Chinese vs. Turkish Army 1,300 years ago

[khodja]

Twilight Bark,

 

I do not limit the Armenian ancestry to the four peoples that I listed. The largest portion of our gene-pool is from the indigenous Urarteans who populated the region since ancient times. Another large portion comes from the Balkan Armens. My mention of the new book on the Queens of Armenia was meant to enlighten some of the more narrow-minded among us. As for our "mix" duplicating the royalty, I agree that the mix of the royalty is different than the mix of the general populace. The general populace, however, in the Armenian case, closely mimics the mix of the royalty, although the time frame of the mix is in some instances different.

[khodja]

Since documented history (and religious dogma) are so very subjective, I propose that we look to the work of Levon Yepiskopsyan and other cutting-edge geneticists to solve the enigma of Armenian background. To bolster your argument, language, as well, is not really a true marker as it can change over a few generations. Let us agree that in the perifery of historic Armenia, Tigrankert, Vaspouragan, Giligia, as well as, the central cities of Ani and Julfa other peoples of great numbers assimilated into the indigenous gene-pool to create a very diverse people genetically. Yepiskoposyan found the Georgians to be very homogenious genetically, but the Armenians very diverse. This points toward a unique religion (Armenian Christianity) taking in a large number of converts.

[Twilight Bark]

I think it has little to do with religion. One could ask why the Georgian Christianity did not attract members from other groups. It's not as if Armenians are known for proselytizing. It reflects more the xenophillic nature of Armenians, even more so because they usually do not conquer, bully and assimilate other peoples. If they are diverse despite their lack of appetite for such "adventures", that should say something about how friendly and accepting the traditional Armenian culture is. It is quite obvious that by 500 BC, Armenians were already very "diverse".

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[khodja]

The critical point here is that for millenia Armenian culture was xenophilic. Our minorities assimilated not by force but due to acceptance. It is only over the last few hundred years that we have become xenophobic, the most critical event in this regard being the repercussions of the Genocide.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear hagarag,
If by "Balkan Armens" you mean the infamous "Phrygian colonists" hypothesis, I have not found any real indication of their existence, other than in the imagination of Greek history-tellers that were more often story-tellers. Of course it has been picked up and lovingly preserved and embellished by those overly eager to have European ancestry. We don't find "Armens" as a well defined people in the history books. In fact, they are not a proper historical entity at all. For all we know, the word may have been a corrupted form of "Aram's people", referring to the first "king" of Urarteans. After all, the only glaring omission in the "code-names" given by Khorenatsi is the Urartu, although we find Aram's name prominently playing a role. I can come up with different speculations until cows come home. So unless proven otherwise, it is much more reasonable to regard the genesis of the Armenian nation as the client kingdom of "Hayasa-Azzi" in the Hittite confederation/empire. Again, there is no indication that the people of Hayasa-Azzi were anything but "indigenous" (whatever that means). The emergence of Hayasa into history predates the invasions by Phrygians, so they cannot be Phrygian colonists. There is little doubt that over time the people of Hayasa-Azzi merged with the devastated (from Scythian and Kimmerian invasions) people of Urartu, and together represent the bulk of our ancestry. There is no real evidence of a big Balkan component. I am sure it exists, but I suspect it is small compared with the Hayasa/Urartu components. It is time to wean ourselves off Eurocentric "creation myths".

[aurguplu]

dear twilight bark,

 

1. i agree with your points in general. in fact, it seems to me that members on this forum do agree on a number of things without actually realising it.

 

2. re the anatolian turks and armenians being closer kinsmen than the anatolian turks and the uygurs: on a genetic level this is true, as it is on a number of cultural traits, but two important points should not be overlooked: 1) on some important cultural points, most notably language, the two turkic peoples are obviously closer than they are to armenians and the chinese (to whom the uygurs would be more closely related genetically). now language is a very crucial factor, being far more than a means of communication, it is also the framework for a mindset, a way of looking at the world, and also, a repository of culture. 2) the turks came into anatolia mainly in two major waves in 11th and then 13th centuries, true, but then, there was a steady tricle of central asian turks into anatolia that lasted until early this century. many turks who were displaced by the mongol invasions ended up in turkey, some mongols (the mongols were never a particlarly numerous nation, and the bulk of chinggis' army was turkic) also became first turkified and settled in turkey, and later on, when the russians invaded central asia and tartary, many central asians and tatars fled to turkey. and also, in this century, we received a number of immigrants from russia, china, tibet, afganistan etc. now one point people in this country forget is that these people, like the 11th-13th century turks who came into anatolia, were already ethnically mixed.

 

in brief, the turkic component in the makeup of anatolian turks is not confined to the 11th-13th century invasions, but the incoming turks were already quite mixed, anyway.

 

3. re the origin of the armenians and the phrygian component: now the phrygians did exist, and they spoke an indo-european language that is scantily recorded. armenian is also an indo-european language, although one strongly affected by caucasian languages. armenian forms an independent branch of the indo-european family tree, with no known close relatives. phrygian was written, although as a dead language (much like latin in the 15th century) up to the 3rd century ad, i.e. a century before armenian was written down for the first time. the two languages do not appear to be closely related, although the phrygian language is perhaps too poorly attested to allow for a comprehensive comparison. both languages show a closer similarity to greek than to the other indo-european languages, though. there is abundant evidence for the phrygians having migrated from the balkans (moesia), and to have first spent some time in western anatolia (mysia), and being known to the caucasians and the hittites by another name (sa-mekhi, muski). the phrygian king midas was very likely the mita of muski in the hittite records, i.e. a historical figure. the name "phrygian" comes from the same root as the english "brigand" and means the same thing. the ethnonym appears to have been something like musi, muski. this also appears to have been the name by which the georgians call the armenians (sa-mekhi).

 

in brief, i would not treat the armeno-phrygian hypothesis outright as a fable, there appears to be a serious case for it. perhaps the most likely explanation is that the early armenian speaker were phrygian colonists (or some close cousin) who mixed with the indigenous anatolians. after all, the language must have come from somewhere!

 

3. re the armeno-turkish kinship being closer than our kinship with the uygurs. if this is the case, could i please ask the forum members to refrain from posting things like "mongol+greek+armenian+dog+rat+snake= turk" (i think it was hyecory). one should be more respectful of kinsmen.

 

4. re the myth of turkish past in turkey today: i) first of all, it is nowhere near as strong as it was in the 1930s when it was first invented. ii) the same republic that produced that myth also put enormous effort into discovering the anatolian heritage, and today we do have (a few) world-class archaeologists in the fields of classical and pre-classical anatolian history and archaeology. now these may sound to contradict one another, but if you keep in mind that the aims of the republic in the area of culture were fourfold, namely a) to remove from the turkish historical consciousness the ottoman, and more generally, the islamic, heritage and to replace it with something that would not be diametrically opposite the notions of westernisation, secularism and republic, to create a national identity instead of a religious one, c) to counter claims of being invaders by claiming turkish origins for the earlier inhabitants (the "turkish land for forty centuries" dogma), and d) to make the nation receptive to the former glories of anatolia, and also to claim ownership of them, then the whole thing may look more coherent.

 

of course, this was part lie, part theft, part gross distortion of some historical truths, but it did serve its main purposes for the time: it turned our eyes away from islam to the west, we did become receptive to the western and by extension pre-turkish anatolian cultures, and of course anyone who carried these interests a bit further would never have encountered any difficulties in discovering that the hittites, sumerians etc. were not turkic. and today, if you declared at a university hall that they were, you would be the laughing stock of academia (even turkish academia).

 

it was a temporary move. one should not forget the political motives behind it, and one should not exaggerate its influence on the current intellectual thought in turkey. it was a kind of "royal lie".

 

regards,

 

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: aurguplu ]

[whiteangel]

From DNA studies, the Armenians, Georgians, North Caucasians, Kurds and Azerbaijanians (the ones in the former Soviet republic, not Iran) are the closest to each other than they are to others at least in terms of mtDNA relation. The people in this group seem to be intermediate between the people of the northern Middle East (Iran, Turkey) and Eastern Europe. They have heavy Semitic and Aryan components, but also there is a 3.8% Eastern Eurasian (Chinese, Mongol, Central Asian) in the genes of this group. This reflects the migrations of farmer settlers from the Middle East into Europe after the end of the Ice Ages.

