Where Did Turks Come From?

[Vigil]

I have been trying to peice together the origins of Turks, but can not find any source?

 

Are they Mongols, Asians, Russians, Georgians, Greeks, Armenians, Chinese, or Norse?

 

Where do they originially come from? It seems like they are trying to stretch their history farther back then it actually is?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Gino]

http://www.turkishembassy.org/countryprofi...ksandturkey.htm

[Vigil]

Um...I just wanted to let you know that anything from the Turkish Government is not accurate.

 

Ok so Turks basically trace their heritage back to the asian tribes. This is understandable to a certain degree, but when does Asia end Turkey begin?

 

How come they then say that Urartu are not Armenians?

 

Originally my point was that they are allowed to trace their roots all the way to people from different region, race, and culture, but Armenians have to prove beyond a resonable of their origins?

 

How can Turks be Huns?

 

How can they be of all those origins?

 

So can Armenians say also that they are Persian, Greek, Assyrian, and etc?

 

They are creating a double standard for Turks or Turks are creating one for themselves.

 

Also I was looking through a Turkish tourist site and they said that an Urartu fort was built around 9 BC...well aren't the Urartu supposidly replaced by the Armenians in 550 BC?

 

Turkish history has so many holes in it and they try to fill it using a peice from everyone elses history just like Ajeri's who claim they come from Persians.

 

This is a travisty and goes to show that if you have enough political influence you can change your countires past. Evidently it also supports the fact that history in Turkey is written with a pencil and not with a pen.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Vigil]

http://www.turkishembassy.org/countryprofile/anatolia.htm

 

Just look at this travisty..."THE ROMEN AGE"...

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Gino]

But it says "History of Anatolia", not history of Turkey.

[Gino]

How come they then say that Urartu are not Armenians?

Well, technically they are right. Unlike modern Armenians, Urartians were not of Indo-Europaeic origin.

[THOTH]

Gimo - the terms technically right and Turk should never be included in the same sentance...regardless...

[THOTH]

Lemuria...Attaturk said so...isn't that good enough? Edited January 18, 2004 by THOTH

[gamavor]

Turks came from hell and that is their final resting place. More precisely turks have never been clearly distinct ethnic group, rather confederation of different tribes mostly of turco-altaic origin. Some so-called turks came from deep down Middle East, some like Seldjuks came from Central Asia, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc.., some (probably the bulk) were simply tatars, khazars, remnants of Mongols, afghans, chechen etc, probably more than 60 tribes unified under the Lizard, and later the Wolf. What all these people had in common was their savagery and backwardness compared even to their immidiate neighbours to the north and west, the uiguro-hunns and later bolgars, wlahs, and Slavs. Their movement westward started somewhere in 4-6century. On their way to the banks of Volga to the north and Caucasus to the south-west. Many were absorbed into existing khanats bordering Persia, Armenia, Georigia. Later, after the fall of those khanats they continued their march and settled around Caspian, Caucasus and South Russia.

 

The rest is well known.

Edited January 18, 2004 by gamavor

[hagopn]

But it says "History of Anatolia", not history of Turkey.

Right, "Anatolia" is the term used to displace "Armenia" or "Armenian Plateau" in academia. Whereas the term "Armenia" was used to denote the region in pre-Genocide days in all of academia, today it is the case that even our own moronic "Armenologists" are using the term "Anatolia" to, yes, DISPLACE the name "Armenia" in academic publications!

[Gino]

Gimo - the terms technically right and Turk should never be included in the same sentance...regardless...

Hold you jokes, it's not what Turks say only, it's common knowledge.

[Gino]

Right, "Anatolia" is the term used to displace "Armenia" or "Armenian Plateau" in academia. Whereas the term "Armenia" was used to denote the region in pre-Genocide days in all of academia, today it is the case that even our own moronic "Armenologists" are using the term "Anatolia" to, yes, DISPLACE the name "Armenia" in academic publications!

I'm afraid you're wrong. Historically the term "Anatolia" (which is Greek by the way) applies only for Asia Minor peninsula, which is to the west from historical Armenia.

[gamavor]

The common knowledge about turks is plunder, rape, theft, cattle copulation, burning of ancient manuscripts, destruction of cross-stones, falsifying history, occupation of foreign lands, establishment of cruel and barbaric political regimes, total disrespect of human rights, women abuse (especially if they are not turk), honor killings, illiteracy, large scale child molestation and .....did I miss something, oh yes read this:

 

 

Guard gets paid for letting sufferers of chlamydia rape street dogs in Turkey

 

11/09/2002

 

London

11 September 2002: In Izmir, the third biggest city of Turkey, the Animal’s Safe House in Ortakoy has been shut down and its premises demolished.

