History and Culture

[Nilgiri]

bruh.....

Ok you guys beat Tamil on this by clear country mile.

We generally rarely go past 3-combined.

@asena_great some stuff for you to read (on this threads page) when you are back...

 

[Xenon54]

bruh.....

Ok you guys beat Tamil on this by clear country mile.

We generally rarely go past 3-combined.

@asena_great some stuff for you to read (on this threads page) when you are back...

Yeah thats turkish grammar for you.

 

[Asena_great]

bruh.....

Ok you guys beat Tamil on this by clear country mile.

We generally rarely go past 3-combined.

@asena_great some stuff for you to read (on this threads page) when you are back...

its not that hard i promise . just try to read it !

 

[Nilgiri]

its not that hard i promise . just try to read it !

Heh I meant more the page before this one (didnt see my reply started new page), has some interesting language based discussion for you to read.

Agglutination!

 

[dani92]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1449080436253237248

Does anyone know if this is true because I know osmanli abd Safavids both were sharing the bektashi order but one was Sunni while the other was alevi.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Sumerians and the Hittites are not Turks you do realise that shit was born out of pseudo racist science.

You see this is the difference between you and I;
You outright dismiss the theory on your own logic. I leave an open door for further discussion.
During 1930s, a leader of a country who has read over 5000 books, sent people to Central Asia to investigate origins of Turks, has come up with a theory, albeit serving a political solution of a Turkish Principality. There is evidence to support the theory and to discredit it too. But there is room for a debate. Let us leave it at that. Shall we?

Ps. To call a theory “crap” does not put an emphasis on it. It actually downgrades the level of discussion!

 

[Turko]

1. Pls Don’t call people naive without knowing the true history of the region. Are you from this area? I lived with these people for over 60 years. Since 1959, I went to school with them. I worked with them. They weren’t always this much pro Kemalism. But the newer generations are now brought up as true Kemalists. You can not find one that supports current government. They are not like the Arabs of Urfa and Mardin. Don’t try to be a “know-all” from down under!
2. Arabs of Hatay are mainly Alawites. They were promised a better standing and say in Hatay and they voted for the integration of Hatay Republic that was formed in September 1938 to be part of Turkey in June 1939 at a plebiscite. Alawites were the minority in Syria. (They still are ; 13% to 74%). They did not like the way they were treated by the Sunni Syrian majority. So they went along with the Turkish cause. Many old Hatay residents that were living in other parts of Turkey were also shipped back to Iskenderun to make up the numbers. But without the support of the Alawites it would not have happened. 220,000 inhabitants of Hatay was made up of 46% Arabs (28% Alawites, 10% Sunni, 8% Christians), 39% Turks, 11% Armenians.
3. A lot of the Arabs of Hatay , today, have the notion that they are descendants of Eti Turks who were assimilated by Arabs, as per Ataturk’s theory that Hatay has been a “Turkish land for 40 centuries and can not be left to the enemy”. As per written on the main monument in the centre of Iskenderun. Ataturk brought out a theory that Sumerians and Hittites were proto Turks. There are nearly 500 words in old Sumerian that has Turkic connotations. It may be far fetched and open to a lot of discussions and arguments. But it is nevertheless a point of convergence for the people.

Oh my goodness. How old are you sir? My respect. After 60 years in Turkey , changing residency and moving to UK!!!

 

[Yasar_TR]

Oh my goodness. How old are you sir? My respect. After 60 years in Turkey , changing residency and moving to UK!!!

Actually I have been living and working in both countries. I am about to end my 7th decade and have been living half and half in both countries since my retirement some 12 years ago.

 

[Turko]

Actually I have been living and working in both countries. I am about to end my 7th decade and have been living half and half in both countries since my retirement some 12 years ago.

İt's great pleasure to meet you. I wish you happiness You are great example for us.

 

[Nilgiri]

İt's great pleasure to meet you. I wish you happiness You are great example for us.

He is indeed one of my favourite members here on this forum

Part of wise veterans group that know what they are talking about.

 

[Ryder]

You see this is the difference between you and I;
You outright dismiss the theory on your own logic. I leave an open door for further discussion.
During 1930s, a leader of a country who has read over 5000 books, sent people to Central Asia to investigate origins of Turks, has come up with a theory, albeit serving a political solution of a Turkish Principality. There is evidence to support the theory and to discredit it too. But there is room for a debate. Let us leave it at that. Shall we?

Ps. To call a theory “crap” does not put an emphasis on it. It actually downgrades the level of discussion!

I copped a ban just for saying Sumerians and Hitties are not Turks.

I say this here they are not Turks.

Theory is a theory. Sorry I dont believe in this we wuz kangz nonsense we dont need to hijack history just prove hatay belongs to us.

We conquered hatay and settled in it with the Turkic soldiers serving the Caliphates then came the Seljuks and the Ottomans.

