Translate

30 Kasım 2015 Pazartesi

BALABAN - OĞUZ BOYU - KIPÇAKLAR - AŞKENAZİ








1 - Batı'da; 11.yüzyılda güneybatı Sibirya'daki yurtlarından batıya doğru göçen Kıpçak Türkleri, bölgede yaşayan Hazar Türklerini hakimiyetleri altına almıştı. Zamanla Hazar Türkleri ile Kıpçak Türkleri arasında akrabalık kuruldu, birbirlerine karıştı, ya da Kıpçak Türklerinden Museviliği seçenlerde vardı da  "Balaban" adı yayılmaya başladı. Tıpkı "Polonya Yahudileri ve Tarihçiliği"nin kurucusu "Meir Balaban" daki "Balaban" gibi....



2 - Doğu'da  ; Gıyaseddin Uluğ Han lakabıyla Hindistan'da 1266-1287 yıllarında hüküm sürmüş olan Balaban Sultan, Kıpçak Türkleri'ndendi.



3 - Anadolu'da ; OĞUZLAR - BOZOK - BEĞDİLLİ - BALABAN BOYLARI



4 -  Balaban: Bala 

Kırgız Türkçesi : Bala
Türkiye Türkçesi : Çocuk 
Azerbaycan Türkçesi : Uşak 
Başkurt Türkçesi : Bala 
Gagauz Türkçesi : Çocuk
Kazak Türkçesi : Bala 
Türkmen Türkçesi : Cağa 
Tatar Türkçesi : Bala 
Uygur Türkçesi : Bala 




5 -  1968'e kadar Köylerimiz (kaynak: İçişleri Bakanlığı/pdf)

Balaban - Büyük Orhan/Orhaneli/Bursa
Balaban - Eğil/Merkez/Diyarbakır
Balaban - Hamidiye/Uzunköprü/Edirne
Balaban - Barak/Nizip/Gaziantep
Balaban - Yuntdağ/Bergama/İzmir
Balaban - Merkez/Demirköy/Kırklareli
Balaban - Merkez/Kınık/İzmir
Balaban - Derbent/Merkez/Kocaeli
Balaban - Merkez/Kandıra/Kocaeli
Balaban - Yazıhan/Merkez/Malatya
Balaban - Hayrat/Of/Trabzon
Balaban - Merkez/Halfetli/Urfa
Balaban - Mürşitpınar/Suruç/Urfa
Balabanburun - Boyalık/Çatalca/İstanbul
Balabancı - Merkez/Eşme/Uşak
Balabancık - Merkez/Mudanya/Bursa
Balabancık - İbriktepe/İpsala/Edirne
Balabancık - Ballı/Mlakara/Tekirdağ
Balabankoru - Hamidiye/Uzunköprü/Edirne
Balabanlar - Merkez/Devrekani/Kastamonu
Balabanlı - Gülpınar/Ayvacık/Çanakkale
Balabanlı - Ovakent/Ödemiş/İzmir
Balabanlı - Merkez/Muratlı/Tekirdağ
Balabantaş - Karaurgan/Sarıkamış/Kars








Ve bu Balaban Türk boyu, Osmanlı arşivlerinde bile Türk olarak bilinirken, bugün niye ısrarla Kürt yapılmak isteniyor peki? Tabii ki bu Balaban soy isimli "Yahudiler" yüzünden (netten bakın bakalım kimmiş onlar!).... İnkar edilemez bir şekilde, Büyük İsraili kurmak için çalışıyorlar da ondan....Bugün için, Aşkenazi Yahudilerini araştıran "tarihçiler" ve  kendilerine "Yahudi" diyenler şunu iyice anlasınlar ki, soyları Türk'e dayanır. Balaban soyismi Türkler arasında hala (tüh, onlarda Müslümanmış!) yaygın olarak kullanılır. 


Madem Türklerden bu kadar çok nefret ediyorsunuz, o zaman bir zaman makinesiyle geçmişe gidip o ilk Türk'ü yok edin, ve bakın bakalım geleceğiniz olacak mı? Yoksa, hala taş devrinden neolitik devire mi geçmekteseniz? Yoksa, yazıyı mı keşfetmekte ya da atı evcilleştirmeye mi çalışmaktasanız?... Mitolojiniz zengin değil, mutfağınız da berbat. Einstein'da yok Theodore von Karman'da , Çiçek Aşısı da ....aaa Golda Meir'da yokmuş, İsrail kurulamamış, onu bırak soykırımınız da yok, çünkü Musevilik diye bir din yok, ya da sizin teriminizle Yahudi ırkı! Çünkü, Nuh yok,  İbrahim yok, Musa'da yok, size kim liderlik yapıyor, ya da dininizi oluşturuyor? Gözümün ucuyla da Hıristiyanları görüyorum, kıs kıs gülüyorlar, ama kendilerine gülsünler çünkü,  İbrahim yoksa İsa'da yok, o Hıristiyanlık sembolünüz olan haçınız da, (İslamcılar sanmasınlar ki bu kategori dışındalar!!!) kısaca atalarınızda yok, ve sen, evet sen, sen de "insanoğlu" olarak yoksun... çok merak ettim şimdi....hadi şu zamanda yolculuğu yapalım.... 


Ha bu arada tarihçilere; Yahudi diye bir ırk yoktur, Musevilik dini vardır, bu insanları sürekli Yahudi diye tanıtmaktan da vazgeçin, onlar Museviliği benimsemiş Türk ve diğer milletlerden oluşmuş topluluktur. 


Ve evet, soykırıma maaruz kalanlar Türk'tür. Soykırım fikrini de kendilerini birşey sanan sözde Yahudi olan "siyonistler" vermiştir, Papa dahil, Amerikalılar ile Avrupalılar da desteklemiştir, kendileri "Aryan" üstün ırk ya! Sanki diğerleri yerden bitmişti!.... Sonrada kendi eliyle hazırladığı olayın sorumlulularını, yine kendi eliyle (istihbarat servisiyle!) yakalar  "işte bunlar yaptı" der ve yargılar... ne kadar da trajikomik....  Benliğini kaybetmiş bu Hazar Türkleri, yani Yahudilerde bize düşmanlık besler, tarihte söyler, hep kardeş kanı dökülmüştür.


Bu yüzden, topraklarımıza göz dikmeyin, düşmanlığı bırakın, kendilerine "siyonist" diyen sosyopatlar ile kendisini "asil" zanneden, (ki o asilliği de kim vermiş onu da anlamış değilim, ne o kral, prens, kont, mont!... benim 3 gözüm var, senin kaşının altında gözün var, misali...) sömürücü zengin ve kötü niyetli insanlardan uzak durun, hadlerini de bildirin! Hangi dinden olursa olsun kötü/iyi millet yoktur, kötü/iyi insanlar vardır.


(Onlara göre) "Gökten düşmüş bir Uzaylı" Türk olarak ;)
Hepinize saygılar, sevgiler,
SB.





_______________




EKLER:


*  Meir Balaban, 1877 de Lviv/Ukrayna'da doğdu. Lviv Üniversitesi'nde tarih, hukuk ve felsefe okudu. Krakow'da Yahudiler tarihi ile ilgili belgelere tesadüfen ulaşınca "Krakov ve Kazimiria 1304-1655 Yahudilerin Tarihi" , Krakov Yahudilerinin Tarihi" "Lublin Yahudileri"  "Galiçya Yahudilerinin Tarihi" gibi pek çok eser bıraktı. Nazilerin Polonya da özel olarak duvarlarla çevirdiği ve Yahudileri sürgün ettiği "Varşova Gettosu"nda 1942 yılında trajik bir şekilde öldü. Lviv-Ukrayna ve İsrail'de cadde ve sokaklara adı verildi.



* (Meir Balaban ; M. Balaban, the founder of the historiography of Polish Jewry. From the 13nth century, Jewish life in Poland. Majer Bałaban wrote, Historia Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierzu 1304–1868 [A history of Jews in Cracow and Kazimierz, 1304–1868], 1912). the word "Balaban" is Turkish.)