 

3 months ago the Animal’s Safe House in Ortakoy, Izmir, made the headlines in Turkey when 6 dogs in the safe house were raped by several people who had broken into the premises. This time the Safe House has become news material as allegations have been made that several dogs have been raped for the reason that "it cures chlamydia".

 

The Turkish daily Hurriyet reported today that the guard responsible for the animals in the safe house "hired" the dogs out for people with chlamydia.

 

2500 signatures have been collected by animal rights activists for the closure of the safe house and has been forwarded to the local council. 90 of the dogs from the safe house have been transferred to the Buyuksehir Council Animal Safe House.

 

The animal rights activist Sevtap Henrich, who is responsible of the Animal Safe House in Ortakoy, said they had established that the dogs had been raped:

 

"This is really an incredible incident. Unfortunately we are the victims of ignorance and lack of education. This kind of activity will not cure chlamydia, in fact it can cause a lot more diseases", Henrich added.

 

After hearing rumours that dogs were being raped in the safe house because it was believed that it would cure clamydia, Chairman of the Animal Lovers and Protectors’ Association, Suna+ Esen Akaturk, said that she was against the demolition of the premises of the Animal Safe House:

 

"I am aware of the fact that this incident is disgusting. But unfortunately these kinds of incidents are the bleeding wounds of our country. Recently in Narlidere, a similar incident took place. We have taken our precautions here. I am searching for other reasons behind the demolition of the safe house. We built and paid for the safe house with money from our own pockets. They demolished our work just in two hours. We were trying to keep the safe house alive despite all the impossibilities", she said.

[hagopn]

"Turkic" is a blanket term used by Turko-fascists to mimic the "Germanic" grouping of all german or german-like peoples by the Nazis.

 

Turks had never formed under any "national" banner prior to Kemal's (who was a JEW, yes) fascistic "reconstruction" of the so-called "Turkish identity." Muslim Turks hate the situation as they did when he first took power. Oh, do I now get free fall of "accusations" without blockage from the Moderators on this topic due to my usage of the "J" word? Is it possible to be free of such oppression and interruption by brainwashed fanatics, or are we supposed to "put up with that"?

 

I recently found that an ENTIRE topic has been "locked" because we had one such bad brainwashed apple. So we had this brainwashed character named "THOTH" block discussion about nationalism due to his brainwashed status, and the "moderators" decide to stop that discussion because "THOTH" is nothing but a by-product of pro-zionist propaganda in the US. Can others who are not so brainwashed, conditioned little bundles of reflexes have the privilege of discussing topics with civility and free of accusations of "anti-semitism" anytime they make arguments contrary to what THE BRAINWASHED ONE believes in?

 

Perhaps not.

 

In any case, I wanted to vent this, and this is as far as I will take it. If there is no result, I see no reason to respect this forum.

[hagopn]

I'm afraid you're wrong. Historically the term "Anatolia" (which is Greek by the way) applies only for Asia Minor peninsula, which is to the west from historical Armenia.

"Historically" you are correct, but now for the last 6 or 7 decades the term "Anatolia" is used to denote Armenia and Asia Minor in one pot. You are correct in that Anatolia was NEVER used in reference to Armenia, but now this is in fact how Armenia is generally displaced, by clumping her in al of "Asia Minor."

 

The problem is that Armenia is NOT part of Anatolia or Asia Minor, and the so-called "specific" toponym of "Eastern Anatolia" is a purely pro-Turkish invention to displace, erase, the name Armenia. Like I said, our own morons who dub themselves "Armenologists" are using this term in this same obtuse manner.

[Gino]

The term "Turkic" is used to define some ethnic groups of Altaic origin living in Anatolia, Povolzhje and Central Asia.

 

Historical Armenia according to all reliable sources is a piece of land in present-day eastern Turkey which embraces the significant part of the Armenian Highland. To deny this fact means to demostrate your ignorance.

 

As for this topic, I find it extremely provocative. First, because it argues with a subject that has been studied for a long time. Second, because it causes some negative feelings among the users. And third, because even after the answer was given, the official data was being childishly mocked due to some unknown reasons.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

The term "Turkic" is used to define some ethnic groups of Altaic origin living in Anatolia, Povolzhje and Central Asia.

 

Historical Armenia according to all reliable sources is a piece of land in present-day eastern Turkey which embraces the significant part of the Armenian Highland. To deny this fact means to demostrate your ignorance.

