10-07-2024, 01:10 PM
[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='60462' dateline='1720601041']
[Turkmen only came to Anatolia in the 11th century. Individual groups arrived as early as the 10th century, but the majority came later. 1060 Battle with Bizanz on the Black Sea. Turkmen had runes, but no writing. This was adopted by the Arabs in the 12th century. Before that in Anatolia, Greek, exactly as you see it in the books. (writings of Bizanz).
Then came the expansion. Last battle with Bizanz on Asian soil around 1360 at Maltepe, and the translation to European soil.
Where do all these writings come from that explain the Turkish dialects?]
Dear Tentakulus,
You are repeating the information in the history books you were taught. This is a very normal and understandable situation, and history teaching spreads this information worldwide. However, these are the personal opinions of historians, and historians who provide other consistent evidence for their different views have mostly been ignored.
However, if I look at the evidence shown in the history and linguistics books I have read, they differ from the commonly taught history knowledge in certain, and important details. Essentially, we should examine the evidence presented rather than people's comments. The date you mentioned is 1071, the last date when Turks came to Anatolia en masse, but it is not the date they first came. Prof. Dr. In his Urmia theory, Firudin Celilov argues that Turks migrated from Anatolia and the ancient Sumerian geography to Central Asia. Each theory offers its evidence, but we must evaluate the evidence presented in terms of its content. Turks are an autochthonous people in both Anatolia and Europe.
About 2500 years ago, Turkmens lived on the island of Cyprus. Researcher Mehmet Turgay Kürüm is the person who proved this by reading the Runic inscriptions found on many objects in the Cyprus archaeological excavations with Turkish Runic sound values. Moreover, almost all of the objects contain Turkish folkloric motifs, and there are also overlaps in the burial culture. Many historical region toponyms/names in Anatolia before Christ are Turkish names. For example, Cappadocia is known as a Persian name but not. It is Turkish. . These have been put forward based on the findings of linguistics, semantics, and comparative linguistics.
Even if we do not want to call it liar and fraudulent history writing, fake history writing has already become garbage, but the unaware audience is larger. However, just because a large number of people believe in a piece of information does not mean that that information is true. History and linguistics will be enlightened to the extent that they are cleared of fabrications and personal views. The only way to do this is for scientists with different views to hold discussions among themselves. Thinking that accepting the common view as correct, and defeating or eliminating the different view is the way ignorant people think and behave.
Hear different opinions from me so that the monotonous music in your ears can be diversified.
[Turkmen only came to Anatolia in the 11th century. Individual groups arrived as early as the 10th century, but the majority came later. 1060 Battle with Bizanz on the Black Sea. Turkmen had runes, but no writing. This was adopted by the Arabs in the 12th century. Before that in Anatolia, Greek, exactly as you see it in the books. (writings of Bizanz).
Then came the expansion. Last battle with Bizanz on Asian soil around 1360 at Maltepe, and the translation to European soil.
Where do all these writings come from that explain the Turkish dialects?]
Dear Tentakulus,
You are repeating the information in the history books you were taught. This is a very normal and understandable situation, and history teaching spreads this information worldwide. However, these are the personal opinions of historians, and historians who provide other consistent evidence for their different views have mostly been ignored.
However, if I look at the evidence shown in the history and linguistics books I have read, they differ from the commonly taught history knowledge in certain, and important details. Essentially, we should examine the evidence presented rather than people's comments. The date you mentioned is 1071, the last date when Turks came to Anatolia en masse, but it is not the date they first came. Prof. Dr. In his Urmia theory, Firudin Celilov argues that Turks migrated from Anatolia and the ancient Sumerian geography to Central Asia. Each theory offers its evidence, but we must evaluate the evidence presented in terms of its content. Turks are an autochthonous people in both Anatolia and Europe.
About 2500 years ago, Turkmens lived on the island of Cyprus. Researcher Mehmet Turgay Kürüm is the person who proved this by reading the Runic inscriptions found on many objects in the Cyprus archaeological excavations with Turkish Runic sound values. Moreover, almost all of the objects contain Turkish folkloric motifs, and there are also overlaps in the burial culture. Many historical region toponyms/names in Anatolia before Christ are Turkish names. For example, Cappadocia is known as a Persian name but not. It is Turkish. . These have been put forward based on the findings of linguistics, semantics, and comparative linguistics.
Even if we do not want to call it liar and fraudulent history writing, fake history writing has already become garbage, but the unaware audience is larger. However, just because a large number of people believe in a piece of information does not mean that that information is true. History and linguistics will be enlightened to the extent that they are cleared of fabrications and personal views. The only way to do this is for scientists with different views to hold discussions among themselves. Thinking that accepting the common view as correct, and defeating or eliminating the different view is the way ignorant people think and behave.
Hear different opinions from me so that the monotonous music in your ears can be diversified.