 

In Assyrian records, it says that one of the earliest Armenian kings (Aram) had blonde hair and fair skin. Their queen fell in love with this guy. Yes, Armenians were more Nordic during the Urartu and Hayasa eras. But, this changed with the coming of the Arsacids.

 

Yes, Armenians are a heterogenous lot more so than Georgians. In particular the aristocrat and nobility. If you read the history of Movses Khorenatsi, the kings (Arsacids) were of Parthian Iranian origins, the Bagratun family was of Parthian or Hebrew origins, the Artsrunis were Assyrian originated, the Mamikonians were of Han Chinese origins, the Amatunis were Jewish originated, the Kamsarakans were Iranian originated, etc. The only native Armenian originated family of importance were the Siuni. It is not surprising because the Parthian Arsacids in Iran also had this tradition of using foreigners to rule because loyalty would be harder to defy. Many of these foreign originated noble families migrated with the Arsacids into Armenia from Iran after the fall of that dynasty in Iran during the early 220 ADs.

 

We are a mixed race(s) during the pre-Christian era. But, with the adoption of Christianity and the alphabet, there came and evolved only one Armenian race and identity despite the differing mixtures and contributions.

[khodja]

With all due respect, you are dismissing the assimilation of the French in Giligia, the peaceable conversion of Jews, and the Mongols who adopted the Armenian faith, all these occuring during the Christian Era.

[whiteangel]

Ah yes, you are right. I didn't know there were Mongols who converted over to Armenian Apostolic faith. But, was this during the time of the Ilkhan era? I know that among the Mongols, Chinese and Uygurs there had existed a sizeable Nestorian Syriac Christian element.

[whiteangel]

Mr. Ali Suat,

 

The situation in Xinjiang (so-called East Turkestan) is more economically and politically stable compared to many of the former Soviet Central Asian states.

 

Yes, there are nuclear tests conducted deep in the Taklamakan Desert where no one lives. It is only fair that China conducts its nuclear explosions when the USA, Russia and India has arsenals pointed in all directions at China. The Taklamakan Desert is the only region in China viable for this type of experiment.

 

Many Uygurs and Dungan Hui (Han Chinese Muslims) annually cross the borders and do business in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. These Uygurs and Hui know they are living the better life in China and making more money than what their Central Asian cousins will ever make in the foreseeable future. They see if for themselves and talk about it freely on Chinese TV. They are free to do the "hajj" (pilgrimmage) to Mecca every year. Often they are enticed by the Soviet and Istabul based Uygurs to flee China and take up their cause abroad. Few respond. Only the desperate and deviant ones join Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Most Uygurs and Dungan Hui Muslims in China would not like to see such individuals return.

 

The East Turkestan movement under the late Isa Yusuf Alptegin and now under his son Arkin Alptegin is divisive and out of touch out of reality to what is happening with the Uygurs still living in China. It is so dormant now that it is headed by a Turkish war veteran from the Korean War!!!

[aurguplu]

whiteangel,

 

you sound like a turk talking about the kurdish issue. are you chinese?

 

regards,

[whiteangel]

Dear Ali,

Ali aziz,

 

I am neutral..., especially from what is reported in the Western media...

 

I am presenting reality from the other side of view. I want to speak for the non-Turkic people of East Turkestan (Xinjiang, China) who have lived just as long and are as native to that region as the Uygurs are.

[whiteangel]

one more thing, Ali:

 

As much as Chinese are friends with Armenians, Iran, Arabs, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. they have the utmost respect for Turks due to long acquaintance. Many Han Chinese themselves know some of their ancestors may have been ancient Turks who joined the Chinese race and culture in the distant past by going over to the other side of Great Wall willingly. The most brightest era in Chinese history (Tang Dynasty), its founders had Turkic mothers and grandmothers. Turks and Chinese are each other's oldest enemies as well as friends. Being Chinese is an ambiguous term and identity. It is composed of all nationality groups. Even the Han people themselves are a product of a melting pot. Groups like the Turkics, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus, Persians, Malayans, Viets, Thais, etc. all joined the Han Chinese Middle Kingdom ethnos, race and culture throughout much of its history becoming one out of many. The same process that happened in Anatolia with relations to Turks.

