ETHNIC

continue ...

What you say is plausible, I don't think anybody could say that he knows the exact process of the language shift. But is really our world Newtonian and/or Einsteinian. Maybe yes or not, or partly yes. As we say "dar masal monâqeše nist", the discussion is about history, anthropology, etc, not physics. I mean what Anonymous848 and Jahan-Parvar are saying are what we have up to now. The supporting references and arguments are enough strong, although not %100 complete to answer everything. What is weak, without reference and lie is what separatists and the embassy of Azarbaijan are saying. We live in a relative word, for now we don't have any other possibility except to compare the things we have and judge.

-You say: "Turks ruled the whole Iran, and the whole Ottoman Empire and many other palces and most of those areas are not Turkic now"
As far as I know the answer is mostly "pastures". One reason that Other parts of Iran is not Turkic-speaking is that they don't have enough pastures. Also note that turks naturally should have come from the North.

-not-turk irani says: "And too bad some of our fellow Iranians, even from some academic circles (maybe) are more preoccupied with personal attacks, rather than having a civilized debate."
He is right here.

You say: "that the REASON for the turkification was NOT that people simply started speaking Turkic because the tough and brute Turk ruling guys were speaking it (Iranian version) but because the mixing of the populations."
M. Jahan-Parvar and Anonymous848 answerd you, but you repeat your words instead of presenting a counterargument. Mixing mostly happened in case of Uzbeks and Turkomen. A small part of us is even black. It doesn't make us Swahili.

-You say: "and the Qajar headquarters was in Tehran, how weren't these people able to create Turkish Isfahan and Turkish Tehran?"
Again mostly "pastures".

You say: "We are all backward people. Backward people do not know how to get along."
Good point! miserable people with a great history. I should say: "Az faxre pedar to râ ce hâsel?".

You say: "About R Azerbaijan and Armenia I don't care much as such but I do care for IRI policies."
You cannot change Iran much in that regard, while you have those kind of countries around you. Every time the issue of more rights for minorities in Iran is brought up (for example by reformists), some people come and say: be careful about disintegration. I think they are right, we should be careful and move slowly. You cannot make Iranian Azarbaijan a federation while people like Elchibey are living around you. I say: "Hey people of the region, let's all change."

I agree with you about the Aryan s***, but as Anonymous848 said, please look at it scientifically when appropriate. A part of us is Aryan, also the core of our language is Aryan and we live in Iran (Aryan land). Our history should begin with indigenous people of Iran plateau, Elamites, Aryans and ... We are not 100% Aryans, they better push it to their thick head.

@ Anahita

@Anahita that says: "Farsi Grammer is with little difference same as Arabic and earliest
texts in Farsi were very similar to Arabic, and as UN cultural
section's classification of languages takes Farsi as 32nd dialect of
Arabic language."

Please go and read some books. Persian has Arabic words in it, its Grammer is completely different from Arabic. The other of your sayings don't need response.

Thank you

Dear Ben,

Hazara people look Asiatic but their mother tongue is Persian.

You say: "And as it is simple and obvious they (in Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan) are a genetic mix of Asiatic Oghuz Turks and Caucasian indigenous peoples who lived in those areas."
How the Turks could change the language of Anatolia and Azerbaijan, while we don't see much Asiatic features in those regions? I have seen Asiatic faces in Azerbaijan of Iran, but they are very rare. Also note that you say: "Mass migrations can bring huge changes". How can "mass migration" dosn't bring about "huge" facial features?

You say: "The second issue is why do we need to propagate such dodgy theories anyway? What is wrong about being of one race or background or the other anyway."
The sole problem is not "Iranian editors", but rare separatists and westerners too. Both like to see Iran, disintegrated.
Westerners see peoples like Czechs and Slovaks with two countries. At the same time they don't like to see big countries on the map. Czechs and Slovaks completely understand each other. Having two country for them is funny. As the first step to keep Iran united Iranian editors try to stop the pretext of two separate races from separatists.

You say: "When did Iranians and Iranian peoples needed theories to become united anyway?"
In my view culture is more important than language and more important than that is humanity. Our culture is one and we are humans.

You say: "While it is known that Arabs did not really tolerate any language but their own, and they failed to impose Arabic on Iranians!"
That is not completely correct. We cannot say all Arab rulers at all times tried to impose their language on Iranians.