*  "Delhi Türk Sultanlığını Kutbiler ve Şemsilerden sonra 1266-1290 tarihleri arasında Balaban ailesi yönetmiştir. Bu ailenin başı Gıyasuddin Balabandır. Balaban ailesi Kıpçak kabilelerinden Alp-eri (İl-bari)ye mensuptur. Gençliğinde Moğolların eline esir düşen Balaban önce Bağdat’a oradan da Gürecat’a götürülmüştür. Daha sonraları ise satın alınarak Delhi’ye götürülmüştür. Kısa bir süre sonra Sultan İltutmuş’a satılarak sarayda iyi bir eğitim almış ve vezirliğe kadar yükselmiştir. Bala­ban Sultan Mahmut’un ölümü üzerine Gıyasuddin unvanı ile tahta geçmiştir. İltutmuş gibi Kıpçak Türklerinden olan Balaban döneminde Türk idaresi bütün gücü ile yükselmiştir. Onun anlayışına göre soylu ve asil demek Türk demektir. Hayatı boyunca Türk olmayanlara devletin idari kademelerinde yer vermemeye özen göstermiştir. Tahtta bulunduğu süre içerisinde Moğol istilasına karşı başarılı olmuş ve İslamiyet’in Hindistan’da yayılmasına katkıda bulunmuştur."

Salih Yılmaz/link








* BALABANLI / BALABANLU / BALABANLAR AŞİRETİ: Horasan (İran) ve Dimetoka‘dan (Rumeli) geldikleri yolunda kayıtlar vardır... Osmanlı arşiv vesîkaları da bunları "İran Ekrâdı Tâifesinden ve Yörükân Tâifesinden" göstermektedir. Bu ifade "İran‘dan gelerin dağda gezeni ve Türkler‘in ovada gezeni" anlamına gelir. Balaban TÜRKÇE bir kelime olduğu için "İran dolaylarından gelen TÜRKLER" olarak anlaşılması gerekir.


OĞUZ'UN YILDIZ HAN NESLİNDEN OLAN BALABANLI'NIN KARDEŞ BOYLARI DA, AVŞAR, KIZIK VE KARKIN'DIR 



BALABAN OYMAĞI:

Erzincan Tarihi de bunların Dersim Türk oymakları arasında göstermekte ayrıca Dimetoka'dan geldiklerini belirtmektedir. Şerefname'nin Dersim bölgesinde saydığı belli başlı üç oymaktan biri de. "BALABANLl"lardı. Beğdili obasının 13. sırasında «Balabanlı» (Dersim oymaklarından Balaban oymağının, bunlarla aynı oluşu dikkat çekicidir), 


«Gazno - Türk devletinin yıkılmasından sonra aynı yerde uzun müddet yine Türk hakimiyeti görülmüştür. Büyük komutanlarından biride Türk Memlükler'den «Balaban bey'dir».


Hindistan ve Pençap bölgesinde Hüküm sürmüş olan büyük «Türk Gurkan'lı» devletinin 1266 - 1290 seneleri arasında «BALABANLU» hanedanını görmekteyiz. «Balaban, iletmiş soyundan yetişmiş erkek kalmadığı için Nasir-Ud-Din Mahmut ölünce onun kayın babası olan BALABAN ULUĞ HAN tahta çıkar. Balaban Han, disiplinli, çok alicenap olup I. Delhi Türk Sultanlığının başına geçer. Kendisinin efsanevi Turan (Saka/İskit) padişahı «Afrasyap (Alp Er TUNGA) soyundan geldiğini söylerdi.» 


Yine yer ve erkek adı olarakta Balaban ismini yaygın olarak görmekteyiz. Osman Gazi'nin komutanlarından birinin ismi «Balaban» olup Bursa ilinin Balabançık ilçesi buna izafeten verilmiştir. Yine şahıs adı olarak, Macaristan ve Türk hakimiyeti altında kalmış Çek topraklarında eski Türklerin izlerinin bir devamı olarakta «Balaban» adını görmekteyiz. Prof. Y. Blaşkoviç (Kumanoğlu).


«Aydının Bozdağ kazası dahilinde ÇULLULAR adlı oymağın içinde Balabanlu adlı-ayrı bir oymakta görmekteyiz. Yine bu Türk oymağının izlerini Halep Türkmenleri arasındaki Beğdilli/Badıllı'nın iskanları emredilen oymakları arasında «Tatalu, Kozlu, Arablu, Taşbaş, Sincan ve BALABANLl'yı görmekteyiz. Ayrıca bu oymağın Rakka tarafına bir kısmınında iskan edildiğini öğrenmekteyiz. Fakat bunların burada uzun müddet kalmayıp geldikleri yer olan Rumeliye doğru tekrar döndükleri bilinmektedir. Diğer taraftan bir kısmınında sürüleri ile Torosların Güneyine ve bir kısmınında Kuzeye ve kuzey doğuya yönelip Malatya ve Dersim'e yaylık yerlere yerleşmişlerdir.


«Meskün yerler kılavuzunda» bunların bulundukları köy adlarını takip edecek olursak. «İpsala uzun köprü, Malkara, Çatalca, İstanbul İzmit, Kandıra, Ereğli, Gebze, üzerinden Trabzon'un Of ilçesine uzandıkları diğer bir kolun, Dimetoka, Malkara. Çanakkale, Mudanya, Eşme, Ödemiş taraflarına göç ettiği, üçüncü kolunda İzmit, Orhaneli. Söğüt, Kastamonu'ya geldikleri görülmektedir.


Balaban Türk oymaklarının Bir kısmının Hazar denizinin kuzeyinden Romanya, Macaristan, Bulgaristan yolu ile Anadolu'ya gelmesi ile yine bir kısmının da Hazar'ın güneyinden ve Türk Gurkan'lı devletinin hakim olduğu Pençap, Afganistan ve Horasan yolu ile Anadolu'ya gelmesi, aynı bu Türk oymağın bu geliş yönlerinin ayrı ayrı olması nedeniyle farklı lehçe ve şiveye sahip olmuşlardır. Nitekim, Tunceli'ndeki Balaban oymağının Zazaca konuşmaları, Türk Gurkaniye devletinin kullandığı «Gurani» Türk lehçesinin (Çağatay lehçesi karışımı) hala izlerinin bir devamından başka bir şey değildir. Bütün bu tarihi gerçeklerin ışığı altında bu oymağın nedenlü katıksız bir Türk oymağı olduğunu öğrenmiş olmaktayız.



DOĞU AŞİRETLERİ VE EMPERYALİZM
MAHMUT RİŞVANOĞLU






* NOT: İskit kralı olarak anılan Skilur'un oğlunun adı da PALACUS'tur (MÖ.2.yy)...Bilin bakalım neyden türemiş :) 







Tekirdağ-Balabanlı ve Balabancık köyleri
Balkan-Tatarlar arasında Balaban adı taşıyan aileler
Sırplarda Balaban soyadlı aileler
Bulgaristan-Balaban köyü
Tebriz-Bala Bağ
gibi, "Bala" ile başlayan daha birçok yerleşim yeri adına rastlayabiliriz.






ilgili:
KÜRT OLARAK TANINAN AVŞARLAR / AFŞARLAR
NUH-TOGARMA
ASKENAZi JEWS








Balaban Kuşları - Türkçe  / Rusça
English: Bittern Birds





* Balaban is Turkish,still used as city and surname among the Turks. Bala means boy/child. There are more names to explain in Turkish, because they are Turkish of ethnic. Khazar Jewish Turks (Ashkenazi Jews), Kipchak Turks (also called Polovets in Russia, Ukraine), and one of the Oghuz (Oğuz) Turkish tribe Balaban. So, nobody can erase the Turks.