We have nothing to be ashamed about. Conquer or be conquered.

Turks are still alive today while the Sumerians and Hittites are dead. Thats more than enough prove they are not Turks. Turks dont get wiped out like that while various civilisations got wiped out and are footnotes in history while us Turks are still continuing.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I copped a ban just for saying Sumerians and Hitties are not Turks.

I say this here they are not Turks.

Theory is a theory. Sorry I dont believe in this we wuz kangz nonsense we dont need to hijack history just prove hatay belongs to us.

We conquered hatay and settled in it with the Turkic soldiers serving the Caliphates then came the Seljuks and the Ottomans.

We have nothing to be ashamed about. Conquer or be conquered.

Turks are still alive today while the Sumerians and Hittites are dead. Thats more than enough prove they are not Turks. Turks dont get wiped out like that while various civilisations got wiped out and are footnotes in history while us Turks are still continuing.

You see; You are proving my point. You are saying you don’t believe in Sumerians being Turks outright without tangible proof. You are free to believe in whatever your logic tells you to believe. It is a free world. But when you write in a respected forum like this, there will be people trying to prove you wrong or agree with you.
Ataturk never said they were Turks. But they were Turkic.
Known Turkish history starts with Modu Chanyu ( we know him as Mete Han). He was the King of Xiongnu (we say Hun) . He came in to power around 209 BC by slaying his Father Touman (Teoman). After 50 AD they broke up and gradually disappeared from the historic scene. But many smaller Turkic states were formed some travelled west like The Huns of Hungarian. But small states were fo4med in and around where Xiongnu lived until the emergence of Goktug Empire in 6th century AD .
Who were Turks before the Xiongnu/Huns? There are no definitive records. But they must have come from somewhere.
I am no historian. But somebody engaged a number of historians nearly 100 years ago and came up with a theory , however weak or unsubstantiated it may be , with some proofs. Have you got any such proofs that they are not proto Turks?
There were Scythians in that geography to the East, around 5th to 3rd century BC. We know them as Saka. Their burial and shamanic rituals are synonymous with Turkic rituals. Were they the off shoot of Proto Turks? If so, where did they come from?
Sumerians lived between 5000BC and 1750BC . Hittites lived between 1700BC and 1200BC.
World’s first known civilisation is Sumer Civilisation. Westerners will never accept this civilisation’s relation with Turks. Not because of historic proofs. But Racial and religious reasons. Their language falls in between Turkic and Kartwelian /Dravidian language categories.

The fact that the turkish language, in all it’s development, has mantained some common traits with the old sumerian laguage, may be a further indicator. Both turkish and sumerian, in fact, are agglutinative languages with ‘close-to-zero’ grammatical irregularities.
just look at the various words:
Let's review several Sumerian-Karachaevo-Balkarian words

so bottom line is leave an open mind. There may still be more revelations to come. Som may find it far fetched and don’t believe it. But some may say this is enough proof.

 

[Ryder]

You see; You are proving my point. You are saying you don’t believe in Sumerians being Turks outright without tangible proof. You are free to believe in whatever your logic tells you to believe. It is a free world. But when you write in a respected forum like this, there will be people trying to prove you wrong or agree with you.
Ataturk never said they were Turks. But they were Turkic.
Known Turkish history starts with Modu Chanyu ( we know him as Mete Han). He was the King of Xiongnu (we say Hun) . He came in to power around 209 BC by slaying his Father Touman (Teoman). After 50 AD they broke up and gradually disappeared from the historic scene. But many smaller Turkic states were formed some travelled west like The Huns of Hungarian. But small states were fo4med in and around where Xiongnu lived until the emergence of Goktug Empire in 6th century AD .
Who were Turks before the Xiongnu/Huns? There are no definitive records. But they must have come from somewhere.
I am no historian. But somebody engaged a number of historians nearly 100 years ago and came up with a theory , however weak or unsubstantiated it may be , with some proofs. Have you got any such proofs that they are not proto Turks?
There were Scythians in that geography to the East, around 5th to 3rd century BC. We know them as Saka. Their burial and shamanic rituals are synonymous with Turkic rituals. Were they the off shoot of Proto Turks? If so, where did they come from?
Sumerians lived between 5000BC and 1750BC . Hittites lived between 1700BC and 1200BC.
World’s first known civilisation is Sumer Civilisation. Westerners will never accept this civilisation’s relation with Turks. Not because of historic proofs. But Racial and religious reasons. Their language falls in between Turkic and Kartwelian /Dravidian language categories.
View attachment 37310
The fact that the turkish language, in all it’s development, has mantained some common traits with the old sumerian laguage, may be a further indicator. Both turkish and sumerian, in fact, are agglutinative languages with ‘close-to-zero’ grammatical irregularities.
just look at the various words:
Let's review several Sumerian-Karachaevo-Balkarian words

so bottom line is leave an open mind. There may still be more revelations to come. Som may find it far fetched and don’t believe it. But some may say this is enough proof.