 

As for this topic, I find it extremely provocative. First, because it argues with a subject that has been studied for a long time. Second, because it causes some negative feelings among the users. And third, because even after the answer was given, the official data was being childishly mocked due to some unknown reasons.

What? Who is denying what? Who is mocking what?

 

OK, let me try to undestand the page you are on.

 

1. You are apparently under the impression that someone is mocking you, which is interesting; inaccurate, but interesting.

 

2. You are apparently under the impression that you only understand that Anatolia is a greek word and that Anatolia is used in reference to Asia Minor.

 

I think that you are creating some illusion on this topic. Perhaps you have had some arguments in the past where you have been mocked. Whatever you conslusion or impression is on the matter, I truly don't care.

 

Now, my topic is that TODAY's SCHOLARS, PRO-TURKISH SCHOLARS, are DISPLACING the toponym of Armenia or Armenian Highland with ANATOLIA or, rather, in many cases EASTERN ANATOLIA.

 

EASTERN ANAOLIA is a false invention of Turkish fascists and pro-Turkish interests in the West, and this FALSE NAME of EASTERN ANATOLIA is being USED to DISPLACE the name Armenia or Armenian HIGHLAND in all academic publications.

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn

[Vigil]

Gino are you a Turk or supporter of Turks?

 

I am not racist, but Turkey does some really bad stuff to Armenians and their history.

 

Its one thing to deny Armenians there land, but its another to corrupt the only thing a nation has, which is their history.

 

I have yet to see Armenians or the Armenian Government ever disrupt Turkish History(If there is such a thing).

 

The fact that they do not use the Armenian word ever in a region, which has been full of Armenians is tragic.

 

You know Armenians allow Jewish schalors to come to our ancient churches and find Jewish traces in our history. Like the work done by Professor Stone at Hebrew University is one example.

 

Politics should never interfere with history because destroying history is a form of Genocide.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Gino]

I agree with everything written above.

Vigil, I am not Turkish. All these facts that you find falsified by Turkish authorities cannot be proved or confirmed by asking "Where Did Turks Come From?" You already knew what the answer would be, didn't you?

///Politics should never interfere with history///

This I find very interesting. If so then

- why are the only Azeri mosque in Yerevan and the Govhar Aga mosque in Shusha now called "Persian" by Armenians (an attempt to avoid the word "Azeri")?

- why does Armenia which occupied Artsax and has certain claims to Naxcivan and some other parts of Azerbaijan, explain this by "Azeri occupation of historical Armenian lands"?

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[Sasun]

Gino, are you sure the mosque in Yerevan is Azeri? Yerevan was long occupied by Persia and not Azerbaijan (a name invented in the beginning of the 20th century) and that's when the mosque was built. So I find it very unlikely that the mosque is Azeri. I think the same probably goes for the mosque in Shushi. And who are Azeris anyway, I haven't come accross to a single reliable version of Azeri history as to what is the origin of this people? So first we need to figure out if there is indeed a historically unique nationality called Azerbaijanis, then we can easily find out what mosques they made or didn't make.

[Gino]

The name "Azerbaijan" ad notam was invented in 321 BC and was known in a Greek version of "Atropatene", Persian version of "Aderbadagan", and Armenian version of "Atrpatakan".

The city of Yerevan (az. Irevan, rus. Erivan) was being ruled by Azeri dynasties for more than 300 years. By 1852 all quaters of Yerevan had Azeri names (see: I. Chopen "Исторические памятники. Состояние Армянской области в эпоху ее присоединения к Российской империи" St. Petersburg, 1852). 49.7% of Yerevani khanate's population were Azeris, 33.8% were Armenians, 16% were Kurds, and 0.5% were people of other nationalities (see: V. Parsamian "История армянского народа 1801-1900 гг.", vol. 1, pg. 88, "Hayastan" publ., Yerevan, 1977).

The reason to call this mosque Persian (not Turkish) is obvious. Most Muslim Azeris practise a branch of Islam (called Shi'a, similar to Persian) which is different from Turkish. I remember on one of the Az.-Arm. forums they even wanted to prove me that Khankendi (old name for Stepanakert) is a Persian name. Some Armenian historians unfortunately are willing "to divide" Azeri culture between Turks and Persians (depending on issue).