_________________________________
_________________________________





















28 Kasım 2015 Cumartesi

Scythian Period Deer Stone and Bronze Plaque






On the Interpretation of Certain Images on Deer Stones
Sergei S. Miniaev



Deer stones are one specific type among the monuments of the Eurasian steppes from the Bronze Age and Scythian periods. They are stone steles of varying dimensions, sometimes with anthropomorphic but primarily with zoomorphic representations, among which dominate stylized figures of of galloping deer with long branching horns. Such monuments have frequently been the subject of study by many scholars, who have established their date and the range of territory over which they are found (Volkov 1981; Chlenova 1984; Khudiakov 1987; Savinov 1994; Varenov 1998). All the specialists have interpreted deer stones as symbolic representations of warriors and the depictions on them as tattoos or leather appliqués on warriors’ clothing. Analysis of a number of bronze objects both from museum collections and from excavations of recent years suggests yet another variant for the interpretation of such representations.


Let us look first of all at a bronze plaque from a private collection (Fig. 1). The circumstances of the discovery of this plaque are unknown, but the style of the depictions connect it with Scytho-Siberian cultures. Its shape is approximately trapezoidal, it measures 31.5 x 8.5 cm, and is about 0.5 cm thick; its lower edge is rounded, while the upper and wider edge has roughly a triangular shape. 


On the face side of the plaque are several ornamental zones: three of them have geometric compositions and two zoomorphic subjects. The geometric compositions consist of volutes, three rows of which are in the center of the plaque and one row each on the lower and upper edges. The zoomorphic subject in the upper part of the plaque contains two figures of deer and two figures of oxen, these pairs symmetrically arranged in addorsed (back-to-back) poses (Fig. 2). On the lower part of the plaque (Fig. 3) in two rows (but practically in direct symmetry) are scenes of predation: in each row is a feline predator, under which is depicted the head of an ungulate (a horse or kulan). Behind the feline in a row stand three raptors with long beaks. Along the long edges of the plaque and along the lower border, approximately equidistant from each other, are 37 holes, each with a diameter of 3–4 cm. 




fig 1-2-3
Bronze plaque with zoomorphic images. After: Treasures 1998, p. 68, Fig.62). 
Figs. 2 & 3, details of upper and lower parts of bronze plaque in Fig. 1




The presence of these holes led the authors of the catalog description to decide that the plaque was decoration for horse harness (probably they had in mind a browband) attached to leather (Treasures 1998, p. 68). However, that purpose would not have required such a large number of holes. So it is possible to propose a different function for the given plaque. It could be part of defensive armament and have served either as separate arm plates or (with the help of leather straps or sinews) have been combined with an analogous plaque or plaques to form a protective suit. The similarity of the depictions of the deer and other animals on the given plaque with those on the deer stones is quite obvious (Fig. 4). Therefore, one can propose that the depictions, carved on these stone statues of warriors, imitate not only tatooing or leather appliqués on clothes but as well zoomorphic compositions on bronze armor.


The use of such bronze armor by the peoples of the Eurasian steppes in Scythian times is well established. In archaeological monuments its parts are represented principally by bronze helmets whose traditions of manufacture and use date from the Bronze Age (Komissarov 1987; Varenov 1989). For a long time such helmets of the Scythian period in the eastern part of the steppe belt were known only from chance finds, and in individual instances were found in plundered graves (Erdenebaatar and Khudiakov 2000; Khudiakov and Erdene-Ochir 2010; Varenov 1994; for a collection of finds in the eastern region of the steppe belt see Kang 2009). Excavations of recent years in northeastern China not only have filled out the collection of armaments but for the first time possibly have recorded finds of armor parts in situ.



fig 4: The Ivolga deer stone. After: Okladnikov 1954.
Fig. 5. Plan and section of grave 85 NDXA I M2 at Xiaoheishigou. After: Xiaoheishigou 2009, Fig. 237




In particular, this is the case in grave No. 2 excavated in 1985 (85 NDKhA I M2) at the site of Xiaoheishigou in Ningcheng County, Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5). At the end of the previous century excavations of the site found several dozen burials, which had been cut into the cultural layers and domestic structures. Moreover, a representative collection of bronze artefacts was made, ones originating it seems in various destroyed burials. Corresponding to the year in which the work was carried out, these collections (which did not constitute the burial inventory of a specific tomb) were given the provisional names “grave 8501,” “grave 9601” etc. (Xiaoheishigou 2009).


In toto six bronze helmets were found at the site, five of them outside the complex and one in grave no. 85 NDXA I M2. That burial was in a wooden coffin in a shallow pit with vertical walls. The male body lay on its right side, head to the southeast with extended limbs, but the foot bones were missing. On the head of the deceased was a bronze helmet with a rectangular loop at the top. The inventory included bronze weapons (spears [Fig. 6.1,2], daggers [6: 9–12, 14–16], a dagger axe with tapering blade and trapezoidal butt [6:3], a socketed axe of rectangular shape with a knob on the butt [6:7], and two-bladed arrowheads [6:17–23]), knives, awls, a small hollow axe [6:13], bronze grommets [6:24, 27, 28], belt decorations formed like a row of five beads [6:26, 29], and a square plaque shaped from two pairs of animal heads [6:25].




Fig 6:Inventory of grave 85 NDXA I M2 at Xiaoheishigou. After: Xiaoheishigou 2009, Fig. 238.




Above the head of the deceased was a wedge-shaped stone object with an opening (possibly a small axe) [6:8] and a spike made from animal horn [6:5]. Of particular interest were two bronze plaques found in the vicinity of the forearm of the deceased [Figs. 5, indicated by arrow; 6:4,6; 7:1,2]. They have approximately the same size, whose determination (as also that of the measurements of the grave) in the excavation report is imprecise: on the drawing of the burial (Xiaoheishigou 2009, Fig. 237) the scale suggests that their length is about 45 cm, whereas in the figure depicting the inventory, the scale suggests the plaques have a length of about 11 cm (Ibid., Fig. 238).


The description of the finds assigns one plaque a length of 22.1 cm, the other 11.4 cm (Ibid., p. 298). Judging from the size of the grave given in the description (285 x 100 cm) the scale on the diagram should be corrected (from 1 m to 0.5 m) and thus the probable length of the plaques is 22 cm. One of the plaques has the shape of an irregular trapezoid with rounded long edges; the lower part of the other is in the shape of a rectangle with the upper part narrowing in the shape of a trapezoid. The cross-section of the plaques is triangular; on the reverse side are two loops in the upper part and one in the lower.


The authors of the excavation report describe the given objects as horse browbands, which hardly seems justified: in the inventory of burial 85 NDXA I M2 are no objects which can be connected with pieces of horse harness (whereas in other burials such are found). Taking into account the position of the plaques in situ in the vicinity of the forearms and the loops for securing them, one can suggest that such plaques could have been used as arm plates and, along with the helmet, served to defend the wearer from blows of sharp weapons.


Similar in shape and possibly analogous in function are the plaques known from the site that were among the chance finds (the collection of artefacts with the provisional numbers “M8501” and “M9601”) (Fig. 7:3,4). The length of one of them is 24 cm, the other 20 cm. The upper part of the plaques has the shape of a trapezoid, No. M8501 with rounded upper edge; the lower part narrows in the shape of an irregular trapezoid with concave longer sides. On the face side of the plaques in the center of the upper part are two projections; under them on plaque M8501 is also a small rhomboid-shaped projection (possibly, taken together these details represent a mask). Small loops for fastening project from the short sides on the reverse of both plaques.




Fig. 7. 1, 2. 
Bronze plaques from grave 85 NDXA I M2 (depicted also in Fig. 6: 4, 6). 3. Bronze plaque from “grave M8501.” 4. Bronze plaque from “grave M9601”. 
After: Xiaoheishigou 2009, Figs. 238; 330:2,10.




Clearly grave 85 NDXA I M2 and the majority of the other burials at the Xiaoheishigou site are part of the Far Eastern extension of the Scythian world (Miniaev 1991). Attesting to this is the inventory of the graves, where there are many objects both found in burials of the Scythian period and depicted on deer stones (daggers, dagger-headed axes, axes, rein guides), and the depictions on a number of the artefacts are in the “Scytho-Siberian” style (Fig. 8).




Fig. 8. Bronze objects collected at Xiaoheishigou from “grave M8061” and “grave M8501” respectively. After: Xiaoheishigou 2009.





The connection of these burials with the Upper Xiajiadan culture (to which this site is attributed) as yet remains controversial. Just as at Xiajiadian, which has defined the features of this culture, the stratum of the Xiaoheishigou site and the burials in round pits connected with it that have no inventory were cut through by burials with inventory of Scythian appearance, often in stone cists, less commonly in wooden coffins or coffins placed inside a stone cist. Thus it is clear that the phenomenon of the “culture the Upper Xiajiadian” is in need of more detailed analysis in order to avoid terminological and chronological confusion (Miniaev 1985, p. 78; 1991, p. 173)


Rather it is probable that the real “culture of the Upper Xiajiadian” (both settlements and burials in pits without inventory) represents a separate culture which is not connected with the culture of burials in cists or wooden coffins with Scythian inventory. Taking into account the currently accepted chronology of the Upper Xiajiadian — 1000–600 BCE (Regional 2003), the stratigraphy of the burials discussed here, and analogies of the majority of finds from the “inserted” burials at Xiaoheishigou to Scythian cultures of Inner Asia, the probable date of such burials is the second half of the Spring and Autumn period to beginning of the Warring States period, approximately the 7th–5th centuries BCE.



Sergei Miniaev -pdf
The Silk Road Vol 11 - 2013
is a senior scholar at the Institute of the History of Material Culture in the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. He is one of the leading specialists on the archaeology of the Xiongnu, having directed major excavations in Transbaikalia.

Note: This article previously appeared in Russian as “K interpretatsii nekotorykh izobrazhenii na olennykh kamniakh,” in: Kul’tury stepnoi Evrazii i ikh vzaimodeistvie s drevnimi tsivilizatsiiami: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi 110-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia vydaiushchegosia rossiiskogo arkheologa Mikhaila Petrovicha Griaznova, Kn. 1 (SPb.: IIMK RAN; Periferiia, 2012), pp. 262–67.









and









Example Pazyryk burial - burial mound excavated 
Turkish woman Ak-Alakha (Siberian Ice Maiden)


1990 to 1995 Southern Altai detachment of the North-Asian complex expedition of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted research on a high plateau Ukok, located in the border zone with China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan. During excavations in one of the mounds burial Ak-Alakha was found unique burial Turkish woman.... As in other Pazyryk graves in the northern part of the burial pit at the bottom it was laid six horses killed by a blow combat coinage in the parietal part of the skull. They lay in two tiers in a narrow (about 65 cm) space between the wall and the wall of the pit log. Preserved wool, braided tails, wooden jewelry harness, parts of saddles and felt cover.... Open to Ukok burial belongs to the free and noble Turkish woman. Pazyryk mounds almost never single, and ancestral burial grounds make up, but the mound, which was buried a young woman stood alone. Only much later, not earlier than VII century BC. e., near the Turkish soldier was buried. Even if we assume that the woman was the head of the family, her mound was to be the beginning or the center of the family chain. It can be assumed that a single burial of a young woman Pazyryk indicates celibacy peculiar shaman and other holders of secret knowledge. Celibacy emphasizes their independence and exclusivity.


On the left shoulder shows a fantastic animal in the animal style: a deer with the beak of a griffin, deer and ibex horns. Horn are decorated with stylized heads of griffins; a similar tip is placed on the back of the animal, which is shown with "Twisted" body. Later in the same pose depicted a sheep with his head thrown back; at his feet - serried jaws of a spotted leopard with a long curly tail. Under the leopard is a fantastic beast, the image of the head of which has not been preserved; his claws, a long striped tail tiger trunk lying deer and grow back from the head of a griffin. On his wrist is clearly visible deer head with large branched antlers. Almost all of these are real and fantastic animals are already known from the drawings on the body of a man from the Second Pazyryk mound. According to the authoritative opinion of Lotman, in the unwritten culture, "focused not on the multiplication of the number of texts, and on repeated their reproduction, the role of written characters perform mnemonic", which include samples and Pazyryk tattoos. With recurring images of real and fantastic animals the human body applied a kind of "text", a sacred record important information.


Tattoos in archaic and traditional societies involved, usually women. In addition, since ancient times traced another trend - tattooed women themselves often become.


The lives of many archaic societies tattoo occupied a significant place and was quite common, most often associated with the rite of initiation (and boys and girls). But note that the seven mummies found in the rich "frozen" graves, the tattoo was present at only two - a man and a woman. So, not all noble Pazyryk were indelible pictures on the body. But quite unexpectedly, the tattoo was found on the VI Molodin Ukok on ordinary warrior mummies Pazyryks. It was a picture of a fantastic animal figures - deer with gryphon's beak, as if thrown over the right shoulder to the chest and back.


That could mean tattooed Pazyryk society? Probably the same as in all traditional or ancient cultures. First of all, it could indicate the place occupied in society a specific person. These indelible marks can be distinguished warriors, priests, tribal chiefs, heads of other categories of the population. The point is in the "text": the kinds of real and imaginary animals, their number, the location of the drawings on the body. Tattooed woman's hand with Ukoka - a sign of her social status, but, unfortunately, does not answer the question of which one. According to archaeological materials difficult to identify the burial of the clergy, the priests. There is some evidence to suggest that the young woman buried tribesmen with such a pronounced respect, different kind of a special gift. This is not necessarily to be considered its shaman or priestess. In the ritual practice of the Sayano-Altai is known, for example, at least 30 names of various specialists - holders of secret knowledge that have always existed along with the shaman as his necessary background. The young woman could be a healer, storyteller, fortune teller. But it is unlikely we will ever know about it ...


Altai.go



































Beşbin Yıllık Dede Korkut












- Yunanlılar kimlerle harp ediyor? Anadolu'da Troyalılarla, Truvalılarla.
- Truvalıların artık Türk menşeili olduğu dünyaya defalarca sübut olunmuştur. (ispat edilmiştir.) Dinleri birdi, ama iki farklı etnik idi. Bunlar birbirine karşı duran iki düşman idi.
- Dede Korkut Homer'den daha eskidir.
- Herkes bilir ki Helen kaçırılmamıştı. Truva ipek yolunda olan, dünyanın en zengin ülkesiydi. Yunanlıların gözü bu zenginlikteydi. Bugün de devam ediyor.
- Yunanlılarda bir Tepegöz varsa, Türklerden almışlardır ve öz kahramanları gibi dünyay lanse ettiler.
- Köroğlu Herakle/Erakle (Herkül)dür.
- Kahramanlık destanları uydurma değil, tarihidir.


Prof.Dr.Firudin Ağasıoğlu Celilov ve Prof.Celil Garipoğlu Nağıyev







KÖROĞLU'NUN ÇİN KAYNAKLARI - Celil Nagıyev
ASİYA NEŞRİYATI , BAKÜ ,1998 

Azerbaycan Asya Üniversitesi Rektörü Prof. Dr. Nagiyev: " Son yüzyılda Türkoloji sahasında dünyanın çeşitli üniversitelerinde ABD’den Rusya’ya kadar, Türk dünyasının öncüsü Türkiye’de Türkoloji bilimi gelişmektedir ve bu sahada büyük çalışmalar yapılmaktadır ve Türkolojiyle bağlantılı olarak çeşitli konularda ortak bilimsel toplantılar devam etmelidir.” (2013)









HOMERİN POEMALARI
«KİTABİ-DƏDƏ QORQUD»

Şifahi söhbətlərdə və bir sıra yazılarda Homerin «Odisseya» əsərindəki Təpəgözlə «Kitabi-Dədə Qorqud»dakı Təpəgöz arasında bir yaxınlıq olduğu söylənilir. Əsərləri diqqətlə nəzərdən keçirmədikdə bu cür söhbətlərin təsadüfi oxşarlığa əsaslandığı, əfsanəvi olduğu və təpəgözlər arasında heç bir əlaqə olmadığı düşünülür. Necə ola bilər? Homerin əsərləri 3300 il əvvəlin hadisələrini əhatə edir, bizim «Dədə Qorqud»un isə «uzağı» 1500 yaşı var. Odur ki müqayisə ağla batmır.


«Dədə Qorqud»a bələdik. Hadisələri bilirik. Homeri isə ya oxumuruq, ya da alayarımçıq oxuyub macəralarla əylənirik, qurtarıb bir tərəfə atırıq. Diqqətlə oxuyanları isə, görünür, bu cəhət maraqlandırmayıb. Yaşdan əlavə, bu əsərlərin ruhən yaxın olduğunu görməyə mane olan başqa cəhətlər də vardır: Homerin əsərləri çoxallahlılıq dövrünün məhsuludur, əsərdə bütün hadisələrin törədiciləri Zevs və onun arvadı Hera başda olmaqla Olimp allahlarıdır; «Dədə Qorqud»da isə təkalllahlılıqdır və heç Homerin ağlına da gəlməyən islam dini, islam allahı və türk Tanrısıdır.


Təəssürat belədir ki, Homerin qəhrəmanları uzaq bir ərazinin sakinləridir, tamam başqa dil və din daşıyıcılarına - hindavropalılara məxsus yunanlardır, «Dədə Qorqud»un qəhrəmanları bütün türklər də deyil, bir tayfadır, oğuzlardır, vaxtilə bizim indiki Azərbaycan respublikası ərazisində yaşamış, bəlkə də dünyanı dolaşıb gəlmiş bir tayfadır. Homerdə qəbilələr ittifaqıdır, «Dədə Qorqud»da iri Oğuz tayfası gözə görünür. Yunanıstan haradadır - Azərbaycan harada? Həm də saxta tarixçilərimizin iddia etdikləri kimi, bizim ölkəmizdə hələ elmin, ədəbiyyatın, türkün, türk dilinin, türk yazı sənətinin olmadığı bir dövrdə bu əlaqələr necə yarana bilərdi?..


Faktlar göstərir ki, bu suallar Azərbaycan tarixinin qeyri-elmi, qeyriobyektiv tədqiqindən irəli gələn suallardır. Heç bir elmi əsası yoxdur və biz yuxarıda həmin təfəkkürün doğurduğu sualları qeyd etmişik. Dastan azı Homerin yaşıdıdır, türklər, türk dili, türk mədəniyyəti, türk ədəbiyyatı isə bəlkə yunanlardan çox qədimdir. Və yenə faktlar göstərir ki, Troya müharibələri dövründə türklərlə yunanlar arasında indikindən qat-qat yaxın əlaqə olmuş, onlar çox vaxt birgə yaşamış, yaxın əlaqə və münasibətdə olmuşlar. Amma Homerin əsərləri nə qədər müdrik əsərlərdir! Nə qədər müasirdir! Nə qədər dərkolunan və maraqlıdır! Homerin poemaları ilə onun qədər müdrik olan «Dədə Qorqud» arasında o qədər ruhi yaxınlıq var ki, bunu bu əsərlərə ayıq gözlə baxan heç kəs inkar edə bilməz… 











it is much older then Homer poem's


Penguin Classics - Dede Korkut

or

The Story of Bugach Khan, Son of Dirse Khan
The Story of Deli Dumrul, Son of Duha Koja
The Story of Emren, Son of Begil
The Story of the Revolt of the Outer Oghuz against the Inner Oghuz and of the Death of Beyrek
The Story of Seghrek, Son of Ushun Koja
The Sack of the House of Salur Kazan
The Story of Yigenek, Son of Kazilik Koja












Türk Dünyası İzmir’de buluştu. Çeşme’de yapılan 3'üncü Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Kongresi'ne Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan ve Türkmenistan'dan çok sayıda akademisyen katıldı. Kongrenin ana teması “Dede Korkut Kitabı” oldu.


























Who are the modern Greeks?











"in 1843, while working in the Ministry of Justice, Paparrigopoulos published his first survey, About the emigration of Slav tribes in Peloponnese, contradicting with robust arguments, Fallmerayer's opinion that modern Greeks are of Slav descent, having no racial relation with the ancient Greeks."


Constantine Paparrigopoulos (1815-1891), History of the Greek Nation, Volume I,
Fallmerayer, Jakob Philipp, 1790-1861.
On the epoikiseos Slavic Certain breeds Peloponnesus. / Under K. Paparrigopoulou.
Περί της εποικήσεως Σλαβικών τινών φυλών εις την Πελοπόννησον. / Υπό Κ. Παπαρρηγοπούλου./link




* * * * * *



The Hellenistic period runs, as usually defined, from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC to the Battle of Actium by which Roman superiority over the Greek world was finally established on 2nd September  31 BC. The period is defined by the world conquest of Alexander the Great, and the consequences of the division of his empire upon his death. The name 'Hellenistic' derives from the German term for the period, coined by J.G.Droysen in the 1830's in his Geschichte des Hellenismus (First edition, Hamburg 1836-1843). For Droysen, who had previously written a seminal study of Alexander the Great, the period of Hellenismus, was characterised by the Hellenisation of the world that Alexander had conquered. This world had largely been encompassed by the Achaemenid Persian Empire, but had comprised many different cultures in Asia Minor, the Near East, Egypt, Mesopotamia, İran and beyond.(the Changing Pattern of Achaemenid Persian Royal Coinage)


But while this picture of the asertion of Greek cultural domination over the barbarian east appealed to the historians and antiquarians of the 19th century, it is not a picture that many modern scholars would endorse. For a generation or more, Greek historians have been paying attention to the work of their collegues on the documentary and archaeological evidence for regions such as Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia, and coming to regard the so-called Hellenistic period as one of negotiation between stable indigenous culutres and institutions and a new ruling elite. It is clear that while the successor kingdoms to Alexander's empire may have had Greek or Macedonian rulers and courts, their administrations, legal systems, religious life and languages to a considerable degree continued in or were adapted from their pre-conquest form. For one of the characteristics of the Hellenistic period is the relative dearth of literary accounts of the institions of the new monarchies.


So documents, whether written on stone, clay tablets or papyrus, are one of the major evidentiary bases. These documents have huge potential, of course, for the reconstruction of aspects of the economic regions from which they derive. But the picture they produce is regional, and cannot necessarily lead us to a holistic view of the economy of a given political entity (kingdom). Moreover they are documents. As such they can tell us much about behaviour, but not neccessarily a great deal about intent or theory. Among the literary absences from the Hellenistic period is any surviving treatise concerning the monetary policies of the various states that arose at this time. This, of course, is a major obstacle when it comes to analysis of financial innovation.


Documents and theoretical treatises aside, the other major source at our disposal is the coinage. Coinage is not itself new in the Hellenistic period; it had, as we have seen, come into being in the late 7th century BC in western Asia Minor, and it spread throughout the Greek and non-Greek peoples bordering, the Mediterranean over the next two-and-half centuries.



Greek historiography and exceptionalism

Almost every account of the Greek Revolution, 'Liberation Struggle', or War of Independence, ends by emphasizing not what was achieved by the treaties of 1830 and 1832 but rather the unsatisfactory, provisional nature of the settlement. From the Greek point of view, ever since the early 1830s, the Great Powers had effectively taken away with one hand what they had granted with the other. This was most evident in the decision, in 1832, to restrict the territory of the new Greek state within frontiers that excluded the majority of the nation, and in the notorious client status to which nominally independent Greece would often be reduced in practice, throughout the nineteeth century and wll into the twentieth.


But these are problems that have afflicted small or relatively weak states at all periods of history down to the present, and have unjustly deflected attention from the de jure status as a newly created independent polity that Greece was the first in post-Napoleonic Europe to attain.


