So as a hobby i like to learn a out small and obscure peoples/languages.Nowadays i discovered about this peculiar people, the Gagauz:>The Gagauz (/ɡəˈɡɔːz/; Gagauz: Gagauzlar) are an Oghuz Turkic ethnic group native to southern Moldova (Gagauzia, Taraclia District, Basarabeasca District) and southwestern Ukraine (Budjak)>Gagauz are mostly Eastern Orthodox ChristiansHow the fuck a turkish-speaking people found his way to Moldova? They claim to be descendant of either the old Bulgars, the Pecheneg, or the Cumana. But linguistic proofs seems to prove their language is related to anatolian turkish, so they likely claim from the southBut if this true, then why a turkish people would move from Anatolia, and switch to christianity tho? What a odd mystery
>>18412533>why a turkish people would move from Anatolia,moved around by the govt>and switch to christianity tho?to avoid death
>>18412536>moved around by the govtWhich one? They were already there in ottoman times (the earliest know self designation of the Gagauz was "Christian Bulgarians") and Moldavia was a mere ottoman client state >to avoid deathThe Ottomans forced them to convert to Christianity?
>>18412541>The Ottomans forced them to convert to Christianity?the advancing russian and balkanite armies
AFAIK they have little Turkic ancestry, most likely Turkified Christians
>>18412545As i said, historical sources confirm they were already there long before Russia was formed
>>18412533Genetically they are very close to eastern Bulgarians, so their ethnogenesis is likely similar (if not actually turkified eastern Bulgarians). Reminder that religious identity was more important than linguistic one in the Ottoman empire, them being "Christian Turks" or something is extremely unlikely. Turkification of locals scenario also explains the similarity of their language to Turkish more so than Tatar or Bulgar, although it is not entirely out of the realm of possibilty that they may have spoken such a language at some point in history. Still, Southeast Slavic is the most likely candidate for their pre-Ottoman ancestors' main language.
>>18412558Read his post again. Balkanites were extremely vicious to "turks" after they wrre freed from them, so a lot of local muslims converted.
>>18412533So basically they’re just Bulgarians in denial?
>>18412547They would derive their language from the Ottomans, so you would have to measure for Ottoman-like ancestry rather than "Turkic".
It seems they're just European LARPers.
>>18412533northern greeks and bulgarians that speak a strange langauge
>>18412533They're genetically more similar to Bulgarians than Turks. They're Turkic speaking Bulgarians.
>>18412773>They're Turkic speaking Bulgarians.But why would Bulgarians be Turkic-speaking?
>>18412807Wait till you find out about the Bulgars.
>>18412585As opposed to kidnapping Christian children, snipping their nuts off, forcing them to convert to Islam, and serve as front-line soldiers? >>18412807For real though, the steppe had a lot of migration going on. The Indo-Europeans first migrated across it to Asia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummiesYou may recall Atilla the Hun leading a group that migrated from Asia into Europe. Later the Mongols, Avars, Bulgars, and Seljuk Turks would do the same thing. Some would intermarry, and be indistinguishable from locals. Others are more distinguishable, like some Finns having the epicanthic fold from their 5%-ish Mongolian ancestry.
>>18412811>>18412821Bulgars, Huns spoke a completely different type of Turkish language, the Gagauz speak something close to Ottoman Turkish.
>>18412850I didn't say they were Huns, Bulgars, or anything really. Just pointed out there was a lot of migration going on. No one knows for sure which wave of migration they came from. The Seljuk hypothesis is the least accepted btw.
>>18412533It's more likely they were Christians before the Ottoman era, but adopted the Turkish language.
There have been Turkic peoples migrating to the Balkans, long before the Ottomans and around the same time as the Avars, Bulgars and Khazars. This includes Oghuz Turkic peoples.Romania and Moldova has had Muslims in the form of Kipchak-speaking Crimean Tatars, including Budjak Tatars, well before the Crimean Khanate became part of the Ottoman Empire.
>>18412585Moldavia was never part of any muslim state. No reason to convert for local Turks
>>18412646>Anatolian turks are le greek amirite xDAnatolian Turks are 30% Central Asian on average, which is passed to many Balkan Turks
>>1841322030% maybe in the most Turkish areas like the southwest aegean. In places like the Black Sea coast is like 3% (and they are know as the most hardcore "turkish" nationalists, kek. Overcompensation much.)
>>18413226>30% maybe in the most Turkish areas like the southwest aegeanThose areas are 40% Turkic>In places like the Black Sea coast is like 3%Trabzon doesn't have many people
>>18412533What if they are Bulgars left behind in Bessarabia after Mongol conquests who then started speaking Turkish after Ottomans conquered the land they live ?
>>18413248>>18412956Are you guys retarded?These people:>have no extra Turkic ancestry>no evidence of any non-Ottoman Turkish language features not already present in Bulgarian or Romanian>no evidence of continuity with medieval Turkic communitiesCan we just stick to the simplest explanation?They are linguistically Turkified balkanite Christians with no special tie to Steppe Turks
>>18412583>>18413276It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, goofy. That region has a long and extensive history with Turkic peoples. The Golden Horde or the Crimean Khanate played a factor whether it shows it or not.The Gagauz's primary origin is likely related to the Anatolian Beyliks. There have been Alevi Shia in later centuries who formed communities in remote areas and/or assimilated into Christians too after fleeing persecution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_beyliks
>>18412533I want to gaga their auz if you know what I'm saying
>>18413276Still, why a bunch of native moldavian billbillies would just start to speak Turkish? It was Islam that was the way to climb the social ranks in the Ottoman Empire. Not speaking Turkish.Also as i said in a previous post, Moldavia was never part of either the Ottoman Empire, or even the Crimea Tatar stata. There are no logical reason for a bunch of moldavian dimitris in the late middle ages to suddenly switch speak turkishThe most logical outcome is that they came from somewhere south, being It Bulgaria or Anatolia
>>18413323>billbillies>hillbillies
>>18413276Bulgaria used to spread far north than today just saying
>>18413325Gagauz are unlikely to speak a tounge from the old Bulgar Khanate tho. Bulgar was a Oghur branch languages, while Gagauz is related to Anatolian Turkish, of the Oghuz languages branch.Linguistic evidence thus proves that if the Gagauz is not native, then in came from the south but long after Bulgars completed their switch to slavic
>>18413319Proof about mass conversions of Balkan Muslims to Christianity? Remember that the Gagauz have been around for centuries, i.e. during the time of Ottoman rule, do you believe this supposed persecution of Muslims occured during the time of Ottoman rule? By the way, Muslim Balkanians are still around, whether Albanians, Pomaks, Bosniaks, Turks... If I remember correctly, both Pomaks and Albanian Muslims have (or had) sizeable Alevi/Bektashi communities. All in all, insisting that linguistic origin must absolutely coincide with ethnic origin despite everything else is pointless, linguistic conversion makes the most sense, especially when you consider the large numbers of Turkish-speakers (actual Turks) in the eastern Balkans combined with the fact that Turks were the dominant ethno-cultural group.
>post a pic of a bunch of young QTs in their traditional dressed>Thread goes well regardless of the topicAs i expected, its always work. Never change /his/. Gonna make more future threads talking about obscure ethnicites with cute foids posted in the OP
>>18413328what if they language switched after Ottoman conquests like semitic speaking but christian punicians did wafter getting conquered by semitic speaking arabs
>>18413342Are you retarded? Anatolian Beyliks predate the Ottoman Empire, who were just one of these Beyliks. The timeline of when the Gagauz formed coincides with the Beylik era.Mass conversions to Christianity happened as a result of persecution many centuries later, especially between the 1800s and 1900s. That's not what I said how the Gagauz formed. It was likely nominal Sunnis or Alevis who settled there that assimilated into Christianity during the High Middle Ages. As warriors, the syncretic Turks likely formed the ruling class of the community initially.
>>18413342>>18413372>It was likely nominal Sunnis or Alevis who settled there that assimilated into Christianity during the High Middle Ages.* High and Late Middle Ages
>>18413372I brought up Ottomans because you mentioned assimilation after fleeing persecution. I haven't seen evidence about Anatolian Beyliks colonizing the Balkans to some extensive degree, nor did they last long between Mongol invasions and consolidation/assimilation by Ottomans (who then facilitated Turkish migrations to the Balkans). The dominant Turkic powers in the northern coasts of the Black Sea were Tatars/Nogais/etc. Maybe being in between them and Ottomans/Anatolians caused the Gagauz to change language, perhaps to facilitate trade.
>>18413319>That region has a long and extensive history with Turkic peoples.Yes, but to say Gagauz have a special connection requires evidence, they look like Romanians or Bulgarians that speak Turkish, not some magical relic of an actual Turkic population>>18413323>Still, why a bunch of native moldavian billbillies would just start to speak Turkish?Refer to the map, the entire North-East of Bulgaria was very TurkishGagauz come from this region, they aren't originally from Moldova>>18413325Ok? And?
Turcophone Greeks from Nicaea are also another example of linguistically Turkified Christians.People love to make theories about them descending from one ancient Turkic population that remained Christian but it's all nonsense
>>18413389There doesn't need to be records of Beyliks forming in those parts of the Balkans. They were nomadic and syncretic Turks.Even the earliest records of Ottoman history were written down centuries later and coincided with when they became more orthodox. It's very likely that a few Oghuz Turkic populations formed polities immediately outside of their heartlands. We already know Alevis settled regions outside of direct Ottoman control centuries later following the latter's transition to Sunni orthodoxy. Look up the Alians of Bulgaria.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alians>>18413392If the Gagauz aren't directly descended from Late Antiquity and Early Medieval era Oghuz Turks, then the only logical conclusion is they're descended from the Beylik-era Turks and the timeline matches perfectly.
>>18413392Well maybe just maybe they are last remnant of Old Turkic Bulgars who stayed beyond the Danube and after getting decimated by Mongols and conquered by Turks they switched their language to Oghuz Turkic one
>>18413433It seems to me that you are convinced that language must always denote origin/ancestry, and trying to find any hints that might support that. Yes, there *might* have been pre-Ottoman Oghuz Turkic settlements in the region theoretically, but why bring this up if there is no evidence proving it? >AliansI mentioned Bektashi/Alevi presence among the Pomaks, they are related to Qizilbash migrations in the 16th century, long after Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.>Late Antiquity Oghuz TurksThe what now? Pre-Medieval Oghuz?
>>18413433>then the only logical conclusion is they're descended from the Beylik-era Turks and the timeline matches perfectly.There is no linguistic or genetic evidence suggesting that>>18413444Shut the fuck up
>>18413445If you actually studied history, you would fucking now there were Oghuz migrations into the Balkans during the Bulgar, Avar and Khazar era.They were called Ouzes in records. You're not a serious poster.
>>18413449I accept your concession fucking retard suck my giant hairy dick
>>18413445>>18413451>They were called Ouzes in records.Or Uzes and Ozoi. Look it up.
>>18413455So let me understand your logic:>Gagauz pretty much speak Ottoman Turkish>they are genetically just like Bulgarians and Romanians, especially when accounting for they eastern presence along the Black Sea>they clearly come from a region that was heavily Sunni and TurkishAnd you think they and only they have special ancient Turkic ancestry? Wouldn't all Dobruja Turks be "Gagauz"?
>>18412533They are the Turks who went there from Anatolia and mixed with locals and became a different branch of Turks. It's not a rocket science really.
>>18413465NO, there were no Christian Turks coming from Anatolia
>>18413466There is something called conversion
>>18413476When did those supposed Turks arrive exactly?
>>18413461They are genetically like Bulgarians and Romanians because they are descendants of Old Bulgars who stayed beyond Danube and preserved their Turkic language but got christianized as the rest. Then Mongolians decimated them and when Turks came they were so weak they simply accepted their rule and adopted their language with local changes as their own
>>18413487>because they are descendants of Old Bulgars who stayed beyond Danube and preserved their Turkic languageWhat language? There is no evidence they spoke Old Bulgar for longer
>>18413476Here's some Turkic people arriving in the region in 600 AD. Look again in 1200 AD at the Mongolian Empire map (which included conquered Turkic peoples) and it covers almost the same area. The Ottomans don't arrive in the area until almost 1,000 years after the Avars. (Not to mention the Huns.)
>>18413487>They are genetically like Bulgarians and Romanians because they are descendants of Old Bulgars who stayed beyond Danube and preserved their Turkic languageThe Gagauz moved to Moldavia only in 1829, before that they lived in northeastern Bulgaria (roughly between Silistra and Varna). Their "language" is just the Deliorman dialect of Ottoman Turkish, identical to the one still spoken by Muslim Turks in that aforementioned region. They're obviously just Slavs who language shifted to Turkish under Ottoman rule, but people repeat the fanciful narrative about le medieval Bulgar origins because it sounds so heckin unique and exotic. Btw, there are Christian Turkophone communities called "Gagauz" in Macedonia and Thrace as well, also the result of a (more well documented) language shift.
>>18413487>>18413738Bulgarian autosomal DNA for comparison. It's completely identical.
>>18413485During the Anatolian Beylik period.
>>18413781If that's so (it's not, the Sarı Saltık story is a known myth), then they utterly failed to leave a genetic imprint on the modern Gagauz.
>>18413487Odl Bulgar was a Oghur branch language. Gagauz is clearly instead a Oghuz branch language related to anatolian turkish
>>18413785Nomadic and syncretic Muslim warrior/raider Turks became the ruling class of one or more communities in the Balkans beyond the Beylik heartland as recognized by contemporary maps. They assimilated into the local Christian populations. At least one of those communities continued to speak Oghuz Turkish becoming the Gagauz.The earliest records of Ottoman history itself date to the 1400s and coincided with when they became more sedentarist and orthodox. Most or almost all Turkomans during the High Middle Ages were syncretic and the vast majority were nomadic.Even during Ottoman rule after persecution of Alevi Shia (1500s) and Shi'ified Bektashis (1800s) began, there were Alevi communities all over Anatolia and many fled to the Balkans. The Alians are one of these remaining in Bulgaria. So we know that it's possible for remote communities to survive without being touched by the state.The timeline suggests IMO that Gagauz were founded by a Turkic ruling class that emigrated from Anatolia during the Beylik period. They have no written records because they weren't a literate society. Their genetic imprint was never in every body because everyone didn't have kids with them. It's no different than the Avars, Bulgars and Magyars centuries prior.
>>18413819You're grasping at straws.>The timeline suggests IMOThe "timeline" suggests Gagauz people are generic Balkan peasants who embraced the Turkish language due to its socioeconomic benefits under Ottoman rule (for other examples of this phenomenon in the Black Sea region, see Urums in Crimea). There are no contemporary records of a Turcoman Beylik in medieval Dobruja, which was a veritable wasteland btw. Picrel is a map of settlements with evidence of human habitation during the 14th century. All of them are accounted for in Medieval sources - the Danube delta belonged to the Golden Horde, the region between Silistra and Varna was governed by the Despotate of Karvuna, and the area west of Shumen belonged to the Bulgarian state centered on Tarnovo. Babadag (the alleged seat of Sarı Saltık's Turcoman polity per that legendary Ottoman source, written centuries after the fact) was uninhabited.Occam's razor says the most simple explanation is the most likely one, you willfully disregard the overwhelming evidence to the contrary because the idea of some enigmatic community of medieval Turkish Christians sounds cool to you.
>>18413853>The "timeline" suggests Gagauz people are generic Balkan peasants who embraced the Turkish language due to its socioeconomic benefits under Ottoman rule (for other examples of this phenomenon in the Black Sea region, see Urums in Crimea).Greeks were a minority in the Crimean Khanate. They adopted the dominant language.Bulgarian and Romanian speakers weren't a minority in the Eastern Balkans. They were collectively the majority. Christian villagers just suddenly adopting Turkish en masse while hardly became Muslims makes no sense.
>>18413879>Bulgarian and Romanian speakers weren't a minority in the Eastern BalkansOh my God yes they were you dumb blabbering retard. The Gagauz homeland is that big red blob in northeastern Bulgaria, which had a Turkish supermajority until the twentieth century. You're free to STFU about topics you know nothing about any time.
>>18413885It had a Turkish-speaking majority which arose because of everything I just said here: >>18413819Shit doesn't pop out of nowhere. Your explanations are the simplest but the dumbest.
>>18413451>>18413459"during the Bulgar, Avar and Khazar era"Which is a few centuries after the transition from Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages...
>>18413889Circular reasoning from a shameless coping moron.>Gagauz wuz medieval Turcomans because muh folk tale from 300 years later says so>Ok maybe that narrative is contradicted by archeology and contemporary written record, but why would the Gagauz switch to Turkish if all their neighbors spoke Slavic?>Ok maybe their neighbors spoke Turkish, but that's because they colonized Dobruja during the Middle AgesAll you can do is move the goalposts after your talking points get btfo. I guarantee you haven't read a lick of material related to Ottoman demography outside of wiki blurbs (highly doubt you've read a whole article), otherwise you'd know the flow of Turkish colonists into that region started in earnest during the sixteenth century.What motivates someone to make a public spectacle of their stupidity like you do? Saving face? It's only going to get worse the longer you drag this on you subhuman faggot.
>>18413220What you say proves my point. The Anatolian Turks are barely "Central Asian" (still not East Eurasian), so it would be even more diluted in the Gagauz if they were to descend from Anatolian Turks.
>>18412821Anatolian Turks have significantly more Mongoloid ancestry than any European(excluding very small groups such as the Sami and Udmurts). On average, they can have up to 14%. But epicanthic folds appear to be rare in them.
