
Carpenter Center for the Arts, Cambridge



“The Hittites” 35 mm documentary film about the Hittites, the first of ruler of Anatolia. The Hittites is the first documentary film to be released theatrically and has been seen by 78.000 people. Special screenings has been organised in ABD Los Angeles, Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institute, England British Museum, Australia Canberra, Japan Tokyo. The film has also been participated in international film festivals in Egypt-Ismailiye, Holland-Amsterdam, Italy-Rovereto.

Hetites? PLease...

Its the same thing saying that Greeks have pelasgian "blood" or prohellenic genes in them...

If you are commenting about my post, I did not write about any “blood” connection. In fact, I am not talking about connections at all, but the possibility of forming any kind connection if wanted.

The ethnic identities and ideologies become possible when people start believing that the other one is very different. People imagine them. Both connections and separations or supposed discontinuities are thought by people, nobody can show that they exist physically. They exist because this is how the people or rather some people, which happen to be the majority nowadays, want to see the reality.

The genetic studies show clearly that the supposedly very different Turks are actually very similar to their neighbors genetically. This of course does not mean that they should immediately start feeling like brothers and sisters, but it does show that the claim which finds support on both sides that the people of Turkey are not from this area is not true. Nor, do genetic studies show that the people of Turkey are ex-Greeks or ex-something else. Some of their ancestors may have been Greeks hundreds of years ago, but some of their other ancestors (in fact even in the same genealogical line) may have been Persians or Hittites or Armenians or even from some neolithic tribe. We simply cannot stop at some point down the line and say this is it. That would bring us back to the same sort of ethnic nationalism. Personally speaking, I have no intention of exchanging one ethnic nationalism for another one.

So, according to the genetic studies, if the animosity between Turks and Greeks is going to continue then it will have to be based on a different argument, something that makes more sense.

The point you're again and again missing is, Turkey gave up creating a long history of Turks (even before Christ) in Anatolia 50-60 years ago.

But bukefalos is quite on the mark, dome.

Since ancient times the Aegean had always formed the core of the Greek world, and the colonies on the western coast of Asia Minor were an extension of it. We’re talking about the 7th century BC, and during this period Greek colonization didn’t involve conquest but the settlement of vacant lands along the coast, since we founded new cities. Also, ancient Greek political culture centered around the polis, or city-state (with the notable exception of the ancient Macedonians) and they didn't venture much into the interiors. To use a modern equivalent, ancient Greek colonization would have resembled the settlement of North America and not South America, since the ancient Greeks were especially a prejudicial bunch whom didn’t like mixing much with outsiders. There was even reluctance to allow the ancient Macedonians, whom had a realm rather than a polis, to compete in the ancient Olympic games, whose participation extended to all the Greek colonies around the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Also. the Athenians supported the Ionian revolt so to liberate their “Ionian brethren”, which eventually prompted the Persians to “teach” the Greeks a lesson. And after the victories against the Persians, Ionia became part of the Athenian-controlled Delian League, a purely Greek alliance.

As for after Alex’s conquests and the Hellenistic Age that followed in his wake with further Greek settlement there also came the Hellenizaton of eastern peoples. But by that time the western and northern coasts of Asia Minor and its hinterlands would have become solid Greek areas anyway. The Hellenization of Asia Minor’s interior, specifically speaking of Galatia and Cappadocia wasn’t even complete until the 2nd century AD. Ironically, they were the first regions of Anatolia to be conquered and settled by the Seljuks after 1071.

Before anyone misconstrues my post as an assertion of a pure and untouched Greek bloodline, I’m not claiming that a Greek-speaker living on Zeugma on the Euphrates in the 6th century AD would be able to trace his lineage directly back to Greece proper. The further east you got from the Aegean the more likely you would find Hellenized people rather then original Greeks. Even during the middle Byzantine period, Slavic invaders in the Greek mainland were settled in Bithynia, and in turn Greeks from Asia Minor were settled in their place in Greece. An interesting point, the famous hero of medieval Greek folklore, Digenis Akritas, got his first name as he was born of a Saracen father and Greek mother. So of course we would have mixed with others. But in the historic, linguistically and cultural sense all Greek centres, may it be the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, still fall under the umbrella of Greek history proper. So it can’t be so easily assumed the Greeks in Asia Minor were completely absorbed by others upon settlement in the BC period and Hellenization during the early AD period.

According to Britannica 1973 edition, the Celtic settlers of Galatia.

I wouldn’t consider 20,000 Celts as having a major impact on the overall demographic make-up of Asia Minor after the region was Hellenized.

As we know, the Greek world expanded then retracted, and in that entire time the stronghold of Greeks in Asia Minor had always been the west coast and Pontus, where they remained in considerable numbers until 1922.

So as we're supposed to believe, the mainland Greeks today are descendents of Slavs and Albanians, those of Asia Minor from the Phrygians and Lydians, and yet amazingly there are no real distinct ethnic or racial characteristics dividing Greeks from the mainland or the refugees from Asia Minor, or even Crete, the Ionians Islands or Cyprus for that matter. Bottom line is Modern Greek development is in complete contrast to that of today’s Turks, which I suppose is the real argument here.

History is not your strongpoint, Raven. Indeed, to be brutally honest, you seem to be making up things as you go. Like this for example:

Well, actually to say that there was “some settlement” is naïve, or in this instance more political IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I read what you post I’m under the impression that in an indirect way you’re trying to claim that in Anatolia there was always the one central race/races (your ref to “aboriginals”) who simply became Greek when the Greeks came and then became Turks when the Turks arrived (a bit of genetic chameleons). As I read it, therefore the Greeks of Asia Minor should historically be disassociated with the modern Greeks and considered as “Anatolian” and therefore associated with modern Turks.

So basically, what you’re stating is that when the Seljuks overran the interior of Asia Minor, they only came as organizers and not as settlers. Not a very convincing argument. To be honest, it’s quite silly.

From Britannica:

The Seljuk invasion caused pandemonium as the old order was thrown into disarray. So it wasn’t exactly business as usual and others did arrive with the Seljuks. The Danishmends, for example, set up a principality in Melitene, modern name Malatya, during the 12th century. But most importantly, after the Seljuks there was considerable movement of peoples. One good example is Armenians fleeing the Seljuks settling in Cilicia and founding the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia.

The Ottomans, your recognizable ancestors, belonged to the Oghuz tribe, so the Crimean Tartars were not the only Turkic tribe to settle Asia Minor, as you claim.

The Medieval Greek Empire at Trapezountas would have no doubt been the dominant culture of the region (hence why they spoke Greek and not Lazari or Turkish), so the argument is the Greeks would have introduced it to the Laz then the other way around, especially since the Pontian kementzes would have developed from the ancient Greek lyra.

A varient of it is found in Crete:


Now this screen shot is interesting...



...they're Griko musicians from Southern Italy. Notice what the the chap on the bottom right is holding.

I couldn't find much info on the origins of the Calabrian lira, but what I did stated it’s an "ancient instrument" and "unique" to Calabria.

Also notice next to him is a bagpipe, which the Pontians use:



It's also found in the Dodecanese:



Their origins are from the ancient Greek askavlo.


Raven, are you getting the gist of my post?