that's a particularity strange comment, was there any need for it?
the photo has been sent to me from Turkey
Sorry, Harribobs, I fancy myself a great wit (probably misplaced) or perhaps even a latter-day Oscar Wilde, and tend to toss off the odd (interpret as you will) remark. I am trying to be helpful, lately I have been reading several hours a day on Gallipoli and other Turkish matters, including the ethnic stew-pot at and near the eastern end of Anatolia, mostly in languages other than English, and therefore not accessable to many Pals, and only two weeks ago in Vienna I bought a source on Gallipoli that I had never seen before and that I am more than halfway thru. So I sometimes will have an angle on such questions a bit different than others, and hopefully useful.
As I was assuming that the photo was posted to try to get to the bottom of it I was asking the source of the photo, as at first blush the photo and people, clothes, etc. do not scream "Anatolian Turk" to me, but rather hints at Cisserian (sp?), Caucasians, possibly even Tatar or Armenian. I am not an expert in the dress of these groups, but there may be a clue in the dress and headdress of the younger woman. The older woman does not even have to be a Muslim, but even a Christian or Kurdish widow.
Anything at all on the rear? I know several other handwriting systems from the period other than "English" script that were used by a number of languages. If there is Turkish I have very little ability to translate it, but the alphabet that it was written in would help date the photo. However, I could almost certainly identify Turkish, as opposed to other languages.
Incidentally, over the last few hundred years Turkish has been written in about ten alphabets, not just the modern "Latin" alphabet and the previous Ottoman use of the Arabic alphabet, which incidentally was quite unsuitable for use by the considerably more complex Turkic languages. Atatuerk's reforms made a lot of sense, IMHO.