Have you ever thought, why are Azari Turkic and Turkish to a relatively great extent not mutually intelligible, while Azaris are neighbors to Turkish people?

Sorry for my poor English. Thank you for reading,

A world with no borders! that is rational.

To Anahita. You didn't make

To Anahita.
You didn't make any sense.
" The migration of turks and parts and other triebs living in Iranian plateau was formed at the same time that moses moved Israellitts toward Palestine."

Yeah OK!

"UN cultural section's classification of languages takes Farsi as 32nd dialect of Arabic language."

That is a lie madeup by separatists racists.

No time for the rest..

some points about origin of turks in Iran

1 The migration of turks and parts and other triebs living in Iranian plateau was formed at the same time that moses moved Israellitts toward Palestine.
2 parts that formed Persian Empire never ruled in the northern parts habited by turks and always there were war between them.
3 Arabs invasion in every country had forced there people to speak and write in Arabic and for Persia was the same but actual Farsi was separated from Arabic and actually Farsi Grammer is with little difference same as Arabic and earliest texts in Farsi were very similar to Arabic, and as UN cultural section's classification of languages takes Farsi as 32nd dialect of Arabic language.
4 the Northern of Iran or the turks lands was copletely conquered years later by the help of Persian militaries like Afshin and ... who helped Arabs in imposing there religion and colonialism on turks.
5 the Safavid dynasty wasn't turk, they were Arabs come to Iran from south of Libanon (Djabal Amel)and Molla Ismaeal was the first Safavi king who by killing many people impose Shiisme in Iran.(See Noori Ala)
6 anty turk culture in Iran was begun by Arabs and in recent times was internal policy by Pahlavie's dynasty to create PanFarsisme.

Thanks

Thanks guys. Kaveh Jan if you read the article of Prof. Planhol, he does stop after the Safavids. I didn't say majority comes from Anatolia, I said that was a major turning point in the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan. So between the period of Seljuqs/Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan during Ghaznavids till Safavid period there was constant change and new waves. But the Safavid epoch was definitely a major reason for transformation and a turning point.

As to why the turkomen nomads, specially in Anatolia turned into Shi'i, perhaps one of the reasons has to do with Hurufi movements and missionary activities amongst them. Hurufi movement was founded by Fazlollah Astarabadi (who has interesting materials in the peculiar Persian dialect of Astarabad) and he gained followers in Iraq, Anatolia, Shirwan, Azerbaijan, Isfahan and etc. Interesting enough, according to most scholars, the Safawid Sufi order was itself Sunni at first of Shafi'ite rite. But two/three generations after, they embraced heterodox form of Shi'ism.
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f8/v2f8a...
Also another heterodox movement, that of Bektashism was active in Anatolia where most of the Ghezelbash nomads originated from. There could have been more.
So one of the two greatest poets in Azeri (Nasimi) was a follower of Fazlollah Astarabadi. Half of his work is in Persian and the other half in Azeri. But his Azeri is actually heavily Persianized, which shows the heavy influence of Persian literature on the latter.

I might register later, but to tell you the truth, I find the articles in iranian.com of poor quality. Of course I do not mean Ben's article (although I did suggest he should not mix science with politics). I am turned off by the anti-Islam rhetorics here. I might write something later on the myth that Islam was forced on Iranians.

Thank you Anonymous848 (and

Thank you Anonymous848 (and Ben), your comments were quite informative to me. They also raise more questions, as well. I understand, as you said, the majority of today's Azari's came from the Anatolian peninsula, as far away as Lycian peninsula (which is as far west as Istanbul!). That Shiasm spread quite rapidly among these nomads which is not clear why. For example, why were they more susceptible to Shiaism than their Ottoman's Sunni belief ? Or, were they being chased out of Anatolia by Ottomans, for having sympathy for Safavids (being Shia) just before the start of the Safavid war with Ottomans ?

The arrival of these tribes on the Azarbaijan borders is remarked by: "This arrival, whether in gradual infiltration or in brutal invasions, never ended. " . I am curious what does Prof. Planhol mean by saying the migration "never ended" ? One would think that the migration stopped at some point before Shah Abbas's war with Ottomans and most likely not after the war, as the population around the borders were already polarized.

On the other hand, since Safavids lost territory to Ottomans and these tribes were pushed eastward into Iran and Caucasus, then their gradual infiltration into Caucasus and surrounding areas is logical. And, unfortunately, this corroborates the tales of "ethnic conflicts", as it relates to Iranian side of the Caucasus.

