Introduction<<< Index >>>Part II
What is pan-Turanianism? Simply put, pan-Turanianism is an ideology that aims at creating a Turkic super state stretching from the Balkans in Europe, eastwards across Turkey, Iran (Persia), the Caucasus, Central Asia up to and including northwest China (see map below):
The logic behind this is that all people who speak Turkish must be incorporated into this Turkic super state (see also Atabaki, 2001, Landau, 1995, Zenkovsky 1960 and Lewis, 1962 in References).
Hungarian pan-Turanianist activists go even further. They have proposed that the entire Eurasian landmass between Hungary and Norway in Europe to Japan and Korea was once an empire known as “Turania”. Apart from non-scholastic websites, no linguistic, anthropological and archeological evidence for such an empire exists. Pan-Turanian racialists and historians would beg to differ. They are impervious to logical explanations even in the face of hard evidence. Such is the case of all who are infected with the virulent virus of racialism (see C. Richards, 1997 and J. Searle-White, 2001 in References).
Pan-Turanianism, like Nazi “racial sciences”, or Stalinist “History”, has failed to convince the majority of western scholarship to its cause, and has been as equally unsuccessful in Eastern Europe, with the exception of Hungary and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Much of pan-Turanian ideology is similar to pan-Germanic racism and Nazism; philosophies from which the Grey Wolves and pan-Turanian ideologues have drawn much of their inspiration (see Parts III & IV). Like the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, the pan Turanian Turks envision their Turan super-state (like the Nazi “Germania”), in terms of “lebensraum” (German for “living space”) for all Turkic speaking peoples. The late president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Abulfazl Elchibey (1938-2000), a Grey Wolf sympathizer himself (see Part II, item 4), is reputed to have stated that “…the road to Turkistan runs through Tabriz”. Tabriz has been an integral part of Persia for thousands of years.
(1) A Brief Note on the Origins of Pan-Turanianism.
Pan-Turanianism is perhaps one of the last racialist movements that first began in the 19th century. Traditional history cites its early origins amongst Ottoman officers and intelligentsia studying and residing in 1870s Imperial Germany. The fact that many Ottoman Turkish officials were becoming aware of their sense of “Turkishness” is beyond doubt of course, and the role of subsequent nationalists, such as Ziya Gokalp (see Part II, item 7a) is fully established historically.
What is far less known (or acknowledged) is the role of foreign (non-Turkish) interests in the manipulation of the Turks to service wider geopolitical interests. It is truly an irony that the idea of a Turanian empire never originated amongst the Ottoman Turks, but by a man of European descent. His name was Arminius (Hermann) Vambery (1832-1913), a Hungarian Professor, philologist and traveler who worked an as advisor to the Ottoman Sultan between 1857-1863 (see Vambery in Ottoman dress at left – European attire at right):
Vambery was in the employ of Lord Palmerston of the British Foreign office. It was during his tenure at the Sultan’s court when Vambery first made mention of the fiction of a pan-Turanian superstate to his Turkish hosts in Istanbul:
"…they (the Turks) could form a political entity stretching from the Altai Mountains in Eastern Asia to the Bosphorus…"
[Paksoy, H.B., ‘Basmachi’: TurkestanNational Liberation Movement 1916-1930s. In
Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union, Florida: Academic International Press, 1991, Vol. 4].
Vambery’s thesis was based on the observation that as much of Central Asia used Turkic languages as their main vernacular (except Persian speaking Tajikestan), this then necessitated the formation of “Turan”. It has been speculated that Vambery’s mission was to create an anti-Slavic racialist movement among the Turks that would divert the Russians from the “Great Game” which they were playing against Britain in Persia and Central Asia (see also S. A. Zenkovsky in References).
Vambery retired as a professor of eastern languages at the University of Budapest between 1865-1905. He wrote many books on his travels to Turkey, Armenia, Persia and Central Asia. His expertise on languages and ethnology served the British Foreign Office very well indeed: a racialist idea was formed that would allow for the European manipulation of the Turks for a very long time to come.
Equally as interesting is the role played by Wilfred Blunt, known by some as the “great-grandfather” of pan-Arabism (of the later Cairo Office of British Intelligence), who was also one of the first to advocate a “Young Turk” movement. The Blunts are reputed to have been the founders of the Bank of England. Arnold J. Toynbee’s report to British intelligence regarding the Young Turk movement is also revealing (see Toynbee in References).
Just as pan-Turanianism was invented, British intelligence was plotting to disintegrate the Ottoman Empire by encouraging break away movements among its many nationalities. Although not generally reported, the British Empire had wanted to appropriate Turkish oil assets in Mesopotamia for at least a decade before the First World War (see William Engdahl in References).
The Ottoman Empire was one of the major geopolitical obstacles to the intended projection of British military, political and economic primacy into the Persian Gulf. The other “obstacle” was (and potentially is) Persia, present-day Iran.
The Achilles heel of the Ottoman Empire was its multi-ethnic composition. This was adroitly exploited to achieve its destruction from within. The role of TE Lawrence (of Arabia) in this endeavor is popular knowledge, however less known is the role played by British intelligence in the fomenting of earlier Albanian nationalism (Lady Dunham) and Bulgarian nationalism (Noel Buxton). The Kurds were also mobilized and by 1905, a “map of Kurdistan” soon appeared in London. Even today, Turkish officials suspect British complicity behind Kurdish separatism (see Part VI, item 9).
Interestingly, the Armenians and Assyrians were also promised statehood and independence. Their historical claims however, overlapped with those of the Ottoman Kurds, a fact which contributed to much subsequent bloodshed and tragedy, both during the war and after (Part IV, item 2b).
Even less known is the role played by an Italian national, Emmanuel Carasso (possibly a pseudonym). Carasso was involved in the setting up of the Young Turk Society in Thessaloniki (which was then under Turkish rule - now in Greece) with Turkish nationalists (see Arai in References). Strangely, Carasso was also involved in another project called “Macedonia Resurrected” (see also Part VI, item 5). Although many details remain classified, some believe that the headquarters of the Young Turk Movement and the Macedonia Resurrected movement were identical, and that British intelligence was implicated in both of these projects. Although circumstantial information for this exists, no solid proof of this particular allegation has appeared at this time. What is certain is the European role in the setting up of the Young Turks and the Macedonia Resurrected project (an anti-Greek movement since its inception). There are striking parallels between the “Macedonia Resurrected” and the subsequent “Greater Azerbaijan” movements (see Part VI, item 5).