A more fundamental distortion derives paradoxically from the very success of the Greek national project. Even before the revolution of 1821, from perhaps as early as the 1790s, the proponents of Greek independence had stablished a powerful and pervasive rhetoric: the present-day inhabitants of the land that had once been known as Hellas were the children (paides) of the Greeks of old (Hellenes); to set them free would be an act not of radical innovation, as in fact it was, but rather the restoration of an ancient and universally beneficial status quo, the very one, indeed, that had bequethed to post-Renaissance Europe everything that its educated elites now valued and enjoyed.


This was the distinctive contribution of the Romantic movement, in the arts and in radical politics, both to the emerging ideology of nationalism and specifically to the cause of Greek emancipation. The argument was expressed in its most extreme form by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, in the preface to his verse drama Hellas, written in immediate response to the outbreak of the revolution in Greece:


"The apathy of the rulers of the civilised world to the astonishing circumstance of the descendants of that nation to which they owe their civilisation, rising as it were from the ashes of their ruin, is something perfectly inexplicable to a mere spectator [...] We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece [...] The modern Greek is the descendant of those glorious beings whom the imagination almost refuses to figure to itself as belonging to our kind, and he inherits much of their sensibility, their rapidity of conception, their enthusiasm, and their courage." (Shelley 1943)


Shelley, of course, was writing from a political position as radical as it was possible to espouse at the time, and his acquaintance with Greeks or the politics of their revolution was slight; but even among conservatives, one should not, perhaps, underestimate the subliminal power of this type of appeal during the decades of 'Restoration', when political elites all over Europe were intent on reviving the semblance of a status quo, perceived as superior, that had been irrevocably upset by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.


It is certainly noteworthy that the signatories to the 1830 Protocol were the conservative governments of the Duke of Wellington, Tsar Nicholas I, and Charles X of France; although two of these would have been swept away by the time of the later version in 1832, and replaced by more liberal administrations that might have been expected to favour the radical aspects of the Greek cause, the changes to the terms of the treaty between 1830 and 1832 do not reflect that shift. Modern Greece came into being, sanctioned, however grudgingly, by the Great Powers of a Europe still dominated by Metternich and allies of the stamp of Wellington. No wonder, therefore, that neither the Greeks themselves nor their reluctant European backers had any reason after 1830, to advertise the radical nature of what had been achieved still less to present it as a precedent that might be followed by other would-be nations.


It would suit conservatives (of whom there were not a few in influential places in Greece by the mid-nineteenth century, as Socrates Petmezas demonstrates in chapter 9), as well as radicals, to pretend that Greece was a special case, uniquely ancient and therefore like no other.


Within a year of the outbreak of the Revolution, in January 1822, at almost the same time as Shelley's Hellas was published in England, the first Provisional Constitution for the embryo state would adopt for its citizens the ancient name of 'Hellenes'; this is how they have been known officially in Greek ever since, while the terms of self-designation in common use up till then, Romios and Graikos, would be consigned over time, in the one case to a popular, unofficial egister, and in the other to oblivion by the early twentieth century. As with the name of the citizens, so with the name of the new state.


This is why Greece, from that time on, uniquely among the nations and states of the world has in certain contexts had to be distinguished by the addition of the prefix 'Modern'. The process that had brought the independent state into being was routinely referred to in Greek as palingenesia (rebirth or regeneration); other terms, such as 'revival', and even 'resurrection', were canvassed during the 1820s as Marios Hatzopoulos documents in chapter 6.


So pervasive, and so effective, did the strategy of invoking ancient history in the Greek cause prove that early as 1830, the only means the Austrian historian Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer could light upon, in order to overturn the hegemony of what he saw as an excessive Philhellenism in his adpoted country of Bavaria, was to expose the historical errors on which it was based.  But Fallmerayer was already a prisoner of the rhetoric that he set out to debunk: it need not have mattered, in Munich in the 1830s, or in Athens in the 1850s, whether or not the racial and cultural line of ancient Hellas had been swept away successively by Romans, Slavs, and Albanians, as Fallermayer sought to prove. But the fact is that it did matter.


Slowly at first, but with devastating and long-lasting impact, Greek intellectuals fought back. No one seems to have thought, in the mid-nineteenth century, of abandoning a calim that could be said to have served its purpose in securing national statehood for Greece against all the odds, and might even have been deemed expendable, once its historical foundations had come under scrutiny and been shown to be vulnerable. On the contrary, the rise of historicism at the mid-century provided the impetus for a subtle shift of ground: the ruptures exposed by Fallmerayer would become precisely the ligatures holding together a construction as new and as daring as it purported to be ancient: the History of the Hellenic Nation.


In the monumental work with this title, published by the historian Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos between 1860 and 1874, as well as in the writings of the antiquary from Corfu, Spyridon Zambelios, during the previous decade, the revivalist rhetoric of the 1820s and 1830s came to be replaced by a rhetoric of continuity, which still holds sway today, and indeed was vividly paraded before the world's TV audiences in the opening ceremony for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Trumping Fallmerayer, Paparrigopoulos projected the term 'Hellenic nation', first formulated in the 1780s, back through almost three thousand years of continuous historical evolution. From the 1860s until at least the 1980s, few within Greece would challenge this basis for defining Greek identity, while those who did so abroad were liable to be branded, along with Fallmerayer, as 'mis-Hellenes', or 'Greek-haters'.


Greek historiography for over a hundred years was therefore trapped within the terms of a discourse that had evolved very rapidly from about 1790 to the 1860s and then stood still. Greek historians had no interest in reminding domestic or foreign readers that the nation state in which they took a justified pride had been the first to be recognized in Europe - in 1830. The stakes had been set infinitely higher by a national rhetoric that traced the continuous history of the Greek nation back to the first Olympiad in 776 BCE (and subsequently, with the discovery of the civilizations of the Greek Bronze Age, from the 1870s onwards, much further back still).


9) Dimitrios Katartzis, in a series of texts written between 1783 and 1791, seems to have been the first to use the Greek term 'ethnos' in the sense that writers of the Enlightenment, such as Rousseau, used 'nation' in French. Particularly revealing for the emergence of Greek nationalist terminology is the following: "I admit that at the present time, we [Greeks] are not a nation such as to form a state, but are rather subject to another that is stronger. [...] [But] we do constitute a nation to the extent that we are bound together by our exxlesiastical authorities [...] (Katartzis 1970 and Politis 1998)
page 5 ,


The Making of Modern Greece: book
Nationalism, Romanticism, and the Uses of the Past (1797-1896)
Professor David Ricks,Professor Roderick






* * * * * *




Let's look from the Macedonian side





Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks”
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)



How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years? Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern Macedonia, a region neighbouring modern Greece be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? These are questions that every Greek should be asking! Ever since Philip II of Macedonia conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC, the region south of Olympus has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements.


How can one call a people of 2,300 years ago “Ancient Greeks” since the word “Greek” was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the City States and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians? 



If you were to say “the ancient Canadians living on their lands 2,000 years ago” you would be ridiculed and told “there were no ancient Canadians” and the people to whom you are referring who had once lived on the lands of present Canada had nothing to do with the Canadians of today! Yet, everyday you hear the word “ancient Greeks” and you don’t bat an eye! Why is that?  It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state. In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.



The name “Greece” was imposed on the modern Greek Kingdom by the Great Powers Britain, France and Russia. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state Hellas (Ellas), a name borrowed from the past which neither describes the elements of a nation or those of an ethnicity. By using the name “Greek” to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. By using the name “Greece” to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the Greek State is falsely implying; 


(1) continuity between the ancient City States and modern Greece, and

(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.


In reality the words “Greece” and “Greek” were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words “Greece”. The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in Sicily as “Grecos” but they referred to the region south of Olympus as Achaia. During the Ottoman era the people living south of Olympus called themselves Romeos (Romans). Greece is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The Kingdom of Greece, occupying the region of Morea, present day Peloponnesus, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day Greece, by conquering Epirus, Thessaly and 51% of Macedonia.



At its inception Greece started out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time Greece conquered Epirus and Thessaly, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000. After it conquered Macedonia and exchanged populations with Turkey, its population tripled. In 1928 Greece registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from Asia Minor.



After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with Turkey, Greece declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population. It is estimated that after Macedonia was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks.



According to Greece however, there were no non-Greeks left in Macedonia after its population exchanges. Also, according to Greece, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. So the question that begs to be asked here is, “What ethnicity were these million or so people who remained in Macedonia and became part of Greece?” Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians! If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek?



What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the so called “ancient Greeks”.  Even this small argument shows that there is something “fishy” about these Greek claims. For over a century and a half, Greek State institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.








This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea [1]. Among other things, Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous.  



“It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in Attica was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In Sparta there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of Athens were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of Sparta all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented ‘special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline.’ Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, ‘made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.’ Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the so called Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, ‘The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous’.” [2] 




And there you have it! 

THE TRUTH
The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation. 


“The Greek nation-state was a product of western political intervention-'the fatal idea' as Arnold Toynbee once called it, of exclusive western nationalism impinging upon the multi-national traditions of the eastern world. By extension, therefore, at any rate in theory, it was a child of the Renaissance and of western rationalism...” 




Pelasgians is the name generally given by ancient writers to the peoples before the Hellenes. According to both Heredotus and Thucydided, Pelasgians formed the largest element of the early population of Greece and the Aegean, and most of them were gradually assimilated by the Hellenes. Heredotus saw this transformation as following the invasion by Danaos (the Egyptian) which he took to be around the middle of the second millennium BC. Heredotus stated that the Eygptian Danaids taught the Pelasgians (not the Hellenes) the worship of the gods. The idea that the Pelasgians were the native population, converted to something more "Greek" by the invading Egyptians, also occurs  in the plays of Aischylos and Euripides, written around the same time as Heredotus Histories.

The Ionians were one of the two great tribes of Greece, the other being the Dorians. In classical times the Ionians lived in a band across the Aegean from Attica to "Ionia on the Anatolian shore...Heredotus linked the Pelasgians to the Ionians".

Tiberius Claudius wrote about the movements of some Greek tribes into the Balkan peninsula:

"Among these Celts, if the word is to have any significance (are included) even the Achaen Greeks, who had established themselves for some time in the Upper Danube Valley before pushing southward into Greece. Yes, the Greeks are comparative newcomers to Greece. They displaced the native Pelasgians...This happened not long before the Trojan War; the Dorian Greeks came still later - eighty years after Trojan War. Other Celts of the same race invaded France and Italy at about the same time."

With regard tp what is now called the Dorian İnvasion, Bernal notes that in ancient times this was much more frequently called "the return of the Heraklids." The dorians came from the northwestern fringes of Greece, which had been less affected by the Middle Eastern culture of the Mycenaean palaces which they destroyed. Their use of the name Heraklids was a claim not only to divine descent from Herakles, but also to Egyptian and Phoenician royal ancestors. This is not simply a modern theory. Ancient sources show that the descendants of these conquerors, the Dorian kings of classical and Hellenistic times, believed themselves to be descended from Egyptian and Phoenicians.
"Macedonia and Greece"
the book









 “Greece is an ethnically homogeneous nation”
(To this day there are some Greeks who believe in the myth that they are an ethnically pure race)


To Macedonians it is irrelevant what Greeks believe in as long as they don’t interfere in Macedonian affairs. Unfortunately Greece’s selfportrayal as an “ethnically homogeneous State” is not only interfering with Macedonians, it is downright hostile to them.  “Greeks' contemporary self-image is built upon a series of myths. The myth of continuity. The myth of the racial and cultural superiority of our ancestors (and, thanks to continuity, our own). The myth of being special The myth of racial and religious purity. The myth of the genius of the Greek race.



The existence of these myths provokes certain predictable reactions. Thus, my typical compatriot while proud to be Greek (95 percent, according to polls) will abuse and censure his countrymen at the slightest provocation. And this, naturally, because they fail to live up to the expectations and the demands created by the myths.” (Nikos Dimou) [5] Greece, over the years, has taken extraordinary measures to erase what is real in favour of something artificially manufactured. 


“Greek-ness” or “Hellenism”, as the Greeks like to call it, is a 19th century invention modeled after a culture and a race of people that ceased to exist more than two millennia ago. Greece has destroyed the real cultures, traditions and languages of its indigenous people living on its soil in favour of this artificial creation it calls Hellenism. Worse, today Greece not only denies the existence of its non-Greek roots but it insists that no indigenous races such as Albanians, Macedonians, Vlahs, Turks, Roma, etc. ever existed in Greece. Greece has not only forsaken its indigenous cultures but is consistently punishing all those who want to return to them. 


The so-called “Greek Nationality” (Ethos) was artificially created during the 19th century by the Great Powers in order to break up the Ottoman Empire and to stop the expansion of Pan Slavism. Britain’s fear of Russia entering Mediterranean waters and contaminating its “backyard garden” motivated British officials to do whatever was necessary to stop the “Slav proliferation”. After Greece was created it needed people “Greeks” to maintain and enlarge itself. These people came from the territories it occupied during its period of expansion. One need only ask, “How come there are Macedonians, Albanians, Vlahs, Turks, Roma, etc. living in the Republic of Macedonia and none of these ethnicities live in Greek occupied Macedonia?” 


It is well known that these ethnicities existed in all of Macedonia during Ottoman rule before geographic/ethnographic Macedonia was occupied and partitioned in 1912/1913. In fact there are Greek statistics compiled prior to 1912 that attest to these facts. Yet in 1928 Greece declared itself “ethnically pure” with only “pure Greeks” living in Greece. Naturally the burning question is “what happened to the other ethnicities that lived in Macedonia after it was occupied by Greece in 1912?” Did they simply vanish? Of course they did not! They were Hellenized! They were “made” into Greeks!



In her infatuation with the glory of her “false” past, Greece became ashamed of her “real self” and buried her true present. Greece did not want a bunch of ignorant Slavs, Albanians, Vlahs, Turks, Roma, etc. for citizens. It preferred the “mythical” types like Pericles, Leonidas and Temistocles or descendants thereof. This was all done with encouragement from her benefactors, the Great Powers. In fact, outside of some Greeks who have been labeled traitors [5], no one questioned Greece’s motives for doing this.


Macedonians have no problem with Greeks calling themselves whatever they want as long as they do not interfere in their affairs. Macedonians would like to be known for who and what they really are, Macedonians. The crux of the problem unfortunately is that while the Greeks continue to believe in their mythical past, they interfere with reality. Falsely believing that they are all Greeks, descendants from an ancient people, they refuse to acknowledge the reality that Macedonians do exist and live on their territory. Further, to prevent the discovery of their falsehood, they even interfere in the affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, an independent and Sovereign State.


THE TRUTH
The proof that Greece is neither “homogeneous” nor has continuity from the ancient past is not difficult to explain. Just take a look at Greece’s population makeup from 1829 to 1928 and in it you will find Albanians, Vlahs, Turks, Macedonians and Roma. 


Period........................................ Activity....................................................... Number of People

1829........... Greece created for the first time (mostly Arvanites) Less then.............. 1,000,000

1830 – 1911.................... Epirus and Thessaly Annexed (Vlahs and Albanians)............ 1,600,000


1912 – 1913........... 51% of ethnographic Macedonia Annexed (Macedonians).................. 2,500,000


1920 – 1928...................... Importation of Christian Turks from Asia Minor (Turkey)................... 1,100,000



In 1928 Greece registered 6,200,000 people after which it declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population. In the 1920’s Greece imported 1.1 million Christian Turks from Asia Minor, claiming that they were descendants of the “Ancient Greeks”. At the time, not one of them spoke Greek or identified with the Greeks. How could they have? A “Greek Nation” never existed before 1829!  



Modern Greeks, along with their Roman-derived benefactors, have not only falsified “ancient history”, they have robbed other civilizations of their contribution to the world. Clearly the contributions of say the Phoenician and Egyptian civilizations, which were far superior civilizations to that of ancient Athens, are totally ignored and long forgotten. Worse, their contributions have now been expropriated (stolen) by the Greeks and claimed to be Greek. 