Another question would be: given the proximity of today's Azarbaijan to northern Caucasus moslem (and non-moslem) populations of, for example; Dagestan, Ingush, Chechen, Abkhaz and others, and given the physical (racial) similarities of many northern Caucasians to Azari's, is there any cultural/historical relations ? When and where were the southward migrations, and when/where were the northward migration, if any, in Caucasus ? Where did the moslems of northern Caucasus come from (east or south) ?

As usual, there are always more questions than answers in these matters.

Re:

I understood what Khodadad said, even as under- and un-educated as I am, which I kinda agree, though it depends on what level and compared to who. I am probably a self-educated person on some matters and fields! Though I never really understood the other guy :)) I hope he cools down and comes back ;)

Iran's teritorial integrity is one of the means of keeping peace and tranquility in Iran and in the region. The real threat to the integrity of Iranians, and the territory of Iran, is a regime which does not serve its people and does not respect human rights. Iranians were united before the Pahlavi and before the IRI. Neither Reza Khan, nor Khomeini created Iran. So, we can have a united and propsperous Iran without the need to suppress any Iranian's rights and identity.

Ali, looking forward for you in the future. Please become registered so I know who I'm talking to :)

Dear Ben Thanks. My point

Dear Ben
Thanks.

My point was a comparison of Pahlavid historiography (I would like to see actual texts) with a neighboring country who distorts historiography in its own embassy. Note what Prof. Xavier Planhol said is probably (although I am not sure) close to Pahlavid historiography on the matter you brought.

The name of Republic of Azerbaijan was brought as you note, because I mentioned a large Iranic speaking pop in 20th century. It had to do with the overall process of linguistic Turkification (through different mechanisms). Else I agree, we should focus on Iran. Personally, I don't like all of IRI's policy but for me the territorial integrity of our own country is important.

On the issue , I believe there was refugees from both sides, and the issue is too complicated to discuss. Overall we share much more with the republic of Azerbaijan culturally and I hope intellectuals on both sides can discuss matters rationally and foster better understanding and cooperation. But I just note that some neutral observers (or at least Western) mention that IRIs policy (which was basically neutral but by leaving the border open to Armenia, it was sufficient to render the blockade of Turkey useless) was a reaction (not direction action) towards the Elchibey era and open threat on Irans territorial integrity.

I agree with most of what you just said. Anyhow I am not an angry guy so no anger from me :)

Thanks for writing. But my only suggestion is that when we discuss a historical topic we should do our best, as much as possible to depoliticize it. That is what Khodadad mentioned too.

Thanks again.

Ali (R Azerbaijan)

I think you are presuming that I approve these things and that is why you are showing them to me? I simply see no sense in it. R Azerbaijan and its policies are of absolute irrelevance to me. What I care about is IRI policies and the people of Iran ;)

I like Azeir music, but also Persian music and I like Ferdosi, Saadi and I also like reading in English, I actually prefer English because I can read it 3 times faster. You are too smart to be bogged down with the affairs of a country of 8 million. Focus on Iran, Iranians and believe me that no matter what the politicians in R Azerbaijan do it will be far LESS bad than what the IRI does because Iranians are 70 million, not 8 million and our families live there.

Re:

Ali,

Since you brought up the R Azerbaijan issue then let's discuss it further. It is good that we don't have (for now) some hate-comment popping up somewhere.

You see Ali, we are all backward people. You are an Iranian, I am an Iranian, Azerbaijanis are very similar to us, Turks are very similar to us, and Armenians, though Christian, are also very similar to us. We are all backward people. Backward people do not know how to get along. Yo seem to have had special interest in R Azerbaijan. I have had some, but less than you. I have no bias toward ARMENIA, but I also do not hide my dislike of IRANIAN support to Armenia while Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territory. There are HUGE differences here. I DO NOT have an anti-Armenian, or anti-Armenia, feeling whatsoever, but an anti-IRI feeling. So I hope this is for the record. I am pretty sure both Azerbaijan government and Armenian governments are corrupt and have terrible policies. At the same time, Iranians, Azeris, and Armeniana, and Turks, are all backward people. So, as I said earlier, they cannot get along well, unless for one reason or another they find a common enemy.