It must be noted that Carasso was no mere lowly official. His post in the Young Turk movement was crucial (see photo below-left of a Young Turk parliament session in 1908 Istanbul). It was Carasso who informed Sultan Abdul Hamid (1842-1918) (see photo below-right) that he had been overthrown, and took the initiative in placing him under house arrest. Even when the Young Turks themselves were overthrown very shortly thereafter, Carasso retained his position of importance: he was in charge of food distribution networks in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Carasso is also reputed to have helped run the Ottoman intelligence services in the Balkans.
Young Turks Sultan Abdul Hamid
Vladimir Jacobsky became the editor of the Young Turk Newspaper (the owner of the paper was of course Turkish). Jacobsky had been educated in Italy, and despite much hype and speculation, his links with foreign intelligence organizations remain unclear. The editorial content of the Young Turk Newspaper was also overseen by a Dutchman by the name of Jacob Kann. Kann was intimately connected to the Dutch government; he conducted the personal banking of the king and queen of Holland. The economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper, The Turkish Homeland, was overseen by Alexander Helphand Parvus (1869-1924), reputed to have been a double agent (Russian and British) (see photo). There has been speculation of Parvus being involved in arms smuggling for the Turkish army during the Balkan wars (before World War One). See Zeman & Scharlau in references for further details.
Much of the history of these men has been confined to a select group of historians; not much is known in wider academia, popular knowledge, and especially among the Turks in general. Nevertheless, a British intelligence officer of World War One, John Buchan, has written a novel (see references) in which a number of these characters appear. The head of the whole operation is identified by Buchan as having been a certain “Aubrey Herbert”. Aubrey Herbert (1880-1923) (see photo below) was in fact one of the key intelligence officers operating in the Middle East during World War One, fought in the doomed Gallipoli invasion of Turkey in 1915, and was fluent in both Turkish and Arabic. TE Lawrence, the key foreign instigator of the anti-Turkish Arab revolt, is reputed to have noted of Herbert’s complicity in helping the rise of the short-lived Young Turk movement in Istanbul.
(2) Some of the Beliefs of Pan-Turanianism.
As with every racialist movement, pan-Turanianism has invented its own version of historical narcissism[i]. However, in this particular case, one may say that pan-Turanianism has produced a “history” that is not only incredible, but dare I say, entertaining. Pan-Turanian scholars have not only re-narrated a whole new version of world history, but have set new frontiers in the disciplines of linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and logic, one on par with the “Aryan Physics” of the Nazi regime of Germany (1920s-1940s).
Below are descriptions of a mere handful of these beliefs. As you read the list below, you will undoubtedly ask: how are these conclusions arrived at, and what kinds of minds manufacture such thoughts?
(a) The Inventors of culture, language and civilization were Turks.
Pan-Turanian ideologues have placed a very high priority on re-inventing past history. Much of this is based on the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (1881-1938) (see photo below), who stated that: “Writing history is as important as making history”[ii] (see also H. Poulton and P. Robins in references).
Mustafa Kemal Attaturk
The re-interpretation and invention of past history began with full vigor during the first decades of the newly independent Turkish republic[iii]. This educational objective led to the First History Congress in Ankara in 1932. The majority of the leading “historians” who attended the congress hailed from political backgrounds with little or no formal academic graduate training as historians, anthropologists, archaeologists or linguists[iv]. It is noteworthy that The Turkish History Research Society (The Turkish Historical Society) was in fact a branch of the CHF (Republican People’s Party)[v].
At present, the government of Turkey has established a number of well funded associations that focus on language and history[vi] (see T. Timur in References). The mission of these institutions is to produce historical narratives and linguistic validation for pan-Turanian ideologies, (e.g. Mustafa Kemal Attaturk’s “Sun Language Theory”). These efforts are propelled by the aforementioned Turkish Historical Society, which has spawned a “Turkish History Thesis and Sun Language Theory” (originally proposed in the 1932 congress)[vii].
The “Thesis” has been founded on three basic ideological principles:
(a1) Nation-building along European parameters – Turkey was to become a west European state.
(a2) Rejecting Islam as the basis of ethnic and national identity. This was part of becoming more “European”. This may have been an attempt at offsetting European “Orientalism” (see Edward Said in References) – the need to confront Nordicist notions of Near Eastern “Orientals” (Turks, Persians, Arabs, etc.) being racially and culturally inferior to the Europeans.
(a3) Turks are to be presented as the heirs of nearly all civilizations.
The final objective is to conclusively “prove” that virtually all great civilizations of the past [viii] such as Sumeria (see c), the Hittites, Egypt, Persia (see h-j, l-m) are either Turkish in origin or have been founded by the Turks. Note map below that shows the prime centrality of Turks to every major civilization in India, China, Polynesia, Persia, all of Europe, the Near East, China, the Far East, and Africa:
Note the arrow showing the migration towards the Bering Strait of Alaska – this is meant to show that the Turks are the ancestors of the American Indians as well (see g below).
This is virtually identical to Nordicism which states that all of the great “Aryan” empires of Persia, Greece, India and Rome were founded by members of the Nordic “race” of contemporary northwestern Europe. As will be seen repeatedly in this commentary, Nordicism (along with its Fascist and Nazi successors) and Pan-Turanianism bear certain ideological resemblances. Persian chauvinism and many neo-Nazi movements have also drawn inspiration from Nazi-style fascism (Part IV, item 5).
The standard textbook for Turcocentric historical revisionism is Professor Silahi Diker’s 864 page “And the Whole World Was One Language - Ten Thousand Years of the Turks” (see Silahi Diker’s book in references and website in web references) (Professor Silahi’s photo below). The professor’s response to challenges to his theories and “evidence” is that:
“…all past (non-Turkish) research pertaining to the above has been “prejudicial”, “biased” and “anti-Turkish”.
Professor Silahi Deker
According to the distinguished Professor’s logic, research and history that fails to support pan-Turanianism is by definition “anti-Turkish”. Professor Diker is only one step away from the Nazi fascists of the 1930s who viewed any historical research contradicting their ideologies as “anti-German”. The Professor himself denies that he is motivated by any form of nationalism. He is a vivid reminder of a new generation of neo-Orientalist scholars who state that “I am not a racist but…” You may wish to refer to Professor Diker’s website (see Web references) for an insight into his beliefs.
