|
|
Post by odel on May 13, 2011 7:41:21 GMT -5
Hellenas, You weren't very helpful and I think im going to have to clean this topic up of the rubbish, since many people input but they don't have any solid information. However I am aware that the Turks (ancient) had a policy of taking under them many different groups of people as they encountered them. Perhaps a meeting with celtics somewhere gave them the light colouring. All i know is, is that there is proof about this, rather than little boys here trying to tell me otherwise "because they think so". Lol. Again, the Turks weren't of light colour and the meeting of Celts with Turks wouldn't have changed the colouring of the Turks, at least not just a brief meeting with them, and if were talking about the IE people that the Turks might have mixed with before they came to Anatolia, that would have been the Tocharians. The Tocharians inhabited todays Northwestern-China, they were then invaded by Turkic peoples, today the Uyghur and they claim that they're indigenous and that the mummies found there were the proof of that, these mummies were the mummies of their ancestors. DNA tests proved these claims wrong however. Anyways, I think it's nice that you finally realized that any blondism in any Turk is something of European deriviation and not that the Turks were a predominantly blonde people before they somehow mixed with darker peoples. Btw, it seems as if the Chinese documents you were reffering to weren't mentioning Turks, they were about the peoples that inhabited Northwestern-China, which there are Turks living in now, however, these Turkic peoples were invaders. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tochariansen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummiesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_peoplediscovermagazine.com/1994/apr/themummiesofxinj359www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/a-meeting-of-civilisations-the-mystery-of-chinas-celtic-mummies-413638.htmlwww.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15#IDAH0OBHwashingtontimes.com/world/20050419-101056-2135r.htm |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator 
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 13, 2011 10:54:30 GMT -5
LOL I wasn't talking about the Uygurs, i am aware of the current situation in Xinjiang. Odel, i have 2 friends who are there, fighting with the Uygurs against the Chinese governments oppression. The information you have given - none of it is conclusive, it is all theoretical. I didn't even mention those mummies. Thanks for bringing them up though, and with time, it will come clear that they are in fact the ancient Turks. The evidence I used were from old Chinese records taken by a world famous anthropogist/journalist/Historian. Nice try though... wrong argument LOL.. keep going  |
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on May 13, 2011 13:39:50 GMT -5
Ataturk doesn't stike me as Albanian-looking at all. He may have some Albanian ancestry but that doesn't make him a real Arnaut.
Yes a high proportion of light features in present day Anatolia come from out-side (Balkans and north of the Caucasus), but some of it also derives from the various native Indo-European peoples that have occupied the land in antiquity like the Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians, etc. No matter how submerged these ancient peoples became by various invaders, their blood surely did not completely disappear.
However the Turks who invaded Asia minor and imposed their language were without a doubt mongoloid Turks. For example just because today's Hungarians are white doesn't mean the original Magyars were central European-looking. This stuff is basic.
There is evidence of Tocharians or Tocharian-related peoples becoming elites in Mongoloid societies like China for example. But this is nothing unusual. It is common for European featured peoples to form an upper-crust in non-white societies the world over. This has been true from even the most ancient of times.