Azerbaijan of today, as you say, has assimilatory policies toward Kurds, Lezgins (I don't know the correct pronounciation), and the Talysh. I would not be surprised. It is the result of backwardness. I cannot mention it enough, the peoples of the region are ALL backward. We have a long way to go. When you are backward (no offense to nobody in particular) you either acknowledge it, and then you start your positive evolution, or as a backward thinking goes, you will think that you are actually really great, because you do not know the realities. R Azerbaijan is a small country ruled by a small clique. I am not familiar with their policies. I think it would be good for that country to respect human rights no matter what. But I am sure a backward country cannot be so great in its policies because it is full of backward people. The same goes for Iran. Wrong policies are signitories of regimes in such countries. R Azerbaijan being a small country with a 90% or more Azeri population will at some point in the future, even with no assimilatory policies have a 100% Azeri population unless the Azeris themselves become something else. Will that be a loss? I don't care. If Iran becomes a 100% Persian (Fars) country, will that be a loss, I doubt it. I don't care. I am not pretending that these countries ought to be perfect. I have no political agenda. My aim is to write something so that some people read and maybe I have the slightest impact I can in our progress toward more respect for human rights INSIDE IRAN and among Iranians. Human rights also includes respect for one's identity. But I never think that one's identity has any priority to other's identity.

You see Ali, I have no bias toward anybody and I have no political agenda whatsoever and I don't even write well and I actually don't quite understand some people's anger toward me!!!

I know at least one person who speaks only Farsi but whose both parents are from Nakhjivan (so you get what he is) and he is one of the most ardent Monarchists, and a believer in the Aryan race. Don't you see this as something negative for Iranians? There are many such Iranians. Many of them were/are Azeris. Many of the promoters of the Pahlavi regime were Azeris themselves, and many of them were Qajar, though very few of them were from Azerbaijan proper. This is also a sign of backwardness. Iran should have taken steps, and Iranians should take steps toward fredom, democracy, and human rights, not proving to this and that that they are pure superior Aryans. Westerners don't give a damn anymore!

About R Azerbaijan and Armenia I don't care much as such but I do care for IRI policies. I do not see it as normal for an Iranian government to be home to the largest Azeri community in the world and support a country who has caused the displacement of so many innocent people. I have the right to have this feeling of diapproval. Iran of today is and it will be a farcry from free and perfection for a long time to come, because Iranians (all of us put together) are backward people. This doesn't mean we need not say anything. As lons as I am not a politician I can write a lot and I pursue no political agenda, but simply to say what I think :)

Salam Ben I am only writing

Salam Ben

I am only writing this since you brought IRI and made a comparison. I would like to analyze how Pahlavis wrote history. But you know Pahlavids are from the past.

I'll give you an example of how much ethnicist the republic of Azerbaijan is and it is incomparable to IRI. (Note I have nothing against any of the caucasian countries but they have been effected heavily by USSR/pan-Turkist or other sort of ethnicist historiography.

Note I state information from the republic of Azerbaijan embassy:
http://www.azembassy.be/contents.php?cid=13

"These states maintained political, economic and cultural ties
with Shumer and Akkad, were part of the overall region of the Mesopotamian civilization
and were ruled by the dynasties of Turkic origin. "

So Sumerian and Akkadians and Mesopotamian civilizations according to this source (Azerbaijan republic embassy) were Turkic.

"The Turkic-speaking peoples
that inhabited the territory of Azerbaijan from the ancient times were fire-worshippers
and professed one of the world's oldest religions - Zoroastrianism. "

I don't need to make a comment on this.

"In the third century B.C. the State of Caucasian Albania was formed in the north of Azerbaijan with its southern borders extending along the river Araks. The people of Albania (one of the ancestor nations of contemporary Azerbaijanis) consisted of various ethnic groups, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke Turkic languages."

We have alittle but sufficient sample from Caucasian Albanian language and it is grouped in the caucasian languages not Turkic.

"The fact that the population of Albania and Atropatena lived within a unitary state and professed common religion helped to consolidate the people of Azerbaijan. "

That is not true as you know. Zoroastrianism in Atropatena is a different religion than Christianity in Caucasian Albania.

"As a result of anti-Caliphate struggle of the local population in the 9th century several new states arose in Azerbaijan, the strongest of
them being the Shirvan state with the capital city of Shamakhi, where the Shirvanshah dynasty ruled. That state existed until the 16th century and played a big role in the history of a medieval Azerbaijan. In the 9th to the 11th centuries independent
States of the Saji, Salari, Ravvadi (with the capital city of Tabriz) and the state of Sheddadi (with the capital city of Ganja) existed on the territory of Azerbaijan."

