tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1982578491916635047..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: ISABS 2007 abstractsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7949107240101215512009-05-14T21:39:00.000+03:002009-05-14T21:39:00.000+03:00Gokcumen is from UPenn/HarvardGokcumen is from UPenn/HarvardUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10053274210748058894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8375475574620521342008-03-08T16:29:00.000+02:002008-03-08T16:29:00.000+02:00"Anatolia has been an important crossroads for num..."Anatolia has been an important crossroads for numerous populations since the Neolithic. Among these, the Hattis, Urartians, Lydians, Phyrigians and <B>Ottomans</B> emerged in Anatolia proper."<BR/><BR/>Ottomans was a Seljuk tribe who entered Anatolia around 1000 AC.Nothing to do with the indigenous Anatolian populations! <BR/><BR/>Studys in Turkey should be done from neutral scientists.Turks dont seem very credible!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06447299399346624453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76712566047725071662008-03-08T09:34:00.000+02:002008-03-08T09:34:00.000+02:00This turkish lad Gokcumen DOES N'T have a clue abo...This turkish lad Gokcumen DOES N'T have a clue about archeology and history, does he?<BR/>Phrygians and Urartians developed in Anatolia proper, while Hittites were....non Anatolian???<BR/>Is this the educational level of turkish universities?<BR/>Phrygians were a paleo-Balkan people, descendant of the Balkan-Danubian complex of I.E. peoples. Their language clearly shows that!!!<BR/>There are also archaeological features like pottery, burial customs, toponyms, rivernames, etc. that correlate Phrygians with the Balkan peninsula.<BR/>Phrygians' closer linguistic relatives are the Greeks and the Armenians.<BR/>As for the Urartians, these were descended by the Hurrians. They are both members of the Alarodian Caucasian linguistic group and their closer modern relatives are the Northwestern Caucasian group peoples. So much for Anatolia proper!!!<BR/>Finally why Hittites were non Anatolian?<BR/>They emerged politically, economically and lingually in Anatolia. The same as Lydians, Luwians, Palaians, Carians, Loukka, etc. did!<BR/>Of course their far origin are the I.E. migrations from the Yamnaya culture but the Anatolian I.E. language is just the mother tongue of the Hittite one. The latter emerged in Anatolia and not before. Thus if you want to look at the spring of the Hittite language you can call it non Anatolian BUT SO YOU MUST DO FOR THE LYDIAN AND THE CARIAN, ETC. TOO!!!<BR/>If you look at their current, or latter if you prefer, state you must call Hittite an Anatolian language as Carian, Lydian, Mysian, etc.!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781621903358782011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1653255907529017482008-03-08T09:28:00.000+02:002008-03-08T09:28:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781621903358782011noreply@blogger.com