However saying the original Turks were white makes as much sense as saying the original Indo-Europeans were Mongoloid. The Tocharians are classified as Indo-European by experts for many reasons. The fact that Desire can claim here otherwise is a luxury of the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 13, 2011 14:46:17 GMT -5
LOL I wasn't talking about the Uygurs, i am aware of the current situation in Xinjiang. Odel, i have 2 friends who are there, fighting with the Uygurs against the Chinese governments oppression. The information you have given - none of it is conclusive, it is all theoretical. I didn't even mention those mummies. Thanks for bringing them up though, and with time, it will come clear that they are in fact the ancient Turks. The evidence I used were from old Chinese records taken by a world famous anthropogist/journalist/Historian. Nice try though... wrong argument LOL.. keep going No it isn't theoretical, read it numbnut. These people were proven to be Europeans genetically and in the articles it says that there is some small correlation with the Uyghurs it's small and nothing important, meaning that it was some of the local European that had gotten absorbed by the Uyghurs (of which there is proof of that they came from Mongolia btw, and aren't indigenous to that area). If you had bothered to even read anything (or maybe you just lack understanding?) you'd read that it all supports an European origin of the original people inhabiting that area. And yes, it is part of your arguement as the "Turks were blonde" arguement is very much based on these mummies, and the people inhabiting the area before the Uyghurs/Turkic peoples. And I'd really like to see the actual documents. My arguement fits very much because of that. Anyways, I'm not going to spend time arguing this with you anymore, as ridiculous as your claim is you still stand by them and you would stand by them no matter what, it's obvious that there also are political reasons for you to do so. To Plisbardhi: Ataturk doesn't look Albanian, I don't think so and the claims on him being Albanian are speculation mostly, it's much more possible than his "100% pure Aryan Yoruk Turk" origins, Turks never were blonde/red haired and blue/green eyed, it's just DYkes wet dream that they were. The fact that DY can claim otherwise concerning the Tocharians and much of the other things she claims is not just a luxury of the internett, such things are mostly a luxury of this forum. She's now in the same group as some other members of this forum. |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 13, 2011 16:22:33 GMT -5
The article I referenced WAS NOT in relation to UYGURS. It was in reference to Kirgiz Turks don't you understand? Maybe you don't know or cannot tell the difference. LOL. Goodness me, you are quite thick aren't you? So try to reply to the actual reference and not counter with something completely unrelated yea I swear, you actually don't know anything about this subject, yet your going to give yourself haemorrhoids trying to force your brain to write a reply here. Plisbardi, I never claimed they were "white" I said that some of them were recorded to have light hair and green eyes, I didn't ever mention they were white. Not only European people have light hair and green eyes, however rare, there are even cases of non albino africans with blonde hair and green eyes for goodness sakes, why is it so hard to comprehend? Odel, little boy, calling me a Dyke etc...when you cannot even debate in a civilised manner, nor accept where you are wrong about something. Go back to ..washing dishes, or whatever it is that you do... |
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 14, 2011 5:49:34 GMT -5
I listen from a lot of people over here saying that the Turks(or even Greeks and other Balkanians) are not white but "swarthy" and "dark", that's wrong as well. Skin Color Map from Coon circa 1982. From "Racial Adaptations", 1982.  |
|
|
|
Post by emer on May 14, 2011 6:57:58 GMT -5
Most of the Turks I've seen were whiter than me, but Turkey like Greece and other Middle Eastern countries has dark people too. Anyway race is Turkey's least problem they should work on other issues like freedom of speech, it's illegal to say bad things about Ataturk in Turkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 14, 2011 9:05:37 GMT -5
The Uygurs and the Kirgiz are both Turks and of genetic similarity, and your arguement was that the original Turks were predominantly blonde, which is not true and is proven by the fact that some of the purest Turks (Uygurs) aren't predominantly blonde or even close to being so and the blonde element in them is proven to be of European extraction The Uygurs are Turks straight outa Mongolia so, they're therefore more likely to have kept more of the original Turk blood. You did claim that the ancient Turks were predominantly blonde, the document you refferenced to for example claimed that the Turks were red haired and green eyed, not that some of them were blonde and green eyed and whatever, and according to you that's characteristic features of the Yoruks which also according to you are some of the purer Turks. As I proved, the Turks of central Asia mixed with IE people, this concerns the Kirgiz as well who have a large amount of R1a1 Y-DNA. As I've said these Turks weren't pure and European admixture must have had everything to do with the blondism that was in the Turks. This is also true for the Turks of Anatolia, if a Turk is blonde, red haired, blue eyed or green eyed it speaks of European origin and admixture. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htmAll blue eyed people are related, meaning blue eyes came from one source, an European source as Europe is the only place where blue eyes are common, this does most likely also concern other traits such as green eyes or blonde and red hair, of course when it's naturally occuring and not because of Albinism. Non-Albino Africans with blonde hair and green eyes are genetic mutants and extremely rare, btw, there are different types of Albinos, it's not in all cases that Albinism affects the skin too. There is albinism that only affects eye pigment for example. Anyways, albinism as said is very rare and it doesn't explain your claims. I'll gladly accept that I'm wrong if I'm wrong, however, you should take your own advice too. Your claim that pure Turks were blonde/red haired and had blue/green eyes is something that just isn't acceptable, therefore I won't accept that the Turks were predominantly blonde. It's not like you haven't insulted me neither  Stop being such a hypocrite. |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 14, 2011 9:28:08 GMT -5
Odel, I knew that you would finally wake up and realise the different types of Turks we are talking about well done- BIG CLAP-
Unfortunately, they are not "similar" as you try to say. Turks are a very diverse group,who spread over a huge area, therefore, your "well they are both Turks" argument is as solid as as spongebob.