Okay note it does not mention Sajjids, Salaris, Rawwadids, Shirwanshah were non-turkic. More specifically they were Sogdian, Daylamite, Kurdicized Arab (Rawwadids) and Persianized Arabs (Shirwanshah).
"Common Turkic language and Islamic religion of the native population in the territory of Azerbaijan finally brought about a consolidation of the
Azerbaijani people, which finalized by the 11th-12th centuries. At that period the culture of Azerbaijan flourished when Azerbaijani philosophers, architects, poets and scientists became known to the world. The works of the poet and philosopher
Nizami Ganjavi who contributed into the golden treasury of the world culture became the peak of the public and cultural thought in the Azerbaijan of the
that period."

I already pointed out that Tabriz was not speaking Turkish even after the Ilkhanid era. Also Nizami Ganjavi was half Kurdish and half non-Turkic (probably Iranian but perhaps Arabic but his great grand father goes back to Shaddadid times). But culturally he was Persian. Note there is not a Turkic verse from Nizami yet this is not mentioned and the paragraph makes it seem like Nizami wrote in Turkic.

"During the 12th and 13th centuries the Khachin Principality came to the fore in the mountainous part of Karabakh under the rule of Albanian kings.
The rule of Hassan Jalal (1215-1261) ushered in the Albanian revival and saw the completion of the construction of the Gandzasar monastery complex, which became the foremost cathedral of the region. This monastery was sanctified by the catholicos of Albania."

Actually Hassan Jalal is considered Armenian by Robert Hewsen. All the cultural life of his kingdom and language was in Armenian.

Dear Ben, Thanks. You are

Dear Ben,

Thanks. You are free to dislike the word Aryan, but it just a ethno-linguistic term like Turkic or Semite and etc. The Medes which many (or at least some) Azeris consider their precedessors used this term. I agree, its misuse is dislikeable but the term by itself is scientific and neutral. So I also agree, that I dislike its political use, even by Pahlavids.

But see now you are involved in politics. My suggestion is to simply separate a scientific article from a political article.

Let me make a few points though, since you brought it up. I was discussing Turkification in general and just mentioned in the 20th century there was much more Iranic population. I read your post to Iranian.com and I think you also have an anti-Armenia bias. So I believe naturally for some reason you are pro-Azerbaijan. Perhaps ethnic reason. I am neutral on the other hand (since I am neither Azeri or Armenian) and I hope to see peace between these two.

But you are incorrect, right now the republic of Azerbaijan has a assimilationist policy towards Talysh, Kurds and Lezgis. Also USSR can not really be blamed because a sort of pan-Turkism was supported by the general elite like Heydar Aliev who also then ruled Azerbaijan SSR. Here I quote a neutral source:

"In 1993 there was an attempt officially to restore the Latin script; very few people advocated the Arabic script. Kryzi and Khinalug speakers, as well as most Tsakhurs, are bilingual and tend to assimilate with the Azeris. The same is true of the Tat speakers, and slightly less about the Talysh. At least there is no official recognition, teaching or publishing in these languages in any form. Lezghins in Azerbaijan are struggling very determinedly for their linguistic revival, but with little success. Generally there is a prevailing policy of forceful assimilation of all minorities, including the Talysh, Tat, Kurds and Lezgins. There is little or no resistance to assimilation from the Kryzi, Khinalug, Tsakhurs or Tat, and not much resistance from the Talysh. There are some desperate efforts of resistance from the Udin, stubborn resistance from the Kurds, and an extremely active struggle from the Lezgins, who want to separate Lezgin populated districts both from Dagestan and Azerbaijan in order to create an autonomous republic with Lezgin as the state language."
(Christina Bratt (EDT) Paulston, Donald Peckham (eds.), Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Multilingual Matters publisher, 1998, ISBN 1853594164, p. 106 )

Svante Cornell, a very pro-Azeri source also states:
"Where as officially the number of Lezgins registered as such in Azerbaijan is around 180,000 the Lezgins claim that the number of Lezgins registerd in Azerbaijan is much higher than this figure, some accounts showing over 700,000 Lezgins in Azerbaijan. These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government, but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that the Lezgins – for that matter the Talysh or the Kurdish-population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figures... "

Douglass Blum, ‘’Contested national identities and weak state structures in Eurasia ’’(pp in Sean Kay, S. Victor Papacosma, James Sperling, Limiting institutions?: The Challenge of Eurasian Security Governance, Manchester University Press, 2003.
"Finally, Azerbaijan presents a somewhat more ambiguous picture. It boasts a well-established official national identity associated with claims of a unique heritage based on an improbable blend of Turkism, Zoroastrianism, moderate Islam, and its historical function as 'bridge' between Asia and Europe along the Silk Road. At the same time there remain strong local allegiances and ethnic distinctions, including submerged tensions between Azeris, Russians, and also Lezgins and Talysh (besides Armenians), as well as stubborn religious cleavages (roughly two thirds of the Islamic population is Shi'ite one third Sunni). This persistence of parochialism is hardly surprising inasmuch as there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites, who were significantly affected by russification and are still generally lukewarm in their expressions of pan-Turkism. Perhaps the most powerful source of social cohesion and stale legitimacy is the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, which has at least generated some degree of collective identity as victim of Armenian aggression perhaps a slender reed on which to construct a national identity conducive to developmental state building in the future."

Note IRI is not lukewarm towards pan-Iranism but Azerbaijan SSR is considered lukewarm by a neutral scholar towards pan-Turkism.

I disagree, IRI does not have an assimilationist policy. IRI is a shi'i state. It gives supports to Lebanese Shi'is while it kicks out Persian speaking Afghan refugees. There is much more support for Azeri in IRI than Talysh or Kurdish in Turkey or republic of Azerbaijan. Turkey has a weekly 30 minute program in Kurdish while IRI has much more hours in regional T.V. and radio and you can find lots of books. Note I am not saying IRI is perfect, but it is much less assimilationist than the republic of Azerbaijan.

The current republic of Azerbaijan is much more ethnicist than IRI.

Just check here:
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/arti...
http://www.anspress.com/nid51166.html

They arrest a Talysh guy and consider calling Nizami Ganjavi (who was not really ) and Babak (who was not turcophone and Talysh could have been the same or very close to the Fahlavi dialect of Babak) a Talysh as a "grave crime". Talysh afterall is the close to Kurdish and Persian, so the guy can make a claim here, since who knows how 800-1000 divergent Talysh was from other dialects. But then they simply arrest this follow. While in Iran, pan-Turks easily publish material that Zoroaster was a Turk.

As per Pahlavi, some say they were actually half Turkic, but nevertheless, their policy was largely shaped by Azerbaijani intellectuals as a reaction to pan-Turkism:
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/atoor/r...

So the Pahlavi policy was in large part a reaction to pan-Turkism and is somewhat understandable. But the IRI is not assimilationist and even the leader speaks Azeri. Persian became really the only official language of Iran during the constitution before Pahlavids. I agree Pahlavids had some wrong policies towards minority culture (although not even half as bad as to what happened to Talysh under the combination of USSR/Azeri SSR nation building (induced with heavy pan-Turkism):
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/talysh/...
But remember Pahlavids were in large part Azeri, Farah was Azeri and Pahlavid policy on linguistic rights was shaped and crafted by Azeris (Kasravi, Mahmud Afshar, Taqizadeh and etc.). So I think some Iranians who discuss the issue forget that the Pahlavid policy was a reaction:
http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/atoor/r...

That is an important point.

Politics...

The article had indeed some political side to it. If more perfect people do not write then I, as a less perfect guy, write some things. I try to go with reason but I am not perfect even at that. Some of our compatriots are angry. I hope they will come back and I'll be glad to have their comments, but more good faith and less anger would do good ;)

Ali, I appreciate your resources, and I never ever hide that I dislike using the word Aryan among Iranians and I do feel attached to my own identity, so in case people hate me for these reasons (some do) I am not really guilty for that ;)

Republic of Azerbaijan

It is probable, though quite irelevant to our subject of debate. But while R Azerbaijan was under Soviet rule we cannot blame today's country Azerbaijan for that, while we can blame (for example) today's country Iran, both IRI and Pahlavi, for their Persian assimilation. Numbers growing or shrinking is quite irrelevant, but respecting human rights is important and relevant. If today in R Azerbaijan they do not respect human rights then we are entitled to bring that up, but I think we, as being both Iranians, must be more concerned about our own problems :)

Salam I think to use words

Salam

I think to use words like "impose" or "natural" or etc. is really getting into political matter.
For example if a group gains political and economic dominance than in a "natural" way they are "imposing" their language. I have not read the Pahlavi textbooks so if you have something from the actual textbooks let me know. Else I have no comments. One can read Professor. Planhol's material and then intrepret it as "natural", "forced", "semi-forced","occasionaly natural and sometimes forced".

The Qajars anyhow supported Turkic tribes in some areas over Bakhtiaris, Baluchs,Kurds and Talysh. But by the time of Qajars linguistic shift had occured. But on the Safavids, Prof. Planhol does mention:
"The decisive episode, at the beginning of the 16th century, was the adoption of Shi¿ite Islam as the religion of the state by the Iran of the Safavids, whereas the Ottoman empire remained faithful to Sunnite orthodoxy. Shi'ite propaganda spread among the nomadic Turkoman tribes of Anatolia, far from urban centers of orthodoxy. These Shi¿ite nomads returned en masse along their migratory route back to Safavid Iran. This movement was to extend up to southwest Anatolia, from where the Tekelu, originally from the Lycian peninsula, returned to Iran with 15,000 camels. These nomads returning from Ottoman territory naturally settled en masse in regions near the border, and it was from this period that the definitive "Turkicization" of Azerbaijan dates, along with the establishment of the present-day Azeri-Persian linguistic border—not far from Qazvin, only some 150 kilometers from Tehran."

I would note two sentences from Prof. Planhol:

"This arrival, whether in gradual infiltration or in brutal invasions, never ended. "

"Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined. "
" The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants."

And it is true, for example people in and around Astara do not follow vowel harmony when speaking.

Anyhow I think the discussion was good, originally it was somewhat emotional, but I brought some resources, specially the excellent article of Prof. Xavier Planhol which might answer the questions of some interested reader. So overall I thank you for brining the discussion, but I agree with other users that when we are discussing scientific matters, we should try to stay away from political matters.

Take care.

Also the number of Spanish

Also the number of Spanish speakers was very very small in Mexico. You can do a research on this. But each place that has changed language had different mechanism, but it is important to note you do not need a large population to bring about linguistic shift. Half the world speaks one of the Indo-European languages but the original IE people were not significantly numerous. On the republic of Azerbaijan, I brought it up, because the Iranic population there was not naturally assimilated in the last century, so the low number is due to that rather than the more natural process in Iranian Azerbaijan.

Anyhow Professor. Xavier Planhol is probably the expert on this aissue nd I am sure even if you disagree with his reasons (and he lists many factors if you look it and reread it several times), other interested readers will find what he says comprehensive. I'll repeat it incase other readers did not have time to read it:
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f2/v13f...

Re:

Ali, to have some conclusion, let's say what is clear and what is not yet so much established and clear.

One thing which is clear is that the Turkification was a result of migration of Turks to Azerbaijan area mostly because of the land and geographical conditions, which later after the Turkic population became urbanised and grew in numbers also spread outwards and still continued to absorb the neighbours. What proportion of the population and the exact dates are not clear. I personally (as mentioned in the article by some simple arguments) doubt that the transofrmation took place mostly during the Safavid. I think it was already a success (i.e. Turks were already really numerous and most probably the majority of the overall population of the north-western Iranian plateau at that time) at that time.

However, the other thing that is worth clarification is that the Turkification was not the result of imposing the language, music, culture, or the customs, but because of various means, it was a natural process. It could have somehow been imposed on non-Christians but not the language, but the relgion, through various discriminatory policies at various times, and the largest ethnic Muslims being the Turks, some Christians may have been Turkified, in the Iranian plateau (Assyrian and Armenians) and in Anatolia (Greeks etc). In case Turks ever had a policy of imposing their language it could have been recorded in history and we could have seen clashes but we know that both the Qajar and the Safavid got along very well with all Shia subjects. Do we agree on this? This is not exactly the version of Iranian nationalism, especially promoted during the Pahlavi era. That version was that the Turkification was a purely linguistic shift and it was sort of imposed on the Iranic peoples of Azerbaijan, north-western Iranian plateau.

He is saying the names in

He is saying the names in these two areas, not the names of the two areas themselves (Sahand and Qara-Dagh). He is saying the topynoms in these areas (not the name of the areas), although Sahand is Iranic while QaraDagh is Turkic. I find his detailed explanation convincing. Esfahan and Tehran actually had some Turkic villages, but they do not have the wide nomadic pasture lands of Azerbaijan and most of the Safavid upheaval and Ghezelbash tribes occurred in Azerbaijan. Overall I think he gives a good detailed analysis of the many complex factors and it is hard to summarize it in one sentence or two.

Re:

I found this in the article: The toponymy, with more than half of
the place names of Iranian origin in some areas, such as the Sahand, a
huge volcanic massif south of Tabriz, or the Qara@ Da@g@, near the
border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness to
this continuity.

Hmm... is the above phrase (from Iranica) saying that Qara Dagh is aname of Iranian (Iranic) origin??? Sahand can be so, but Qara Dagh? Qara Dagh means Siyah Kuh in Azeri Turkish. This is an error.

This article essentially says that Iranic peoples ADOPTED the Turkish language. And it also says, like you had said earlier, that the Safavid period was the catalyst. So then, logically, while the Safavid headquarters was in Isfahan, and the Qajar headquarters was in Tehran, how weren't these people able to create Turkish Isfahan and Turkish Tehran? Was it because they did not have enough of their own ethnicity in those areas, is Isfahan and Tehran? I think so. And later both the Safavid and the Qajar started to Persianise, themselves, the Turkic ruling classes, became assimilated into the Persian majority of those areas. I find huge flaw in the theory that local Iranic peoples were Turkified because the Turks were the rulers. No, I don't see it as a reasonable idea.

We may have a DNA test and I am SURE the result will be that Azeris and Anatolians will be more similar to Armenians, Talysh, and the Greek and not the Turkmen. Because over time they have absorbed more and more of their neighbouring populations who were Caucasians. But centuries ago when the transformation was taking place its sole reason must have been immigrant numbers. I differ on this though Iranica is a good source. I find it hard to believe that locals of Azerbaijan adopted Turkish language just because the Turks were powerful.

Populations of Mexico mostly speak Spanish because Spanish-speakers outnumbered the rest who spoke various other languages, just the same that must have happened in Azerbaijan and Anatolia. However if we do a DNA test of Mexicans they will not resemble the original immigrants from Europe, however because it is a pretty-much recent event in Mexico some people will have pure European DNA while others will still have relatively pure Idnian-American DNA. That cannot be the case in Azerbaijan as the process is a much older one.

About the population os Rep Azerbaijan and its ethnicities and they being assimilated into the Azeri population, I have no data but in case we are going to talk about this then we cannot talk about the Azeri national authorities of today but the Soviet authories. It is unrelated to our discussion anyway. As you know there has never been a policy of Azeri assimilation in Iran and they have naturally assimilated their neighbouring areas, so the same thing may have happened in the rep Azerbaijan, but I don't know. Why do you care so much anyway about that?

Salam Ben On Pahlavids, I

Salam Ben

On Pahlavids, I haven't read their textbook as I was less than year old when it happened. They are of course correct that the previous language was Iranic or Iranian dialects that were replaced by Turkic. Of course it was not "they", but numerous facts and researchers point this out.

I agree, "there hasn't been enough research done" as you say. The best I have seen on the internet is this article:
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f2/v13f...
which I would read carefully, since you are interested in the topic. Note the role the Safavids played and those Iranians that take it to 400-500 years ago are partially right.

But we must take many factors as I said into account to understand the process: economics, political, natural adoptation, force, Safavid and various upheavel, migrations, wars (half of Urmiya before WWI was actually Assyrian..).. For example according to travelers many Iranians learned Turkish during the Safavid era since it was the language of the ruling class.

I disagree still with your theory of numerical majority, or even majority relative to one group and I think I addressed it in my previous post. So I won't repeat the arguments. I think Turkomens and Sunni Tats and their DNA relationship with Azeris can determine percentages (relative Turkic vs Iranic). I have seen DNA studies which show that gene flow to Turkey from Central Asia is only about 9% of the population. So I figure it would be the same in Azerbaijan. Also another study shows minimal east eurasian genes in Azeris while there is 90% in Yakuts and 40-50% in Uzbeks, Turkomens and Hazaras.

On the republic of Azerbaijan, there is an official statistics and non-official statistics. I said if assimilationist policies of the last 100 years did not take place (these were foceful), we would have about 20-25% Iranic speakers. But now I am not sure how many there are.

Note the sources I quote seem unbiased. Here is a source that is actually pro-Azeri (Svante Cornell):
"“ In Azerbaijan, the Azeri presently make up over 90 per cent; