Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the definitions and words aren't from the modern world, they're from the ancient one, and the ancient people are the ones who decided Anatolia was Asia, not modern people. If Anatolia became Catholic and French speaking it'd still be Asia.
Something was not adding up here ( because even ancient travelers I imagine could see the difference between Anatolia region and Asia "proper.")
This is what I've found on a subject, and it explained to me a lot, if not all.
"Asia Minor is a geographic region in the south-western part of Asia comprising most of what is present-day Turkey. The earliest reference to the region comes from tablets of the Akkadian Dynasty (2334-2083 BCE) where it is known as “The Land of the Hatti” and was inhabited by the Hittites. The Hittites themselves referred to the land as "Assuwa" (or, earlier, Aswiya) which actually only designated the area around the delta of the river Cayster in Lydia but came to be applied to the entire region. Assuwa is considered the Bronze Age origin for the name `Asia' as the Romans later designated the area."
So this is where the first part of the definition is coming from, and the second part -
"The name 'Asia Minor’ (from the Greek `Mikra Asia' - Little Asia) was first coined by the Christian historian Orosius (c. 375-418 CE) in his work Seven Books of History Against the Pagans in 400 CE to differentiate the main of Asia from that region which had been evangelized by the Apostle Paul (which included sites known from Paul’s Epistles in the Bible such as Ephesus and Galicia). "
So as we can see, the original name didn't have anything to do with Asia, and the second part of the name came in place in order to make this distinction clear.
However since from certain time this particular area became occupied by Islamic people/culture, ( Turks are of Asian origin after all,) in people's minds this area simply became the extension of Asia "proper", apparently.
You are going way too far back in history, because in modern world the languages, culture and religion of course have a lot to do with separation between Asia and Europe.
So, how often should this international conference take place, which reassign the definitions of what are "considered" to be continents? When this occurs, should they also give each continent a new name, so it doesn't conflict with the historical name?
Using your definition, the line between North America and South America ought to the Rio Grande River, and Africa's northern boundary should be the Sahara Desert, and Europe all the way to the Bering Straits, but not south into Mongolia or Korea or Iran? Kazakhstan was in Europe when it was part of the USSR, but now it back in Asia again? Then they wouldn't be "continents" (geographical and geological landmasses) any more.
So, how often should this international conference take place, which reassign the definitions of what are "considered" to be continents? When this occurs, should they also give each continent a new name, so it doesn't conflict with the historical name?
Using your definition, the line between North America and South America ought to the Rio Grande River, and Africa's northern boundary should be the Sahara Desert, and Europe all the way to the Bering Straits, but not south into Mongolia or Korea or Iran? Kazakhstan was in Europe when it was part of the USSR, but now it back in Asia again? Then they wouldn't be "continents" (geographical and geological landmasses) any more.
Have no idea what you are talking about, except for Kazakhstan))))
In strictly geographic terms Kazakhstan was never part of Europe; I dunno, may be they were secretly discussing the relocation of the Ural Mountains during the XXVth Congress of the CPSU, but our school text-books didn't inform us of such historic events. Therefore even under the Communists the division line between Europe and Asia remained along the Ural Mountains. However what happened in that part of Asia - not only Soviet government shipped bunch of Russians to develop Kazakhstan, but so that Russians wouldn't feel lonely there, they've grabbed Germans, Ukrainians, Balts and whoever else they could arrest and ship there, so that everyone would feel like one big happy family.
And since neither Russians-Germans nor Ukrainians learned how to build yurts, ride horses, live on mares milk and overall become your normal nomads like the locals, the area became heavily Europeanized. That's why, from cultural point of view Kazakhstan was regarded as part of Europe during Soviet times, not because geographical boundaries were changed. Once it stopped being part of Russian economy/culture I can only guess what's going on there and how culturally European Kazakhstan remained ( or not.)
"Kazakhstan: mostly situated in Central Asia, with the western parts of two of its provinces west of the Ural River in Europe. About 96% of the Kazakh population lives in the Asian part."
It's because the Greeks invented the terms Europe and Asia, and they were referring to the separation of where they lived from the land in Anatolia by the Aegean, Marmara, and Black Sea. Asia, originally, was referring to Anatolia primarily and of course other stuff on that side of the divide.
Something was not adding up here ( because even ancient travelers I imagine could see the difference between Anatolia region and Asia "proper.")
This is what I've found on a subject, and it explained to me a lot, if not all.
"Asia Minor is a geographic region in the south-western part of Asia comprising most of what is present-day Turkey. The earliest reference to the region comes from tablets of the Akkadian Dynasty (2334-2083 BCE) where it is known as “The Land of the Hatti” and was inhabited by the Hittites. The Hittites themselves referred to the land as "Assuwa" (or, earlier, Aswiya) which actually only designated the area around the delta of the river Cayster in Lydia but came to be applied to the entire region. Assuwa is considered the Bronze Age origin for the name `Asia' as the Romans later designated the area."
So this is where the first part of the definition is coming from, and the second part -
"The name 'Asia Minor’ (from the Greek `Mikra Asia' - Little Asia) was first coined by the Christian historian Orosius (c. 375-418 CE) in his work Seven Books of History Against the Pagans in 400 CE to differentiate the main of Asia from that region which had been evangelized by the Apostle Paul (which included sites known from Paul’s Epistles in the Bible such as Ephesus and Galicia). "
So as we can see, the original name didn't have anything to do with Asia, and the second part of the name came in place in order to make this distinction clear.
However since from certain time this particular area became occupied by Islamic people/culture, ( Turks are of Asian origin after all,) in people's minds this area simply became the extension of Asia "proper", apparently.
Asia is a greek word and I think can first be seen in Herodotos writings. Not sure what you are arguing.
Anatolians and Near Eastern people are not Europeans, rather Western Asians!
Well, yes, Near Eastern people are not Europeans. The Middle East is not in Europe. But it's more complicated than that...Europe is a continent, it's a geological landmass. So is Asia. Their cultures have nothing to do with this.
I'd personally use the term Mediterranean for people of the Near East and Southern Europe. Geologically, these may be two separate landmasses, but anthropologically their people are similar looking (forget the culture such as religion, they LOOK similar). I just don't see why Southern Europeans are grouped with Northern Europeans just because they happen to be in the same continental landmass.
I mean, since the Chinese and Lebanese people are in Asia, are the Lebanese people more like the Chinese people than, say, Greeks or Italians? People usually don't get that there is a 'grey' area between continents. And that we shouldn't bring up a geological landmass to differentiate cultures. I mean, for Christ's sake, Malta is more close to Egypt than it is to Switzerland, but because Malta's in Europe it's 'magically' more like Switzerland I guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