Also another false point you made: You claim i stated they are "predominantly blonde" however, I did no such thing. This is a figment of your warped imagination. I stated that some Turks were recorded to have GREEN eyes and light(red/blonde) hair. Nothing more.
The Yoruks are known to be blonde with green eyes and blue eyes. They are also known to be purer than most of the Turks in Turkey since they are against mixing, similar to the Zaza and the Alevi's.
You haven't proved anything as far as I am concerned, you have spoken about the Kirgiz perhaps having some mixture with indoeuropeans, nothing more.. so what?
The link you gave about blue eyes, doesn't at all mention "blue" eyes is a European trait, it just states that it is a genetic mutation probably related to one ancestor. Do you not read your own sources?
LMAO
I do not claim that "pure" Turks are blonde and blue eyed, I only stated that Chinese records show that some Turks were recorded to have green eyes and light hair.
You really do have a comprehension problem, I even stated above in another post that MOST Turks have brown hair and light brown to dark brown eyes.
anyhow this has been fun, but you just keep disprovin yourself... isn't it getting boring?
|
|
|
|
Post by odel on May 14, 2011 10:11:02 GMT -5
I didn't claim that the Kirgiz and the Uyghurs were the same, however, Kyrgyzstan is right next to the Chinese territory in which the Uyghurs live, they're closely related people and they both have had contact with the same IE people, not only Tocharians but also Scythians it seems, the high R1a1 in these peoples prove that. Actually there's only a border that really differantiates them. Any arguement concerning the Uyghurs will therefore also concern the Kyrgyz. And one of the documents you reffered to stated that the Turks were green eyed and that they had light hair, which is a general statement saying that the most of them were and the other one even said that non-blondes were seen as foreign elements, mixed. You also said that this was also a characteristic Yoruk trait. Also, I repeatedly told you that the Turks weren't predominantly light, which was part of my arguement not that there weren't some light pigmented ones, why did you argue against that then if that wasn't art of your arguement? If you only meant that some Turks were blonde then you wouldn't have argued against my statement, however, you did not, you kept on stating that I was wrong, meaning that you meant that the Turks were predominantly blonde. Note that when I say blonde I'm also reffering to red hair and blue/green eyes. This again? Again you are saying that the purer Turks are blonde with green/blue eyes, then who did the other Turks mix with that were darker than the original Turks? The IE mixture in the Kyrgyz and other Turkic people has been proven, it's not something worthy of a "perhaps" it's deffinitive. This again tells us that the Turks aren't blonde when they are pure, which is something you claim. Blue eyes aren't common anywhere but in Europe, dolt. The article doesn't have to mention that blue eyes are an European trait, just that it's all from the same source which is by default European as it's only in Europe that it's common. So, I've read this source, obviously you can't comprehend anything that isn't completely laid out for you. LMAO! "The Yoruks are known to be blonde with green eyes and blue eyes. They are also known to be purer than most of the Turks in Turkey since they are against mixing, similar to the Zaza and the Alevi's."-You. Yes and? I'm not arguing against that as it's fact, most Turks have dark brown hair, which is also supported by Coon for example. However, were talking about the original Turks and their "purer" descendants which according to you are mostly blonde, this not due to European mix but because they always were like that. Seriously, get your head out of your ass. |
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 14, 2011 10:16:43 GMT -5
Most of the Turks I've seen were whiter than me, but Turkey like Greece and other Middle Eastern countries has dark people too. Yes, Greece a "Middle Eastern" country, get a map you uneducated alabanian and if Greece is in the Middle East then Albania is in Africa and you are all Albinos over there. Lol.  The origin of Albanians:  |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 14, 2011 12:56:31 GMT -5
Your ignorance just continues, because they share a border, you assume they are "closely related" Try to apply the same logic to areas where the Serbs and Albanians both live together must be closely related. Anyhow, they are NOT the same people whatsoever, the Uygurs are an alliance whereas the Khirgiz are more of an ethnicity. Anyhow, it would be too difficult for you to understand which is why I haven't even mentioned all the other Turk groups out there... Scythians!!!! wow we are going very far back, I do in fact believe that Scythians were part of the Turks ancestry, but not exclusively, we did adopt quite a few of their traditions. Any argument concerning the Uygurs does not concern the Kirgiz, you are very uneducated in this area. One of the sources I used does state that there were light hair and green eyed Turks, because