Similar words as your proof LOL

I say it again the Sumerians are not Turks. They are middle easterners. Whose language is considered isolate.

By the way a lot of sumerian words made their way into Assyrian and even Arabic.

Now tell me why do the Sumerians dont have any turkic dna in them??

How come they never adopted horseback?

Now answer these. Let me guess not believing the Sumerians are Turks is considered "western propaganda"

 

[Yasar_TR]

Similar words as your proof LOL

I say it again the Sumerians are not Turks. They are middle easterners. Whose language is considered isolate.

By the way a lot of sumerian words made their way into Assyrian and even Arabic.

Now tell me why do the Sumerians dont have any turkic dna in them??

How come they never adopted horseback?

Now answer these. Let me guess not believing the Sumerians are Turks is considered "western propaganda"

Remember please that I am not saying that they are. But I am leaving an open mind. Have you got any proof or source that corroborate what you are claiming re DNA etc?

 

[Ryder]

Remember please that I am not saying that they are. But I am leaving an open mind. Have you got any proof or source that corroborate what you are claiming re DNA etc?

Researchers: Large Language Family Had Ancient Origins in China

A recent study shows a shared genetic ancestry for the hundreds of millions of people who speak what the researchers call Transeurasian languages. They include modern Japanese, Korean, Turkish and Mongolian.

www.google.com

This article can easily put to bed that the Sumerians are Turks.

Now look it Turkic, Mongolic, Japonic, Koreanic and Tungusic languages all come from a common ancestor.

I believe in the Altaic theory more than the Sumerians being Turks because there is so much proof.

 

[CAN_TR]

The Sumerians are neither Semitic nor Indo-European, nothing known about their origins but there are indeed similarities between Sumerian and Ural-Altaic languages for example. Same with the ancient Elamites and Hattians non of them had linguistic similarities with their successors but Ural-Altaic, Dravidian, Kartvelian... again similarities!

We can't prove it neither can linguists, everthing about the origin of Sumerians are theories.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Researchers: Large Language Family Had Ancient Origins in China

A recent study shows a shared genetic ancestry for the hundreds of millions of people who speak what the researchers call Transeurasian languages. They include modern Japanese, Korean, Turkish and Mongolian.

www.google.com

This article can easily put to bed that the Sumerians are Turks.

Now look it Turkic, Mongolic, Japonic, Koreanic and Tungusic languages all come from a common ancestor.

I believe in the Altaic theory more than the Sumerians being Turks because there is so much proof.

I agree with what is written in this article and what they are saying. But there is nothing there that says that Sumerians are not Proto Turkic.
In a world where wide scale incursions of tribes in to eachother’s land and domain is common practice, the DNA migration due to cross-tribal breeding would be expected. So without written proof of language it is still guesswork to use genetic markers only. Nevertheless it would give a good degree of information to theorise.
As per @CAN_TR has said, there is nothing known about the origins of Sumerians. One can only guess with current level of information in hand. Guesswork does not give enough grounds for proof though! But there are breadcrumbs to postulate , in the form of various words that are the same in Sumerian and current Turkic dialects being spoken in Asia and Europe.
We can argue and discuss here for hours. But without concrete evidence put forward by real historians, our endeavours would be futile.
My approach is : If there are breadcrumbs to go along with, do not disregard it outright. Give the theory the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Anastasius]

Similar words as your proof LOL

I say it again the Sumerians are not Turks. They are middle easterners. Whose language is considered isolate.

By the way a lot of sumerian words made their way into Assyrian and even Arabic.

Now tell me why do the Sumerians dont have any turkic dna in them??

How come they never adopted horseback?

Now answer these. Let me guess not believing the Sumerians are Turks is considered "western propaganda"

Don't have a horse in this race (pun intended) but Sumerians being somewhat related to Turks does not mean they had to have similar steppe nomad traditions. Kurds and Persians are both of Iranic origin, yet one is a nomad peoples and the other is a prominent settler civilization.

 

[Manomed]

Don't have a horse in this race (pun intended) but Sumerians being somewhat related to Turks does not mean they had to have similar steppe nomad traditions. Kurds and Persians are both of Iranic origin, yet one is a nomad peoples and the other is a prominent settler civilization.

Kurds are not related to Ancient persians even the modern Iranians are not related to them

 

[Ryder]

Don't have a horse in this race (pun intended) but Sumerians being somewhat related to Turks does not mean they had to have similar steppe nomad traditions. Kurds and Persians are both of Iranic origin, yet one is a nomad peoples and the other is a prominent settler civilization.

Cavalry still played a role in Persian armies. Sumerians never went horseback as they used chariots.