Is Anatolia in middle east? (geographically)

Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#1
How much percentage of Anatolia is considered in middle east? There is a huge varying opininons and statements about this situation. For example, anatolian antuqity is many times considered as a sub category of "middle eastern antuqity" even though only the easternmost kingdoms were really midde eastern (or related somehow).



I find this situation greatly misleading (and somehow every authors/historians/archeologist seem to have judged the location purely by their own perspective and opinion instead of referring more systematically), as the people of european(or non middle eastern) had the land on their hands more than any other ethnicity.



There also seems to be a great disparity among authors to "how to refer the land properly" as the regions of anatolia had different names throughout the ages (except a select few like Cappadocia), which simply makes the situation just a bit more dire. For example, while some historians present the Mesopotomia as the middle eastern part of Anatolia(which makes zero sense, since anatolia ends where the mesopotomia begins), whereas other use the definition for whole Anatolia up to the bosphorus strait.



I would like to hear your opinions and discussions about the subject.
 

antocya

Ad Honorem
May 2012
5,744
Iraq
#2
Geographical regions are never Really going to be exact. People argue over which parts of the USA are considered part of the South, is North Africa part of the Middle East? I was a little annoyed when my co-workers put news about Afghanistan in the Middle East section because I would say that’s definitely not the Middle East.
 
Jun 2017
2,594
Connecticut
#3
How much percentage of Anatolia is considered in middle east? There is a huge varying opininons and statements about this situation. For example, anatolian antuqity is many times considered as a sub category of "middle eastern antuqity" even though only the easternmost kingdoms were really midde eastern (or related somehow).



I find this situation greatly misleading (and somehow every authors/historians/archeologist seem to have judged the location purely by their own perspective and opinion instead of referring more systematically), as the people of european(or non middle eastern) had the land on their hands more than any other ethnicity.



There also seems to be a great disparity among authors to "how to refer the land properly" as the regions of anatolia had different names throughout the ages (except a select few like Cappadocia), which simply makes the situation just a bit more dire. For example, while some historians present the Mesopotomia as the middle eastern part of Anatolia(which makes zero sense, since anatolia ends where the mesopotomia begins), whereas other use the definition for whole Anatolia up to the bosphorus strait.



I would like to hear your opinions and discussions about the subject.
All of it. The whole point of the Middle East is to distinguish the land between the East and Europe. Anatolia being referred to as "Asia Minor"which can be seen as another variation of that label historically strongly implies it's considered Middle Eastern. Constantinople I would think would be considered the fault line between Europe and the Middle East.
 
Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#4
All of it. The whole point of the Middle East is to distinguish the land between the East and Europe. Anatolia being referred to as "Asia Minor"which can be seen as another variation of that label historically strongly implies it's considered Middle Eastern. Constantinople I would think would be considered the fault line between Europe and the Middle East.



Did your definition of Europe and Asia exist at that time? Well, it did not for sure. Europe and Asia Minor were treated by Greeks seperately as they were located on different sides of the Aegean. There was an actual "alien" view to it when the latter was captured Persians.



Also your definiton of middle-east seems to be based on US view, which does make zero sense. The history of Anatolia is unlike any of that is mesopotomia,europe or anywhere else in the world, as it hosted dozens of different people and served as the "main" migration point between the europe and east. Labelling it under "Middle-east" is a "big screw you" to the countless greek,hellenistic and thracian history of the peninsula.


Also i'd like to hear your logic of definition of the subject (as in "how you classified it under mid-east") with some geographical and historical accounts.
 
Mar 2012
1,170
Magdeburg
#5
Geographical regions are never Really going to be exact. People argue over which parts of the USA are considered part of the South, is North Africa part of the Middle East? I was a little annoyed when my co-workers put news about Afghanistan in the Middle East section because I would say that’s definitely not the Middle East.



This actually makes sense. For example in EU view the middle-east contains down the area from southeast of turkey to the egypt and arabia and Iran, whereas US view contains as far as pakistan and (even lol) Kazakhstan,Armenia and Georgia.
 
Jul 2018
22
Istanbul
#6
Middle East is a term made up by British Empire in 19th century. It is a cultural term definitely not a scientific one and it isnt well defined. I have seen such arguements for Afghanistan as well(if it is in central asia or middle east)
Even Asia and Europe are not scientific but cultural names. It was defined by ancient greeks.

I strongly belive people should forget this "middle east" term. It strengthens the orientalism and the stereotypes.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#8
All of geography is largely an invention and so is the "Middle East", which is a colonial invention to distinguish the larger portion of Asia from the one that was closer to Europe. It's an Orientalist construction that should die.
 

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
#9
While "middle East" seems not the very best choice of name for a region, it seems still useful to divide the lands of the world in a geographical way. So the question about the gains of new divisions and borders come up if we leave the old ones.
 
Jun 2012
7,136
Malaysia
#10
^
Precisely. The premise on which the moniker Middle East is constructed is basically itself faulty. A colonial creation indeed, made when London, Paris & Amsterdam were like the collective political centre of gravity of the world, so they became the reference point for that name.

West Asia wud be the more accurate & precise term, geographically speaking.
 
Likes: Indie 2012