Why do Turks think they were Anatolian Hittites?
After the collapse of the ottomans they went like "yeah man we were always here and then that Alexander dude was rude and made us basically go all the way across the world to China but they build a wall so we came back"
This was a serious political idea of the 20th century and is still viewed as an origin story in Turkey
They're immigrants with no right to live in Anatolia. They're literally the descendents of Mongolian rape childs.
It's the same thing with those stupid ass Uyghers in china. There have been pathetic attempts by these people to justify their right to live in china. Going as far as to say they are descendents of tocharians.
A Caucasian group of people with European features that lived in central asia before being raped and fucked over by the yellow monkey.
The Turks are such a diverse people that a lot of these origin stories are all true, in some sense. Some parts of the Turkish gene pool come from central Asia, some parts come from the Greeks, some come from the pre-greek Anatolians, etc.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the people of a Nation can be descended from many different bloodlines? Like, do you think that the ancestors of the Turks were just a single invading force that literally killed every Byzantine in Anatolia and then closed off immigration forever?
>and is still viewed as an origin story in Turkey
Pure autism. This is an internet meme. All Turks believe they are descendants of steppe warriors who invaded anatolia which is less accurate than hittite theory.
And i want to add if you call a Turk descendent of greeks, hittites or any other shit, he will be pissed off. It is hard to understand from your narrow point of view but Turkish people are proud of their steppe past and love other steppe people in central asia.
Hittite meme was created by NON TURKS on /int/ to piss turks who claim they are steppe people off.
>Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the people of a Nation can be descended from many different bloodlines?
Because it complicates the narrative of nationalism. The usual "uniting force" under nationalism is a people united in blood and culture, with the former quality implying a certain assumption of "purity." In reality, virtually all nations are some manner of admixture of different ancestral people, with the largest genetic contributor generally being whatever human population happen to be there first. When it comes to larger nation states, it is inevitable that the ancestry of people in some parts of the country are not going to match those found in another part, and that discrepancy poses a remote possibility that further ethnic divisions may be drawn under the right cultural and political circumstances.
Nationalists are so fucking retarded
Most Egyptians are descended from stone age Egyptians
Most Turks are descended from stone age Anatolians
Most British people are descended from stone age Britons
Not that anon but I could see it being technically correct, most would be at leas in a very minimal way descended from the neolithic population of the area (excluding USA/Australia etc).
Support what? During his rule Turkish historians were given a task to prove the Turkic origin of all native Anatolian peoples (and not only them, hence shit like the Sun Language Theory)
>>565456 but we don't
there is one underage retard on int (and now on his) that is having an existential crisis that thinks turks are hitites, which is a ridiculous claim
most anatolia turks are culturally turkic mixed in with greek and persian.
we are a multi racial/cultural community, being %40 mediterrenean/caucasian, %15 turkic, %15 persian, %10 north african and the rest being from all sorts of places
i respect the cultures that lived in anatolia before the turks, and the government does well in restoring and safekeeping these artifacts in museums and such
but the fact is that turks have been in anatolia for 1000 years now. it has become our homeland
although i feel bad about the turkish/greek population exchange that happened after the independence war, since greeks are really close to turks in a lot of ways and the people were forced out of their homes. however it was needed after the two bloody wars between the states. greeks truly hated the turks and populations could no longer live together in peace, which is evident in that greeks killed thousands of civillians and burned down western anatolia as they were pushed out to sea and the turkish atrocities against greeks in the following months
Wasn't there far more greeks displaced than turks though?
It's a bit unfair that a few recent turkish enclaves in greece were considered equivalent to the entire East Agean coastal area populated by hundred of thousands of greeks (if not millions) for at least 2700 years.
I'm speaking about the allies' decision. Obviously greeks had lost the war and if it had just been between the two of them it would be more understandable. Why they wouldn't want a greater greece as a new buffer against Russia instead of Turks is beyond me.