Two and a half millennia later Greeks continue to expropriate (steal) other people’s ideas and inventions and shamelessly call them their own! I have already mentioned the atom and geometry, but Greek coffee? Clearly everyone knows “Greek coffee” is actually Turkish coffee. 





Api - Scythian-Turk Goddess







“The Ancient ‘Greek gods’ were Greek”
(Some modern Greeks believe that those who spoke Greek and believed in the Greek gods were actually Greek)



We often read in books, see movies and hear stories about the so called mythical “Greek gods” but have we ever stopped to think what makes these deities Greek? Are they “Greek” because they originated where modern Greece is today? Are they “Greek” in a national sense? Are they Greek because the Ancients that lived in the region where modern Greece is today wrote about them? How are they “Greek”?


The word “Greek” before the word “gods” implies that there is a relationship between “Greek” and “gods” which means that in some way these gods belong to Greece or the “Greeks”. Since these “gods” are not associated with other Mediterranean people such as the Macedonians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Thracians, Pelasgians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Lycians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, Picidians, Pamphylians and others, in a similar manner, who also celebrated and believed in them, then one is led to believe that these gods must be exclusively connected to Greece and the “Greeks” The question is how?


Among several sources we consulted, Microsoft’s Encarta encyclopedia under the heading “Greek Mythology” had an explanation but this explanation did not enforce the idea that the so called “Greek gods” were actually “Greek”. According to Encarta, mythology in written form appeared for the first time in the literary works of Hesiod and Homer around the eighth century BC. Homer, as we know, produced the famous works the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” and Hesiod produced the poems “Theogony”. 


Both authors in their respective works talk about the various tales and legends associated with ancient deities. Hesiod, however, according to Encarta, takes a step further and introduces a larger number of myths that include deities that are not mentioned by Homer. Hesiod, in “Theogony”, who talks about the creation of the world, the birth of the gods as well as their adventures, NEVER ONCE mentions “Greek” or any other name derived from this word!


Similarly, Homer in his works the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey”, considered to be reliable sources for the so-called “Greek Mythology” and the “Greek gods”, NEVER ONCE mentions the word “Greek” or any other name derived from this word!


So again, how are these so-called “Greek gods” “Greek”? Perhaps the authors who wrote about them were from the region where modern Greece is today? According to Carlos Parada, an internationally recognized researcher and expert on mythology, the following authors have contributed to the socalled “Greek mythology”



Author ....................%Contribution Lived in / Ethnicity
Apolodorus........................ 19 Alexandria / Unknown *
Paucsanias......................................... 12 Lydia / Lydian
Hyginus....................... 12 Rome / Unknown (Spanish?)
Homer................................... 8 Asia Minor? / Unknown
Ovid..................................................... 6 Rome / Roman
Nonnus.............................................. 5 Egypt / Egyptian
Hesiod.................................... 4.6 Boeotia / Boeotian **
Diodorus Siculus...............................4.4 Sicily / Sicilian
Virgil......................................... 4 Mantua Italy / Roman
Quintus Smynaeus...................................................... 3.3
Statius................................................ 2.6 Rome / Roman
Antonius Liberalis................................. 2 Rome / Roman
Valerius Flaccus.................................... 2 Rome / Roman
Apollonius Rhodius............... 1.8 Alexandria ? Unknown
Dionysius of Halicarnassus............. 1.5 Caria / Unknown
Euripides..................................... 1.5 Attica / Athenian **
Plutarch.................................... 1.3 Boeotia / Boeotian **
Herodotus................................................ 1 Caria / Carian
Pindarus (Pindar).............................. 1 Thebes / Boeotian
Parhenius of Nicaea........................................................ 1
Aeschylus..................................................................... 0.5
Aristophanes................................................................ 0.4
Caimachus.................................................................... 0.4
Cicero........................................................................... 0.3

* Highest probability - Macedonian
** From Ancient City States south of Mount Olympus where Modern Greece is located today.


From the table above, we can see that the vast majority of works about the so-called “Greek mythology” and the “Greek gods” were in fact written by NON-GREEKS or by authors of unknown origin/ethnicity. If the authors who wrote about them were not “Greek” then perhaps the legends of the so-called “Greek gods” originated somewhere in the lands of modern Greece. Unfortunately that is not true either. 


According to Herodotus, many of the elements of the so-called “Greek myths” associated with the “Greek gods” were borrowed from foreign religions, mainly from the Pelasgians who in turn borrowed them from the Egyptians. (There are some scientists today who believe the Pelasgians lived in the lower Balkans, including Macedonia and were the ancestors of some of the Slavs.) However let as not just take Herodotus’s word. Let’s examine the mythological deities themselves starting with the supreme god Zeus.


According to the Grolier Encyclopedia, Zeus is a celestial deity of Indo-European origin symbolically associated with the sky. Poseidon, the elder brother of Zeus, is also a deity of Indo European origin. Apollo, on the other hand, is an Asian deity from the Asian shaman cults, imported from Siberia. The following is a list of deities and major mythical figures commonly referred to as “Greek gods” and “Greek mythical figures” who are believed to be of “non-Greek” origin;



Deity/Major Figure Origin Source
Rhigmus Thracian Carlos Parada
Diomedes Thracian Carlos Parada
Phineus Thracian Carlos Parada
Tereus Thracian Carlos Parada
Rhesus Thracian Carlos Parada
Alcon Thracian Carlos Parada
Memnon Ethiopian Carlos Parada
Alcyoneus Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Alexipus Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Clydon Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Laomedon Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Mmeneclus Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Nychius Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Thalius Ethiopian Quintus Smyrnaeus
Andromeda Ethiopian Carlos Parada
Cepheus Phoenician Carlos Parada
Europa Phoenician Carlos Parada
Pelops Phrygian Carlos Parada
Agenor Egyptian Carlos Parada
Belus Egyptian Carlos Parada
Midus Phrygian Carlos Parada
Opis Phrygian Carlos Parada
Aura Phrygian Carlos Parada
Proteus Egyptian Carlos Parada
Egeria Italian Ovid
Hora Roman Ovid
Janus Roman Carlos Parada
Juturna Roman Carlos Parada
Penates Roman Carlos Parada
Tantalus Paphlagonia Carlos Parada
Orchamus Persia Carlos Parada
Pyramus Babylon Carlos Parada
Thisbe Babylon Carlos Parada
Dido Cartagenan Carlos Parada
Nicea Indian Carlos Parada
Phoenix Arabian Carlos Parada
Hypnos From the BlackSea regionCarlos Parada
Muses (9) Macedonian Carlos Parada
Dionysus Macedonian(Brygian)Grolier Encyclopedia


For details on the above, see Donski [3]. 


From the table above, we can see that a large number of deities and important mythical figures have purposely or unwittingly been misrepresented. Clearly they are not of “Greek origin” 


And finally, perhaps the so-called “Greek gods” were “Greek” because they were exclusively celebrated by the ancient people who lived south of Mount Olympus where modern Greece is today. That too, I am afraid is not true. The mythical gods, referred to as the “Greek gods”, were common to most ancient Mediterranean nations and cultures. They were as much universal to the ancient world as Christ and Christianity is universal to our modern world.


THE TRUTH
The Ancient “Greek gods” were not Greek at all! In fact, referring to them as “Greek gods” would be a myth in itself. It is more appropriate, truthful and precise to call them Mediterranean gods than it is to call them “Greek gods”. After all they were celebrated, revered and feared by many more nations and cultures north, east and west of Mount Olympus than they were south of Mount Olympus. And that is the truth.



LiTTLE BOOK OF BiG GREEK LiES  by Risto STEFOV / PDF













!







read also 
Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization
by Martin Bernal












So, did they look also with  the Proto-Turkish history? :) 
Only who is working Turcology ;)
TROJAN WAR, WAS BETWEEN 
THE PROTO-TURKS AND PROTO-HELLENES
so,
without the Turks you can not write the History.