[Twilight Bark]

It is true that a language is a repository of culture. However, it cannot propagate or dictate a way of looking at the world. At an emotional level, it can be argued that ancestry is much more fundamental than language. After all, language can be imposed, or forgotten. Ancestry cannot be changed. I have come to intensely dislike the term genetics. When I think about ancestry I think about how my umpteenth grandparents lived, and how they would have wished their descendants to be, their wisdom, the little things in their universe, the things dear to them, and things of that nature. I think it is horribly misguided to reduce ancestry into a set of genes, genetics, and the science and pseudo-science that goes with those images. It is also misguided to even contaminate a discussion of ancestry with genetics. Ancestry is about a chain of love from parents to offsprings, and not our cellular hardware. And we do make choices when we think or fantasize about our ancestry, and in that sense reflect something very cultural. I, for example, prefer to focus on the Anatolian peasants with simple and peaceful outlooks onlife, and mostly ignore those ancestors that were, say the result of rapes by Scythian invaders. You can say that I have a fundamental antipathy for warlike tribes, whether they form a part of my ancestry or not. Others have different preferences, which reflect their tastes and cultural values.




The Phrygian hypothesis is a "case" of something, but it sure is not history. Hayasa predates the Phrygians, and its nature was radically different from the Phrygians. The Phrygians were extremely warlike, and to the best of our understanding brought even the lowest forms of cultural expression in Anatolia to a standstill for a couple of centuries. Now, the people of Hayasa were probably viewed by the Hittite center as little more than irritating country bumpkins, but they were nothing like the Phrygians. That argues against hypothesizing that the Hay were at the leading edge of the Phrygian invasion to come. One could speculate that the Hay were displaced from Balkans as the Phrygians entered there from who knows where. But of course the evidence supporting such speculation is nonexistent. As for the indo-europeanness of the Armenian language, do not forget that Hittite itself is an indo-european language. Therefore, there is no need to bring the Phrygians into the picture to explain the fact that Armenian is indo-european. The Hayasa-Azzi province was a part of Hittite confederation. Furthermore, there is simply no good evidence that shows that Hittites and Luwian languages are "newcomers" to Anatolia. Europeans certainly like to bring them from somewhere else, but they have to use a good dose of fantasy and wishful thinking in order to make that case. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it is more reasonable to assume that Hittite and Luwian (and Armenian) in fact did originate in or near Anatolia. And if they came from outside, we really have no clue about whether they came from the east or the west. Since all humanity sprang from Africa, the whole point becomes moot once you try going back too far. Therefore, for the purposes of discussing Anatolian cultures and languages, the most reasonable stance would be to regard Armenian as native to the land, unless proven otherwise.

[aurguplu]

dear twilight bark,

 

i agree with most of your points, especially regarding genetics and language. i also share your antipathy of warlike tribes (or, war itself, rather) and the ghosts that haunt the topic "genetics".

 

re the phrygian theory and the hayasa: of course, the phrygians caused some destruction when they came into anatolia, but this happened with virtually everyone everywhere. invasions aren't peaceful.

 

regarding the hayasa, hittite, and the luvians, since their language is indo-european (or rather indo-hittite), they (the languages) must have come from somewhere, and linguistic research points to southern russia as the putative homeland of the indo-european languages. now indo-european homeland is a hotbed of debate, and it can well be said that it is on casters, but it is most likely to have been somewhere in russia (admittedly a big place) and in the vicinity of uralic.

 

there are now some researchers (cyril babaev etc) who posit an anatolian homeland for indo-european, but this poses far more problems than it solves, and as far as i know, has not been accepted by the majority of the linguistic community.

 

this of course is not to be taken to mean that the armenians are not native to anatolia, they have been there for at least three thousand years, and this is long enough to be considered native! after all they have been there for far longer than most people have been anywhere.

 

regards,