the argument was that Turks cannot ever possibly have light eyes or light hair. That statement was counter to your "claim" it wasn't anywere stated that - all Turks are blonde and Green eyed, you really need to learn to analyse what you read and the context of which it is in carefully. My opinion is that YOU ARE WRONG about Turks not having Green eyes or Light hair. My opinion is not that ALL Turks have blonde hair and green eyes. You stated that all Turks are dark, and I countered it using a very strong reference by a world reknowned journalist/historian/anthrolopogists findings. My view is that Turks are very diverse, and this diversity does not only come from intermixing during the Ottoman period, but rather throughout their ancient history. I did not say purer Turks are blonde with blue eyes, I said the Yoruks are known to be less mixed and have blonde and green eyes. The Alevi and the Zaza are not known for this trait(having light eyes and hair), however being uneducated about this subject, you just jump to your little conclusion as usual. The Alevi and the Zaza are two groups who don't mix, but they do in fact have mainly light brown hair and eyes!! Which just confirms my view that TURKS ARE DIVERSE.Blue eyes are just brown eyes gone wrong... there is no proof they came from Europe, that is just your opinion. How do you know that one ancestor is European and not Asian or African for example, that came to Europe. Don't make these silly conclusions... you are certainly turning out to be very dim indeed. I don't care for carlton coons racist theories. Physical Anthropology has progressed insanely fast since his time and no reputable anthropologist would take him very seriously today. We are not talking about Turks PURER descendants as you dream, we are talking about the fact that, among others, Turks did have ancestry which included green eyes and red hair. You are trying to make this into a You think Turks are blonde but you are wrong type argument, whereas I am just stating Turks are diverse since ancient times, and any light eyes or hair does not mean it definitely comes from the balkans or Europe it could also be part of their ancient heritage as it is seen with Yoruks. Do you get it yet? or are you going to keep pushing those 2 braincells to their limits? |
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 14, 2011 13:32:09 GMT -5
I don't care for carlton coons racist theories. Physical Anthropology has progressed insanely fast since his time and no repulatable anthropologist would take him very seriously today. Of course most of modern Anthropologists agree and take seriously Carleton S. Coon, they base their works on him and follow his theories(based on findings) as he is an expert on his science. Also he is not a "racist", people usually confuse the term "racism" with racialism and science as well. Why people when disagree with a scientist dispute him and try to prove him wrong? Anyway, he is a scientist, I trust him. |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 14, 2011 15:56:15 GMT -5
Who are these modern Anthropologists if you can share with me, that take him seriously?
|
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 14, 2011 17:00:07 GMT -5
Who are these modern Anthropologists if you can share with me, that take him seriously? I said most of Anthropologists. For you who are those modern Anthropologists that do not take him seriously? I have never read anyone disputing him. |
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on May 14, 2011 18:24:00 GMT -5
Sherwood Washburn, Ashley Montagu, Franz Boas, Alexander Allend, are some for example.
Also, Carlton Coon thought that cromagnids were partially neanderthal. LOL
Modern anthropology doesn't work in the racist way he did.
Can you tell me which of these modern anthropologists base their theories on him.. or follow him etc... as far as I know from friends in the field, they pretty much disregard Coon.
|
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 15, 2011 5:10:25 GMT -5
Sherwood Washburn, Ashley Montagu, Franz Boas, Alexander Allend, are some for example. Those are very few(I counted just four) and I don't even know them, I usually read the works of American, Italian and of Greek Anthropologists. Can you explain me why he is a "racist"? Most of all other Anthropologists and Scientists like Aris Poulianos, J. Lawrence Angel , Giuseppe Sergi, Renato Biasutti, Earnest A. Hooton, J. J. Winckelmann, Geoffrey G. Field, A. James Gregor e.t.c. |
|
|
|
Post by coris on May 15, 2011 6:26:49 GMT -5
Most of the Turks I've seen were whiter than me, but Turkey like Greece and other Middle Eastern countries has dark people too. Yes, Greece a "Middle Eastern" country, get a map you uneducated alabanian and if Greece is in the Middle East then Albania is in Africa and you are all Albinos over there. Lol. The origin of Albanians: Wow some members do really slap it with this whole Caucasian albania and "nothing before 1200" stuff i guess... Btw latin word for scotland was alba or albania i can't remember which one and they wore kilts which are very similar to fustanella. Does this mean albanians came from scotland? |
|
Hellenas
Amicus
Father of Gods and of men.
Posts: 432
|
Post by Hellenas on May 15, 2011 7:26:19 GMT -5
Wow some members do really slap it with this whole Caucasian albania and "nothing before 1200" stuff i guess... Btw latin word for scotland was alba or albania i can't remember which one and they wore kilts which are very similar to fustanella. Does this mean albanians came from scotland?  Alexander the Great wearing a kind of fustanella that is ancient Greek and not "albanian", there was not any "albania" in the Blakans/Haimos back then, there was only one Albania in the Caucasos area, from were the "Illyrians" also migrated in the Balkans.  The Caucasian race spread towards all directions. In the peninsula of Balkans/ Haimos becomes known as the Illyrian nation. (photo from "The origin of the
Hellenes" by the Ethnologist Demetrios P. Demopoulos).Albanians are not Illyrians:Historians know that Albanians came from the Caspian Sea, near Caucasus. And that they mixed with Illyrians. Of course, Albanians tend to overlook that detail and assume they descent directly from Illyrians. The Albanians are from the Caucasus, originally. Caucasian Albania was located on the eastern area of the Caucasus between the Caspian sea and the tips of the mountain ranges.illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ilirijaillyrikonillyria&action=display&thread=33297&page=1Albanians are from the Caucasus, originally. Caucasian Albania The Albanicus or ARNAUTICUS as they have been known !!Whether the albanians are the descendants of Illyrians is a matter of*great debate, it is questianable and controversial. Some Albanians nationalists and fanatics would like to think so however. Similarly the Slav Skopians, would like to think that they are macedonians, Turks would like to think they are Europeans and several other ridiculus misconceptions. The common element between all those races is that they are currently occupying Greek land; with the Turks occupying the majority of Greek land. Historians know that Albanians came from the Caspian Sea, near Caucasus. And that they mixed with Illyrians. Of course, Albanians tend to overlook that detail and assume they descent directly from Illyrians. The Albanians are from the Caucasus, originally. Caucasian Albania was located on the eastern area of the Caucasus between the Caspian sea and the tips of the mountain ranges. Old Albania was known only for wild dogs and baren snow covered mountains, for which it received the name Albania by foreigners (Alba-white). One of the GREATEST PROOFS that Albanians do come from the Caucasus and that THEY ARE NOT the descendants of the Ancient Illyrians is the Turkish name for the Albanians. "Arnauti", which means "those who have not returned" in Arabic, for the Turks were aware of the origins of the Albanians. And they truly did not return, they stayed in Serbian and Byzantine lands. In turn, the Albanians did not use any of those names for themselves, but called themselves "shqiptari". The word "shqip" has many meanings in Albanian. It can mean "eagle" or "rocky hill". Austro-Hungarian anthropologists and philologists in early last century attempted to give the Albanians a noble character nd theorized that the "eagle" was the root meaning and totally ignored both modern Albania and Caucasian Albania as rocky, baren and poor places, which would allude to the notion of the former as being the root meaning for naming themselves. Is this just a greater Serbian quasi-history to cover up the noble Illyrian roots of Albanians? Not according to a contemporary od Maniakos, the Byzantine ruler who brought the Albanians to northern Epirus. Michael Ataliotos describes the events in his chronicle: "Historia, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. Impensis ed. Neberi, Bonnae". In the republic of Georgia, in the Caucasus, on the terriory of the former Caucasian Albania, from where the Avar Khanate once had its capital, there is a village named: "Arnauti". This is the name by which Serbs, Greeks, Turks, Fyromians and Montenegrin Serbs refer to Albanians in their respective langauges. There is also village in Georgia named "Bushati" - which is the name of an Albanian tribe ("fis") around Lake Skadar. There are three villages named: "Geguti", "Gegeni" and "Gegi". "Ghegheni" is the name designated to Albanians who live north of the Shkumbi River in Albania proper. The Albanians call themselves "Shqip-tari". This name is not Indo-European in origin and contains in it the Ural-Altaic suffix "ar" or "tar". Much