Talk:Carians

Turkish Name of the Caria

As most of the direct descendants of the Carians and other ancient anatolian civilizations currently speak Turkish but are mostly of ancient anatolian ancestry, the name of these civilizations should also be provided in Turkish language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycianhittite (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Do you have any concrete evidence to substantiate your claims? If you do, then enlighten us. Deucalionite (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to scientific studies more than %85 of Turkey's population is formed of indigenous anatolians

1)..In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%..

• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117873906/abstract

2).. One study based on an analysis of Y-chromosomes from Turkey suggested that Central Asians have only made a 10% genetic contribution..

• Rolf B, Röhl A, Forster P, Brinkmann B. "Genomic diversity: applications in human population genetics". 75–82 Kluwer Academic/Plenum

3)..Recent genetic research has suggested the local, Anatolian origins of the Turks and that genetic flow between Turks and Asiatic peoples might have been marginal..

• http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Rosser2000.pdf
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people

Lycianhittite (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting sources. However, I don't see how these genetic studies have anything to do with the ancient Carians. If anything, the Carians were not an autochthonous population of Anatolia (see "Archaeological evidence"). As long as that is the case, there is technically no reason to insist on adding modern Turkish appellations to an archaic non-Turkish population. Deucalionite (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no relevance to add the Turkish name. Turkish did not exist back then. _{El Greco}^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i have an objection here, the Turkish population may not have a solid relationship with the ancient Carians, but the Turkish name can be added to the end after Carian and Greek for research purposes since the area is inside the borders of Turkey today. Elmalili (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between populational nomenclatures and geographical nomenclatures. In the case of the Caria article, adding a modern Turkish appellation to an ancient non-Turkish region that happens to fall within the geopolitical delimitations of the modern Turkish nation-state is perfectly fine. However, adding a modern Turkish appellation to an ancient non-Turkish population promotes academic anachronisms since the term "Carians" is non-existent in Turkish literature. Therefore, even adding the "Turkish variant of the term "Carians"" for something as benign as "research purposes" would not truly serve the interests of the overall article. Sorry. Deucalionite (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we take the article Gauls as an example where you don't have appellations in various languages other than the English medium in use here hijacking the header. The intro there reads simply that they "were a Celtic people living in Gaul". I am trying to gradually provide more weight in the article for its subject matter, in its present state one is sarcastically tempted to find how fortunate it was that the article is on the Carians -this is not a criticism of inclusion of ancient Greek sources per se. It is not easy to find balanced statements. I know a specialist who was supposed to help me in this but like many others, probably waiting for Godot by now. Cretanforever (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was told that no future excavation permits were going to be granted by the Turkish universities with competence and authority on the "ancient non-Turkish regions that happen to fall within the geopolitical delimitations of the modern Turkish nation-state", if the "Turkish variant of the term "Carians"" did not come just after the original Carian language name/term in wikipedia article intros (or also for that matter, original Lydian language or Lycian language names/terms) relevant to the subject matter. Cretanforever (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Carians origin

It is written on this wikipedia subject that the carians doesn't seem to have anatolian origin and didn't follow the neolithic expansion. I have read recently in a popular book about Caria, (Karia, C.Canan Küçükeren. Ekin edition) this : "Renowned Professor Dr. Arif Müfid Mansel points out in his work entitled "The Aegean and Greek history" that migrations from Anatolia to Crete and the island as of 3000 BC were proven with philological evidence, and claims that this expansion reached as far as Italy and even Spain. She explains also that "Professor D.Stylianos Alexiou, who as dedicated his life to the promotion of the cretan culture, tells that so far no trace of human in Crete has been found dating back to pre-neolithic times and points out that the archaeology of Crete starts only after 2880BC, with the neolithic period". (and so on in the book). It could be interesting for the Carians wikipedia page to discuss about this, and maybe look at the sources. Kaplum33 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Herodotus

Might it be worth mentioning at all that Herodotus, who was born in Caria, is quite often thought to be of partially Carian ancestry? 137.163.80.1 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)