One quote from Professor Diker’s website is revealing:
“Indeed, I have proven that the culture of 6300 B.C. Anatolia as discovered at Çatal Hüyük by archaeologist James Mellaart is Turkish, and since this almost 8300 years old culture was not created in a day, we can easily talk of a ‘Ten Thousand Years of the Turks’ ...”
With a single stroke of his pen (or keyboard), the Professor has traced the entire civilization of humanity to the Turks and eliminated the Greek, Hittite, Armenian, Phrygian, and Iranian (Mede, Persian, etc.) legacies in Anatolia. As you read through the Professor’s book and his “dictionaries”, his cognition and especially his logical processes become somewhat clearer. But what Dr. Diker and other pan-Turanian activists are doing is nothing new; Soviet “historians” had engaged in this type of “academia” since the 1920s.
Pan-Turanian activists have learned a great deal from Soviet scholarship (see Part II, items 1c and 1e). If history fails to support your ideology, then all you need to do is to re-write that history to fit your beliefs. Logic and objectivity are never the hallmarks of any racist movement seeking to differentiate and divide nations and peoples along ethnic, linguistic, or religious lines.
Pan-Turanian activists however have failed (and continue to fail) in the face of northwest European, Greek, Italian, Indian, Iranian, Chinese, and Arabian historical archives, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, not to mention genetic studies. Not a shred of “proof” actually exists for the truly fantastic narratives stated by pan-Turanian writers such as Silahi Diker.
There is a tremendous effort in place to push these ideas into mainstream western academia and media outlets (see Part VI, items 4 & 7). Grey Wolf activists (see item below and Part III) have been introducing these false ideas into the Republic of Azerbaijan and are trying to affect Iran’s Turcophone (e.g. Azerbaijani) populations as well (see Parts II-IV).
(b) The Myth of the Grey Wolf
Pan-Turanian activists have developed a fascinating mythology with respect to the origins of the Turks. This is the legend of a certain “Boz Kurt” (Grey Wolf) who roared out to the ancestors of the Turks and the Huns to migrate west from their homelands in Siberia and Central Asia. The Grey Wolf then allegedly pointed the way west and south: presumably against Persia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the Near East, Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Greece and Western Europe.
According to the legend, it was this Grey Wolf that awakened the Turks to their legacy of conquest and civilization building (see propaganda poster below):
Grey Wolf activists (Part III: The Grey Wolves) use the hand to mimic the head of that mythical Grey Wolf (see photo below):
This symbol is often evoked in Turkish political rallies and popular venues (i.e. Soccer games) (see Part II-IV). Grey Wolf activists are attempting to export this mythology to foreign countries; especially Northern Iran and the Caucasus (see Part III).
Archival research, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics and academia in general have failed to provide historical veracity for the Grey Wolf myth. There are two general problems as well.
The first problem is that of logic. No major human population movement has ever been led by an animal such as a Grey Wolf, for the simple reason that beasts are not able to reason as humans do and do not understand notions such as nation-building or conquest.
The second problem is that of chronology. When did this Grey Wolf roar take place? If true, this must have happened thousands of years ago, virtually at the dawn of human history, as the Turks now claim that the Sumerians (c), Greece-Anatolia (d), Etruscans (e), etc. have Turkish origins. The Turks however, are virtual newcomers in the historical sense: By the time they had arrived in the Near East and Anatolia in the 11th century AD, all of the civilizations they claim to have founded had long since vanished. Turkish expansions began in the 6th Century AD – important pockets such as the Huns, Avars and Khazars had already penetrated Europe a few hundred years earlier. Professor Mallory has provided a sketch of the Turkish expansions (see References, p. 147):
Turkic languages (esp. Oghuzz West Turkic) spread very rapidly across Central Asia, the Caucasus, northern Persia and Anatolia. This was done through the process of Elite Dominance; the spread of a language by way of a small minority of warriors upon alien populations (see Part II, item 7).
Grey Wolf activists and pan-Turanian ideologues in general, habitually confuse the following:
[a] Race and Language. This is fully discussed in Part II, item 7 (Azerbaijanis are Turkic by race).
[b] Geography, Language & Race. Turkish racialists fail to make any distinction between facts on the ground today with past history. Simply put, this is the logic that if Turkish speakers reside in a particular area “X” today, then the history of that region must have been “Turkish” for time immemorial. This means that any race that has ever lived in Central Asia, Anatolia and Northern Iran for thousands of years before the historical Turkish arrivals have always been “Turks”. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the Turks arrived as invaders who displaced or linguistically assimilated already resident populations.
Examples of this thinking are discussed in item l (claims that Northern Iranians were all Turks), Part II, items 2 (claiming Azerbaijanis have been Turkish since time began) and 3 (Claims that the Caucasus has been Turkish for over 5000 years).
(c) Ancient Sumeria was Turkish.
Humanity owes a great debt to the ancient Sumerians (present-day south Iraq/Kuwait) as they were the inventors of the wheel (see photo of Sumerian wheel below), and may have had a profound influence on Hebrew religious tradition and theology. They had an advanced system of city states with coded laws, advanced agriculture, standing armies, architecture, as well as sophisticated arts and crafts.
Pan-Turanian writers now claim to have “proof” that the Sumerians were ancient Turks. According to Professor Diker:
“…literary history goes back to 5000 years with the discovery of writing by the Sumerians who, as we will see spoke definitely a Turkish dialect...”
[See References and Web References]
This means that it was the Turks who invented writing as well as the wheel. The main source of “proof” is an invented dictionary that purports to “prove” that Sumerian and Turkish share the same roots. You may wish to see the English-Sumerian-Turkish on-line dictionaries, written by Polat Kaya in the Website references.
Similar methodologies have been used to “prove” the “Turkish origins” of widely varied historical peoples such as the Elamites of ancient (Pre-Aryan) southwest Iran. It would appear that writers such as Polat Kaya and Professor Diker are not cognizant of the basic rules of linguistics. This writer had already suggested to the distinguished Professor Diker to refer to Professor Ruhlen’s standard text on the origin of human language, a text which provides an introduction to the basic rules of linguistics as well as clearly delineating the distinction between Turkic languages from non-Turkic languages such as Elamite, Indo-European, etc. (see References).
(d) The culture of the ancient Greece and Anatolia is Turkish in origin.
Very little can be said except that pan-Turanian writers insist that they have found “evidence” for this rather fantastic “discovery”. This would mean that the original founders of western civilization were Turks, as ancient Greece has been “proven” to have been of Turkish origin.
According to pan-Turanian activists, the very Hellenic origin of the breathtaking works of Greek architecture (see Parthenon below), art, literature, scientific inquiry and philosophy are now being questioned by pan-Turanian activists.
Unimpressed by Professor Diker, Greek scholars have long complained of attempts by the Turks (and their supporters in English speaking media and academia) to de-Hellenecize the Greek legacy in Anatolia in particular (see Part VI, item 4a). Pan-Turanian writers now propose that the Greek term “Anatolia” (“the East” in Greek) has always been “Anadol” or “the land of many mothers” in proto-Turkish. Note Professor Diker’s observation on Anatolia and the foundations of Greco-Roman culture:
“…Turkish-speaking peoples of an advanced culture lived in Asia Minor nearly ten thousand years ago, we do not have any similar archaeological evidence in greater Asia at corresponding time. Thus we can claim that Anatolia was the first home of the Turks. The Mediterranean culture was not created solely by the Greeks and Romans but more so by these ancient Turkish-speaking peoples…”
This suggests Turkish primacy in Anatolia, the Aegean and possibly the Eastern Mediterranean before the rise of the Greeks. Even the pre-Roman foundations of Rome have now been retroactively Turcified (see below).
(e) The Etruscans of pre-Roman Italy were Turks.
According to pan-Turanian ideologues, the ancient Etruscans of Italy (see sample Etruscan art below) are said to have “spoken a Turkish dialect” according to Professor Diker.
Kindly note the following quotes from Professor Diker’s aforementioned website (taken from his text):
“…lost languages themselves… such as Sumerian, Elamite, Etruscan, Urartian, and Hurrian, branded vaguely Asian …had to be related to the Ural-Altaic group of which Turkish is the only major language spoken today in Eurasia …proof that these lost languages… were akin to Turkish …Through my deciphering process, a global distribution…of the Turkish languages during the last 5000 years of man’s history has been established…”
Dr. Diker also cites a genetic study that purports to show that the Etruscans were in fact a Turkish race (see Web References). The flaws of Dr. Diker’s interpretation will be re-examined in Part II, item 7. To summarize, pan-Turanian activists propose that the Etruscan foundation of ancient Rome is of Turkish origin. The implications of this are enormous: Rome, which has Etruscan and Calabrian roots, is now traced to the Turks. Few in Italy or mainstream Europe appear to have been impressed by Professor Diker. The main sources of western support for pan-Turanianism appear to be in the English-speaking world (see Part VI, items 4 & 7).
(f) Armenians are Turks.
The main impetus for this fantastic claim is linked to the statement made by the late president of the Republic of Azerbaijan Heidar Aliev (1923-2003) who stated that Armenia has no historical basis (Part II, item 3a). There are pan-Turanian activists who truly believe that Armenia is a historical invention; and have even cited “proof” of their assertions. International scholarship has yet to respond to the notion of a Turkic Central Asian origin for the Armenians.
The Armenians are claimed by a number of pan-Turanian ideologues to be simply a “lost” Turkish tribe. No mention is made of the Balkan origins of the Armenians or the fact that they have so many historical links to Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian Persia, as well as the Greco-Roman Byzantine Empire (see Part II, item 3a).
The Armenian language is in fact totally unique, despite its many shared features with Iranian languages (see Part II, item 3). Like Greek it is an independent branch of the Indo-European family. Armenian script is also unique (see below left), based most likely on the Proto-Canaanite script. It was Saint Mesrop Mashtots (362-440 AD) (see his statue below right in Oshakan, Armenia) who introduced the Armenian script as we know it today. The only outside influence in Armenian script may be Greek (note the order of the Armenian alphabet and writing from left-to-right)
Armenian folklore and legend is replete with references to not only its Indo-European roots but its Aryan legacy – the result of centuries of confluence with Iranian peoples and cultures (Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanian, etc.). Note the following ancient Armenian legend:
“Long time ago there was a powerful warrior king named Arya…Arya had two sons…Armen and Iren…he sent each of his sons to conquer different lands…these became Armenia and Iran…”
(g) The indigenous Indian peoples of North America are Turks.
This is the idea that the North American Indians are Turks simply because many of the Amerindian migrations originated from East Asia over ten thousand years ago. The writer of this commentary was lectured personally by a Hungarian pan-Turanian gentleman who insisted that as the Indians fought from horseback, this was sufficient proof of their Turkish heritage. A pro pan-Turanian website makes the following claim:
“The Turanian people, genetically, are the most closely related people to the Native Americans (Amerindians). The appearance, if one wishes to know what is meant here, is also similar: take a look at moving pictures (not drawings or touched up photos) of Stalin or Lenin for an idea, or Alexander Lebed...”
[In “Red-Comrades-Turania” - see Web References ]
There are no scientifically valid studies that verify these claims. Note the depiction of a “Turkish-Indian” warrior below and the accompanying legendary Grey Wolf:
The reader may find the website by Polat Kalya “Turkish Language and the Native Americans” of interest (see Web References)
Pan-Turanian writers now claim “Genetic, Linguistic, and Historic Evidence” of the “Turkish Roots” of the Melungeons, by Mehmet Cakir, in a paper submitted to an English class in the University of Colorado (see Melungeons in Web References).
The Melungeons are in fact descendants of Portuguese and Spanish settlers abandoned earlier in North America. The Melungians have had racial admixture with the native Indians, Anglo-Saxons, and Blacks of North America.
(h) Kurds and their Mede ancestors are Turks. This is based on the following statement:
“The fact that Kurds are members of the Turkish race is a reality that is as clear and undeniable as 2x2=4”
(Krizl’lu M. Fahrettin, Her Bakimdan Turk Alan Turkler. Ankara, 1964).
Kurds are claimed as Turks simply because the ancient Medes, an ancient Iranian people who settled in large parts of what is now Kurdistan and Iranian Azerbaijan, are also considered as Turks by the pan-Turanian ideologues. The general term for Kurds has been “Mountain Turks”. Apart from academic circles in Turkey, the Republic of Azerbaijan and Hungary, very few scholars in the international arena have taken these claims seriously.
It is somewhat unclear as to how pan-Turanian activists accommodate the fact that international scholarship unanimously attests to the Iranian character of Kurdish (For samples see Arberry, Mackenzie, Nebez, in References). With the exception of the late Ziya Gokalp (Part II, item 7), no Kurdish academics have subscribed to pan-Turanian ideology.
(i) Tajiks are Turks. Tajikestan is now considered to be a Turkish republic, meaning that its people, culture, history and language are now viewed as Turkish. Kindly see the Turkish government website, “Oz Turkler” in the Website References.
This particular claim is a very strange departure from reality. Tajiks take great pride in their Iranian heritage. They have preserved their Persian language and Iranian lineage in the face of waves of Turkic, Hun and Mongol invasions over the centuries. Seventy years of Soviet attempts to weaken the Persian language and legacy of Tajikestan also failed in the face of popular cultural resistance.
Perhaps the greatest symbol of Iranian identity, not just in Iran, but wherever Iranian peoples (e.g. Kurds) and heritage (e.g. Caucasus) endure, is the “Nowruz” (lit. New Day/Year) festival, celebrated for thousands of years. The festival is commemorated in nearly religious terms by the Tajiks. Below is a photo of a girl representing the ancient Iranian goddess of fertility, Anahita in one of the Tajik traditions of Nowruz:
Girl rpresenting the ancient Iranian goddess of fertility, Anahait
The tray she carries is “Sabzeh” (Persian for “Green/fertile wheat”), a very ancient Iranian custom derived from the ancient Zoroastrian tradition of the Iranian peoples. Below left is another ancient Iranian custom (now forgotten by many Kurds and Persians) in which the Nowruz is announced by a symbolic “revellie call” accompanied by the very ancient Iranian “daf” (hand percussion instrument) in Dushanbe (Persian-Kurdish for “Monday”). The reveille call first appears among the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia (559-333 BC), where the Nowruz became a wider Iranian celebration (see photo of Achaemenid reveille officer below right – see Sekunda in references).
There are now attempts to redefine the Nowruz itself, undoubtedly via the Professor Dilker School of retroactive Turkification. Pan-Turanian activists now claim that the festival is derived from “an ancient Turkish custom”. “Nowruz” has also been Turkified to “Nevruz”. Few outside the pan-Turanian circle have taken this latest claim seriously.
(j) Turks are the World’s Main Producers of World Class Persian Literature.
Jaleledin Rumi (1207-1273 AD) was in fact born in eastern Persia, in the city of Balkh, now in western Afghanistan. Rumi’s family was obliged to migrate west, eventually ending up in Anatolia, due to the threats of Mongol attacks at the time. He eventually settled in Konya, where he died in 1273. Rumi is claimed as Turkish simply because he is buried in Turkish soil today in Konya. The assumption is that the inhabitants of Anatolia were all Turkic, when in fact this was not the case (see Part II, item 7). Even if they were, how does this transform Rumi into a Central Asian Turk? He was born in a Persian speaking area to begin with. But perhaps more interesting is that when it comes to re-defining Runi’s background, the Turks now have competition: the Afghans claim that Rumi was neither Persian nor Turkish, but Afghani! This is also intriguing in that (a) Afghanistan did not exist as a state during Rumi’s time[ix] and (b) Rumi never referred to himself as an Afghan or Turk. In fact, he views himself as a sort of “citizen of the world”. Rumi’s proper name was Muhammad; this was followed by the titles “Jalal al-Din” and "Khudawandagar" (roughly “lord” in Persian). In his poetry he used the pen-name "Khamush" ("silent" in Persian) and from the 15th century Rumi came to be known as Mawlawi, the term deriving from his earlier title of Mulla-yi rum, "the learned master of Anatolia". Turks refer to Mawlawi as “Mevlana”.
Shahryar (1906-1988), is one of the greatest poets of contemporary Iran. He too is claimed as an “ethnic Turk” simply because he composed poems in Turkish as well as in Persian. But Shaharyar was a citizen of Iran and never disassociated himself from his homeland. The vast majority of Iranians are bilingual (or multilingual) and commonly compose songs and poetry in both their regional vernaculars (Kurdish, Turkish, Luri, etc.) and in Persian. Bilingualism is being used by pan-Turanian activists to re-define nationality. The logic is that since Shahryar did compose poems in Turkish then he must be an ethnic Turk. This is the classic case of mistaking language with race and identity (see Part II, item 7).
All other Persian poets (e.g. Shams Tabrizi, Shabestari, Ganjei) have been similarly Turkified. In the case of Tabrizi and Ganjei, the fact that they hailed from the Caucasus is sufficient reason for their retroactive Turkification.
It is also very interesting that pan-Turanian activists claim that Persian was never popular among the language of the ordinary folk, but only a “literary language” used as a medium of expression by otherwise “Turkish” literary and poetry artists. This is consistent with the narrative that all of Anatolia, the Caucasus, northern and northwestern Persia have been Turkish since the beginning of recorded civilization (see Part II, item 2).
But perhaps even more mystifying are attempts since the 1990s, to re-define the Shahnama as Turkish. The Shahnama (Persian for “Book of Kings”) is an epic literature that provides a glimpse into Persia’s pre-Islamic heritage and was compiled by the Persian poet Hakim Abu al-Qasim Mansur Firdowsi (935-1026). It is justly known as the “Iliad of Persia”.
A number of pan-Turanian activists have been referring to the Shahname as the “Seyhname” and Firdowsi as “Ferdevsi”, suggesting a Turanian membership for both. There are four major flaws with this assumption:
[a] The Shahnama was written in Persian.
[b] Firdowsi identified himself as a citizen of Persia (Eire-An or Iran)
[c] The Shahnama refers to itself as the epic of “Eire-An” (Iran) close to 700 times.
[d] The Shahname refers to “Turan” and the “Turanians” as the enemies of Persia, and recalls many of the battles fought between them and the Persian world.
Referring to the Shahname as a source of Turkish literature is as comical as a German taking pride in the legends of Alexander Nevsky (1220-63) – the Russian hero who defeated the Germanic Teutonic Knights in 1242.
Interestingly, the false premise of the “Turkish” origin of the Shahnama and miniatures relating to the Shahnama, was first formally proposed in a pavilion organized by the Saudi Arabian government on August 1, 1989 in Washington D.C.[x]. The pavilion exhibited a miniature depicting five astronomers with a Persian inscription of the Iranian Shahnama epic by Firdowsi as “Turkish Miniature” [see Jalal, Matini, 1989a, p.399 in References]:
Visitors to the pavilion erroneously concluded that the miniature, characters and inscriptions are all Turkish. The same type of impression may have recently been provided by Turkish Professor Günseli Renda in a London Turkish Arts exhibition (see next item).
With the exception of geopolitical lobbies (see Part VI)), the retroactive Turkification of Persian literature has found no meaningful support in Western Europe, India (where Persian was widely spoken during the Moghul era), and the Persian speaking countries of Afghanistan, Tajikestan and Iran.
(k) Judeo-Christianity and Islam have Turkish origins.
This has apparently been based on Hungarian born British novelist Arthur Koestler’s “The Thirteenth Tribe” (see References). The Holy Prophet Noah is also claimed to have been Turkish, therefore Judaism is to be regarded as having been of Turkish origin. This is at least partly based on a book entitled “Ruhnama” (Book/letter of the spirit) written by the President of Turkemenstan, Separmurat Niyazov “TurkmenBashi” (see Photo below - see also References and Web References):
Pan-Turanian activists in Turkmenistan have also organized a cult of personality around Turkmenbashi. The Moscow News reports that:
Turkmenbashi, or the Leader of All Turkmens, has been proclaimed God's prophet on Earth… he has given his name to one of the months (and his mother's to another) … the interior minister said that Turkmenbashi is "a great personality with a gift of prophecy"… One official explained … "God grants such powers, such greatness, such a fate only to the chosen, to those whom He sincerely loves and considers to be His inspired spokesmen."
[Moscow News, No.33, Friday, 02.09.05]
What is most interesting are the western geopolitical and petroleum lobbies (see Part VI, items 2) who actively court individuals such as the distinguished president, overlooking not only their unorthodox views, but also their incessant violations of human rights. Many of these individuals are portrayed by Western (mainly English-speaking) media outlets as “standing for democracy”, “progressive” and as having a “western outlook”.
The logic of pan-Turkism can be extended to claim that Jesus Christ was Turkish - after all, Jesus was a Jew, therefore he must be have been Turkish. So far as I am aware, the pan-Turkists have not gone to that extent…yet. However, given the state of affairs, this author proposes that the day in which Jesus’ Turkish roots are “discovered”, may not be too far behind.
Professor Günseli Renda (see photo below) has made the following claim on an exhibition held in London on Turkish arts on April 12th, 2005:
“…similarities between the portraits of the Ottoman sultans in Firdevsi’s ‘Şeyhname,’ which for the first time provided a basis for the argument that the Ottoman sultans were descendants of Adam.”
[See following Web References]
Professor Gunseli Renda
Again, views such as these (despite their fantastic nature) are being actively promoted by many western media and academic outlets (Part VI, items 2 & 4).
The history of Islam has also been re-interpreted. There is now a very recent “revelation” by certain pan-Turanian writers that “proof” exists of the Holy Prophet Mohammad’s Turkish origins. According to this narrative, the Prophet was not an Arab of the Qureish tribe, but a Turk by the name of Memad-Oghlu. This is not surprising as even god is not beyond the reach of pan-Turanian ideologues. The first chapter of President Turkemenbashi’s book begins with: “In the name of Allah, the most exalted Turkemen”.
It is worth noting that Islamist movements in Turkey have incorporated the notion of Turkish racial superiority into their otherwise religious ideology. As noted by Robins, Islamists in Turkey aim for an Islamic super state with Turkey in the leadership role[xi]. This is related to the view that the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish Empire which dominated the Islamic world (expect Safavid/Afsharid/Zand/Qajar Persia and Moghul India) in the political and spiritual domains[xii].
(l) The Northern Iranians were all Turks.
Pan-Turanian activists simply state that all peoples who have ever existed in Central Asia, and the Steppes of Russia and the Ukraine have always been Turkish. With this simple and blanket statement, all ancient non-Turkic steppe peoples such as the ancient Cimmerians, Scythians/Saka, Sarmatians and Alans have been retroactively Turkified. The Scythians/Saka are now taught as having been among the “early Turks” and that Queen Tomeris (Georgian “Tamar”; European “Tamara”) was a “Turkish warrior queen”. These theories also form part of the overall claim to many parts of Russia and Ukraine as being part of the greater “Turan”.
Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and western scholars have overwhelmingly rejected these theories: modern scholarship overwhelmingly attests to the Iranian origin of the aforementioned peoples. The fact that Northern Iranian peoples spoke Iranian languages is as evident as the ancient Athenians having spoken Greek. The descendants of the North Iranian peoples, the Ossetians (see National Geographic photos below), speak an old North Iranian language (Ir-On and Digor) related to Persian and Kurdish. Turkish has no linguistic connection to modern Ossetian.
Ossetian is a term of Russian and Georgian origin. The Ossetians refer to themselves as “Ir-On” a variation of the term “Ir-An” (land of Aryans). “Ir” and/or “Eire” are the old Iranic, Indic and Celtic designations of “Aryan” (Noble, Lord). Ossetian historians, who acknowledge their Iranian heritage, explain their migration to Northern Georgia as a tactic of survival in the face of multitudes of Turkish, Hun and Mongol conquests that rummaged across Eurasia over the centuries.
Many of these Northern Iranians escaped and/or migrated to Persia and Europe to avoid annihilation or extermination at the hands of Turkic, Hun and Mongol invaders over the centuries. Their descendants live in Iranian Kurdistan (known formerly as Ard-Alan), Luristan (Sak-Vand) and Seistan (Saka-istan). None speak any Turkic languages or bear any affinities to Asiatic Turkic peoples. The aforementioned Persian Shahnama epic of Firdowsi recalls the Northern Iranian legends, and the desperate battles fought against the Turkic-Hun-Mongol invaders.
The original Turkic invaders were Asiatic, very similar to the Uralo-Altaic inhabitants of modern Korea, Northern China, and Japan (see Barnes in references and Part II, item 7). In contrast to the ancient Turks, The Northern Iranians (see reconstruction by Angus McBride Below – see Newark in references) are described by western scholars as follows:
“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin”
[John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18 – see references]
“…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians”
[Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, p.6 – see references]
“The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian”
[Richard Mariusz & Richard Mielczarek, The Sarmatians: 600 BC-450 AD, 2002, p.3 -see References]
Western scholars examining the anthropology, archaeology and linguistics of the Scythians/Saka, Sarmatians and Alans have long since determined their membership as being firmly within the Iranian family (see Abaev, Bachrach, Brzezinski, & Mielczarek, Melyukova, Sulimirski in References). The late professor of Sarmatian and Alan studies, Tadeusz Sulimirski (1898-1983) stated that the Northern Iranians were:
“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…”
[Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]
The Avesta is used in Zoroastrian prayers, and is the ancestor of modern Ossetian. The river names, “Don”, “Donets”, “Dnieper” and “Dniester” are all of Iranian origin (see P.J. Mallory in References – Mallory’s map on p. 78 shown below):
Don/Danu = Water, River
Dnieper [Dana Apara] = the upper (old North Iranic = Apara) River
Dniester [Danu Nazdaya] = the near (old North Iranic = Nazdaya – Persian Nazdeek) River
The closest relative to the Iranic Don/Danu is the Celtic “Danuvius”, whose modern name is known as the “Danube” in Western Europe. Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius also settled Sarmatian warriors in Britain (e.g. modern Chester), where their Iranian mythology and culture appears to have influenced much of the local Celtic folklore (see Littleton & Malcor and Rankin in References).
Many Iranian words can be found in Slavic languages; either because they are both of the Satem branch of Indo-European languages or because of a long period of Iranic ascendancy on the steppes (see Gamkrelidze & Ivanov in References). Persian style words persist in many Slavic languages; examples include Mokry (wet) and Bogh (God). Much of the Slavic counting system is similar to modern Persian:
Perhaps of greatest importance is the role of the Northern Iranians as one of the three Aryan founding peoples of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Scythians are the only peoples, besides the Medes and the Persians who were allowed to carry ceremonial daggers at Persepolis – note the photo of a Saka Tighrakhauda (pointed-hat Scythian) with a Mede (see Pyankov and Vogelsang in References – photo in Farrokh, p.4, see references):
Of equal importance is the Northern Iranian role in transmitting much of the arts, culture and architecture of Persia to both Europe, and the Far East, particularly to the Chinese and the Uralo-Altaic ancestors of the Turks and Koreans (Hsiang-Nou, Tueh-Chi, etc.). The oldest Persian carpet has been found in Pazyryk (see photo below) – the woman most likely represents an early representation of the Iranian goddess of fertility (Anahita or Tabid-Vesta):
Persian arts continue to have a powerful legacy in Central Asia, even after the demise of the Iranian populations there (see Azarpay, Griaznov, Knauer, and Hayashi in References).
The Aryan culture of Sassanian Persia is echoed among the Sarmatians of the Kerch peninsula in the Ukraine. The Persian concept of the lance duel is evident in Iran’s Naghsh-e-Rustam site near Shiraz (below left Photo by Chamanara, Kouchesfehani, Kial, Maddadi – see p. 31 Farrokh in references) – only the Sarmatians wielded similar tactics, weapons and culture (below right photo in Sulimiirski – see References):
To this day Ukrainian Cossacks recall the Iranic past of their nation – their traditional Cossack trousers are called “Shelevare”, just like the Iranian “Shalvar” (trousers).
The Huns and Turks adopted these tactics after their encounter with Iranian peoples who were still resident in Central Asia. Turkic invaders began their full scale penetrations of Central Asia from the 6th century AD, although military activities against Iranic peoples in Central Asia may have begun as early as the 1st century BC. From their homelands in eastern Mongolia, Turkic warriors virtually expelled the entire Indo-European presence in Central Asia (Tocharian and Iranian) and from there spread to Eastern Europe, Persia and Anatolia. The entire history of the Turkish expansions in Central Asia has been expostulated in Frye (see Frye, 1996 in references).
The corroboration and confluence from multiple domains of scholars hailing from different nationalities, is to say the least, overwhelmingly conclusive. Interested readers may wish to consult the recently published book on European cavalry entitled “Vsadniki Vojny. Kavalerija Jevropy” (see References) that was just published. That study provides further corroboration for what has been known in reputable scholarly circles: that the Persians, Medes, Scythians/Saka and Sarmatians share a common Iranic origin. As the proverbial expression goes, “the case is closed”.
Pan-Turanian activists simply reject and re-interpret all of this information. The mainstay of the Pan-Turanian position on the subject is aptly summarized eloquently by Professor Diker:
“My logic and reason did not accept … many alien kingdoms of Central Asia … to be all Indo-Iranian or even Indo-European…the Huns did not replace the Scythians; they had to be the Scythians themselves”.
[See References and Web References]
Let us see if this makes sense: if the evidence does not support the notion that Northern Iranians were Turkic, then they simply must have been Turkic.
Further insight into the Professor’s cognitive processes is found by an e-mail he sent to an individual who had questioned Dr. Silahi Diker’s conclusions regarding the Sumerians (item 2c):
I have been investigating the subject for 50 years. Be sure that I am not a nationalist as you would think. You are reading the same histories that are written for the last 150 years; and they repeat the same traditional nonsence. I have read them all.
I have very strong proofs on the matter. It sounds fantastic, but true. I am recently preparing a book on the Sumerians which prove without a single doubt that they are Proto-Turks. Now I also have proof that the Persians existed alongside the Turks (Sumerians) 5000 years ago. Because I find many Persian words in the Sumerian language.
worth noting that while Professor Diker dismisses hundreds of scholars
and thousands of publications as “the same traditional
nonsense”, he himself is not a historian by training. His educational
background is in Geophysical Engineering (in which he has a
Doctorate). As far as is known, Professor Diker lacks academic
training and expertise in linguistics, anthropology, genetics,
history-archival research and archaeological methodology.
As the gentle reader, I simply ask that you briefly contemplate the Professor’s statements. What the Professor calls “strong proofs on the matter” is in fact an expression of a psychological phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance: a state of conflict between two thoughts, beliefs, etc. People can accommodate cognitive Dissonance in one of two ways:
a] the contradicting information leads one to invent new thoughts or information in order to maintain the integrity of your own information.
b] modifying one’s beliefs to accommodate the new information.
The Professor and pan-Turanian ideologues in general, have unfortunately chosen [a].
No amount of creative retroactive Turkification, semantics, word play and passionate racialism can substitute for reputable scholarship, archaeology, anthropology or linguistics.
A great deal of funding and effort is currently being expended as alter the history of the Iranian legacy in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Western (mainly English speaking) universities are being courted to have them promote the academically fraudulent pan-Turanian narrative that all ancient North Iranian peoples of the Eastern European steppes and Central Asia were Turks and spoke Turkish (see professor Khidirbekughli’s comments in Part VI, items 4a).
Tragically, a small number of naive Iranian Azerbaijanis, courted by geopolitically funded separatist organizations (see Brenda Shaffer in Part VI, item 4b-c) have naively accepted Dr. Diker’s statements at face value and have been misled. This has been partly made possible by the foolishly complacent or outright indifferent attitude of the Iranians themselves (See Part II, Item 6). Fortunately, when exposed to reputable international scholarship, the majority of these misled individuals have turned away from pan-Turanian falsifications (see Part V).
Not to be outdone, Professor Diker is also reputed to be producing a Scythian/Saka-Turkish dictionary. Once this dictionary is published, the Professor will undoubtedly claim that he has “proven” the Turkish origins of the ancient North Iranian peoples. With this “proof”, Zoroastrianism will also be “proven” as Turkish! In fact this is already being claimed by a number of pan-Turanian writers (see Part III, item 2).
(m) The Parthian language was Turkish.
The Parthians are the dynasty that arose in Persia after the demise of Greek Seleucid rule in Persia. They inflicted crushing defeats on the Imperial Roman forces of Marcus Lucinius Crassus and Marc Antony. Pan-Turanianism now claims the Parthians to have been Turks. It is also rumoured that Cyrus II of the Achaemenid dynasty has been retroactively Turkified. Given the state of affairs, it may be a matter of time before the Sassanian dynasty too will be retroactively Turkified.
The argument of Parthian being Turkish is very curious, because Parthian (a distant ancestor to Avestan) is the precursor to Pahlavi, which in turn is ancestral to Kurdish, Luri, Persian and many other West Iranian languages (see Skaervo, Mackenzie in References). These languages are unintelligible to the Turks. Kindly refer to Professor G.R.F. Assar’s article “Parthian Language of the Ancient Turkish culture?” (in Web References) and Kaveh Farrokh’s “Parthian is not Turkish” (also in Web References). Nevertheless, it is highly possible that “proof” of Persian’s Turkish origins will soon surface, as pan-Turanian scholars claim to have already “proven” that Armenians (item 2f) and Kurds (item 2h) are Turkish.
It is a mystery as to why western lobbies are selectively silent with respect to the virtual torrent of historical falsifications flooding from pan-Turanian publishing houses. The Republic of Azerbaijan is openly receiving this information. Interestingly, there is a sophisticated system in place to spread this literature to Iran’s Azerbaijani population (see Part IV, Items 3-4). Pan-Turanianism has very influential friends in the west (see Part VI, items 1-2, 4 & 7), and as the proverbial expression goes, “the chickens have come home to roost”, especially in Iranian Azerbaijan.
(n) Bosnians, Macedonians, Albanians, and Ukrainians are Turks.
This belief is partly derived from item 2l discussed above. European Muslims of Macedonia, Bosnia and Albania and many Orthodox Christian South Slavs are now being entertained as “Balkan Turks”. Russia and the Ukraine are not beyond the reach of the Pan-Turanian dream, as claims are made against these states as well (e.g. Ukrainians are considered to be Turkish as the name “Cossack” is said to be derived from “Kazakh”).
Introduction<<< Index >>>Part II
[i]Robbins notes that the interpretation of history in Turkey is characterized by rigidity, partly a result of the traumatic period between 1918-1923. The success of the new republic which arose from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and the constant eulogizing of Attaturk and those who fought for Turkish independence. See Philip Robins, Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Hurst & Company, London, p.104.
[ii] This quote follows the preface of Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, The Speech, translated and abridged by Onder Renkliyildirim (Istanbul: Metro Publishers), p.4. Also cited in Robins, Philip, 2003, Suits and Uniforms, p.93.
[iii] Poulton, H. Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent, 1997, P.110-114. Robins, Philip, 2003, Suits and Uniforms, p.93-95.
[iv] The phenomenon of politicians acting as historians first occurred during the Young Turk movement(). Notable are figures such as Ahmed Agaoglu, Yusuf Akcura, Ziya Gokalp, Fuad Korpulu.
[v] Key political figures Agaoglu, Gokalp, and Akcura both believed in the need for close cooperation between the government and historical societies. For an insight into the activities of Akcura in this regard see F. Georgeon, Aux Origines du Nationalisme Turc: Yusuf Akcura (1876-1935) (Paris: Institut d’Etudes Anatoliennes, 1980), p.234-236. Agaoglu’s activities can be examined in Frank Tachau, “The Search for National Identity Among the Turks’, Die Welt Des Islams, vol.8, no.3, 1963, p.174.
[vi] Taner Timur, “The Ottoman heritage” in Irvin C. Schick and Ertugrul Ahmet Tonak (eds.), Turkey in Transition (Oxford University Press, 1987), p.6.
[vii] Elements of this “Thesis” had already been incorporated into various school textbooks since 1929. See also Poulton, H. Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent, 1997, P.101.
[viii] Robins, Philip, 2003, Suits and Uniforms, p.93.
[ix] Afghanistan was not recognized as such according to historical archives until the year 1747 at the earliest.
[x] This was held in the Washington Convention Centre. The display was entitled “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Yesterday and Today: A Cultural experience”. See Jalal Matini, “Persian artistic and literary pieces in the Saudi Arabian exhibition”, Iranshenasi: A Journal of Iranian Studies, 1989b, p.390-404.
[xi] Philip Robins, Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Hurst & Company, London, p.96.