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[gamavor]

With the same token Antrapatakan was Armenian province ruled by Armenian princly clans. Just read the same sources carefully. None of them even mentions Azerbaidjan. As to the rule of Azeris over Erivan.... , yes Armenia was under Turkish yoke for 6 centuries. Ottomans have been busy displacing local population through out the Empire all the time, especially at the begining of the zenith of the Empire 14-15 century. Their goal was to de-concentrate compact massses of Christians and eventually assimilate them. For example in early 15 century more than 100,000 Bulgarians were relocated to Asia Minor. These policies have continued up until late 16 century. By the way, same happened in former Yougoslavia, Albania, Macedonia and almost all Ottoman ruled lands.

[Vigil]

Gino it is more accurate that the mosque is Persian mainly because Persians have a culture and a language that is older then the formation of the Ajeri nation.

 

Azeris to date do not have a language and because of that it could be very hard to set claim to living in a region.

 

In fact if you read about Ajeri history they proudly state that they come from Persians, but this also is false. Ajeri's like Turk claim to a history that is not theirs. They are just trying to justify their occupation of land. Its kind of sad and disgusting that this kind of corruption of history is allowed.

 

Ok, but lets say that the church did belong to Ajeri's and was built by them. It still does not give reason as to why Turkish historians leave out a group of people that originated and lived in the "Armenian Highlands" for almost 3000 years. It is like they are trying to erase the presence of Armenians in what is now Eastern Turkey.

 

Even the ruins in ancient Cilicia, which is not old historically compared to other regions of Turkey, is not acknowledged as being Armenian. Hosap Castle, which the archatecture is mid-evil looking and Christian, is said to tourist to be created by Kurds.

 

This is just more evidence that Turks are going to invade Armenia in the near future. They preceive it to be their destiny to rule that region and replace Armenians.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Gino]

Atropatene has never been an Armenian province. Even on the most ummm... let's say the most major map of Armenia upon Tigran II (at Genocide.ru) it is shown as a "dependent territory" but never a province.

I even found a map of Yerevan in 1827 (a year before the Turkmanchai act by which Yerevani khanate became a part of Russia):

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/hewsen151.html

As you see there were only two small parts of the city populated by Armenians - on both sides of khan's palace (Divani-Sardar destroyed by Dashnaks in 1913). This is a map sample from "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" by Robert H. Hewsen.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

I agree with everything written above.

Vigil, I am not Turkish. All these facts that you find falsified by Turkish authorities cannot be proved or confirmed by asking "Where Did Turks Come From?" You already knew what the answer would be, didn't you?

///Politics should never interfere with history///

This I find very interesting. If so then

- why are the only Azeri mosque in Yerevan and the Govhar Aga mosque in Shusha now called "Persian" by Armenians (an attempt to avoid the word "Azeri")?

- why does Armenia which occupied Artsax and has certain claims to Naxcivan and some other parts of Azerbaijan, explain this by "Azeri occupation of historical Armenian lands"?

What is your interest in "objectivity" for the sake of Azeris? Are you also advocating, similarly, in Azeri forums in being fair to Armenians in their historical treatise? Your questioning is irrelevant and to far askew. You are speaking of two totally different historical periods and are making a feeble and sorry attempt at searching, in much desperation, some sort of "contradiction"? There is exists no contradiction.

 

The Caucasus was Persian domain, and the "Azeris" were Tatar subjects of the Persian empire for ages. The dynastic overlordship in the Persian empire was in many cases of Turkic stock, and consequently there had been no ethnic differentiation between Shi'a turks and Shi'a Georgians (of which there were a great many), Persians, Arabs, and so on. The Mosques in question do not, therefore, only belong to those Caucasian Shi'a entities that are "turkic" in origin, but also belong to those who are non-Turkic in origin. The safest and most accurate (empirical) categorization is Persian, and this is especially true since the Tatars in general never referred to themselves as "Azeri." The Turkic AND non-Turkic people who so lived in the Atropatene were so named due to their regional location, not their ethnicity.

 

It is a given that even the current "Azeri" Turkic dialect is inundated with Farsi vocabulary, and the culture is a derivative of Persian, Armenian, Georgian, and those of other Caucasian tribes in addition to Turkic. The Ottoman influence is nominal, and in fact the Ottomans were considered blood enemies. Within this context, the Azeris can be considered a Turkic speaking Persian entity. They had absolutely no "nation" status until the late 19th century when Turkish fascists began to prioritize so-called ethnic ties.

 

After the attainment of "Nation status" and the cooptation of the "Azeri" toponym for a "nations" nomenclature, the hitherto "Azeris" have in fact worked with the Ottoman fascists and post-Ottoman Turkish fascists in appropriating Armenia territory, and they have done so AS Azeris.

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn