3 ms·
It's neither Turkish nor Thai for obvious reasons: - Thailand is in south-east Asia - Turks weren't around that area, not even close, until ~700 years Consid
by woodpanel 1y ago
It's neither Turkish nor Thai for obvious reasons:
- Thailand is in south-east Asia
- Turks weren't around that area, not even close, until ~700 years
Considering that the majority of asia minor was Greek for millenias before, calling this site "clearly Turkish" is like calling Machu Picchu "clearly Spanish"
- m00dy 1y ago>>Considering that the majority of asia minor was Greek hahaha not anymoreeeee :)
- woodpanel 1y agoThanks for proving my point, inadvertently, that artifacts of a culture shouldn't be attributed to their colonizers.
- rsynnott 1y ago> was Greek for millenias before ... But not _that_ many millennia. This wasn't Greek (nor was it Turkish, of course); way too early.
- woodpanel 1y agoI didn't say it was Greek either. Just pointing out how cringely wrong it is to say it's "clearly Turkish"
- lucumo 1y agoI interpreted the comment thread as talking about the website being clearly Turkish, because that was what my first thought when I saw the Turkish text. It didn't even occur to me they could be talking about the archeological site, as you clearly interpreted it. Kind of interesting how the same sentence can mean multiple things, one being wrong and one being right. Also kind of interesting to consider the relation between both meanings of site. It makes perfect sense, but I stopped considering that because website took on such a much larger meaning in my life than physical site.
- bariscimen 1y agohe meant turkey with turkish but you greeks are too easy to get triggered when you see smth about turks
- mda 1y agoIt is not Greek either, The area had been under control of tens of different civilizations in the last 10.000 years. Calling it Greek would be equally ridiculous.