like: "Khaz-AR", "Av-AR", "Magy-AR", "Bulg-AR", "Hung-AR", "Ta-TAR" - "Ship-TAR". Taken together with the Shqiptar-Albanian toponyms on the territory of the former Caucasian Albania, this theory on the etymology of "Shqipatr" becomes more plausable. When Aleander the Great conquered Asia minor, he took with him the great leader of the Albanian tribes and gave him as a present an Albanian dog. Among other things, Caucasian Albania did not attract conquerors, because of its poverty and difficult terrain. With the comming of the Arabs, they converted the Old Albanians in the 8th century to Islam. But meanwhile, at the time, the Arabs were waging campaigns in Sicily, dividing it into two parts, (hence there was the Kingom of the two Sicilies). In order to populate their part of Sicily, the Arabs brought with them Old Albanians from the Caucasus. To this day, their descendants live in Sicily. Then in 1042, the Byzantine Empire attacked the yong Serbian state after having defeated the Arabs in Sicily and having brought the Sicilian Albanians under their command and christianizing them. The leader of the Byzantines who led the Albanians was named Georgius Maniakos. Maniakos brought Albanian mercenaries from Sicily to fight the Serbs and they settled in two waves in modern day Albania, first the mercanaries came, and then came the women and children. After the defeat of Maniakos, the Byzantines would not let the Albanians return, thus the Albanians requested that the Serbs let them stay on the land. They settled under mount Raban and the city of Berat and from this, the Serbs called them "Rabanasi" or "Arbanasi". The city of Berat was known as Belgrad also, before the Albanians came to settle there. They mostly tended sheep and cattle and lent themselves out to Serbian nobles as brave soldiers. The original URAL-ALTAIC speaking Caucasian Shqiptar-Albanians were part of the AVAR KHANATE which had one of its early capitals in Caucasian Albania (hence Albanian topnyms there, the possible Ural-Altaic etymology of the suffix in the word "Shqip-tar" and the similarities in national costume with Caucasian peoples - the non-Indo-European Georgians, in particular). The original Shqiptar-Albanian group of AVARS settled in Northern Romania and subjugated the Latin speaking peoples of that area when the Avars entered Europe and conquered most of its Eastern part. Over time they assimilated most of the Latin language of the people they conquered, but imposed their name on their new subjects - just like the Bulg-AR tribe did in Thrace. This explains why modern Albanian has simmilarities to the Romance languages of Romania. This Ship-tar Av-ar tribe, I believe, moved south as far as Epirus from where the Avars are recorded as staging their failed attack on Constantinople. So, by the time the Avar Khanate was defeated by the armies of Serbs and Croats and Charles the Great in the 7th century, the Avars had reached south as far as EPIRUS from where they based this failed attack on Constantinople!!! In Epirus, this Shqiptar-Avar tribe assimilated the Illyrians and Hellens of Epirus, as they had done to the Latin speakers of Northern Romania more than a century earlier. While the Avars were driven out of Europe by Charles the Great and killed off by Serbs and Croats in the Balkans in the 7th century, the Serbs NEVER REACHED the south of the Shkumbi until the LATE DARK AGES. The Shqiptar-Avars in Epirus and south of the Shkumbi were left unharmed. Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripedes (480 ? 406 BC). |
|
|
|
Post by coris on May 15, 2011 7:55:18 GMT -5
Well this is the most stupid piece of s**t i have ever heard and nothing but outrageous greek propoganda. You claim that they aren't the descandents of illyrians but the theory you support is considered to be just stupid by nearly every non-greek historian since albanian is an indo-european language, not a caucasian language. Turks took arnavut from the word arvanite by the way. Would you still defend this not coming back thing if turks had called greeks with a very offensive word?
Feel free to believe whatever you like, it isn't going to change the truth. Also, for your information, turks do not consider themselves europeans and those lands you claim as greek lands were inhabited by others before greeks too. If anyone has the right to say that anatolia is theors it should be hitites not the greeks who invaded anatolia exactly like many other nations.
|
|
Stop being such a hypocrite.