Question for the Turks:
I'm a first semester ethnology student, and I hope to specialize in North Asia (Siberia, as well as Mongolia, Manchuria, and possibly Sakhalin + Hokkaido).
I'm currently focusing on Mongolia, and hope to study the ethnogenesis of the Mongol and proto-Mongol peoples, as well as a potential "Urheimat".
I understand that the Altaic hypothesis enjoys a near-uncontested status in Turkey, particularly as it has been from the beginning mingled with political ideas (Turanism, Panturkism, Evola-style mythopoeia) that furthered Turkish interests.
My first, admittedly superficial inquests into the matter however lead me to believe that my findings are going to clash with the ideas of the Altaic hypothesis. In particular, while it seems true that the "Urheimat" or at least the first area of settlement where demonstrably Turkic people were first observed lies in the Altai Mountains, the same is not true for the proto-Mongols; here it seems that the first proto-Mongolic peoples originated in modern-day Manchuria, close to the northern Korean kingdoms of Balhae and such.
Likewise, particularly the linguistic backdrop to the Altaic hypothesis seems to be under a lot of attack these days, since agglutination and vowel harmony are certainly an interesting common factor, but appear also in several entirely unrelated languages (such as in West Africa) and are in themselves not enough to formulate an argument of common ancestry. Same goes for shared vocabulary, which is to be expected in a climate of nomadic, multi-ethnic tribal confederation polities.
So I guess the question was: do you think there would be a lot of outrage and opposition to the idea that Turkic and Mongolic peoples are not as deeply and immediately related as one assumes? FYI, it seems like many Mongol institutions were originally Turkic (such as the worship of Tengri, the Orkhon script, and even the area known today as Mongolia was settled by the Mongols only after the Göktürks moved west.)
There shouldn't be. Before Genghis' empire the steppe Turks viewed Mongols as barbarians, even though they adopted a lot of Turkic culture. I think this modern view is a sort of cognitive dissonance to get around the fact that they were utterly conquered by a people they once viewed as inferior.
Genetically they are native to the soil. The idea that a state or culture represents an ethnicity is a meme. The original turks were east asian in appearance and mostly spread their martial culture and language, not their DNA.
take a look at this >>569537
Most turks are turkified greeks who in turn were hellenized anatolians (luwians, lycians,hittites etc) ofc even "native anatolians" were once indo european migrants so there's also that.
Turks share heritage with hittites genetically and historically the same way Armenians share heritage with Urartians when though Urartuians were not indo european like themselves or Iran with Elamites.
Funny anecdote, certain hittite names are still being used in rural inner anatolia, or maybe its a coincidence I don't know.
Turks indeed have the same right to claim Hittites than Armenians have to claim urartians or iranians to claim elamites. Or, to go into Europe, the same right the spaniards have to claim the iberians and celtiberians, the portuguese the lusitani or the french the gauls.
I think none of these modern nations have the right to claim those ancient peoples, though. So neither do the turks with the hittites. It's silly when the french claim to be gauls when, if anything, they're romans, the very same culture that killed and absorbed the gaulish one.
The 19th century produced WE WUZ on a global scale.
>"Das right chilluns! We wuz proud steppe warriors until da rayciss chinese kicked us out and we conquered the Greeks who magically disappeared!"
>"Das right laddie! We wuz aryan warriors from scandinavia until the rayciss celts invited us over and stole our magic powers so we forced them all into wales"
>"das right we strong invader folk who kicked the celtic britons out to shit places like Wales and Scotland and formed the kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons in the best part of Albion..."
oh wait lmao
It's not the same. The French enjoy much clearer continuity with the Gauls than the Turks do with Anatolians. Where did the Gauls go? They became French, there's no other answer.
Meanwhile Anatolian speakers stopped existing a millennia before the Turks arrived, let alone Bronze Age Hittites. There is no language or anything to go by, and Anatolians weren't assimilated into Ottoman society, but Hellenic/Roman/Byzantine before that. You can't do leaps like that when talking about national continuity.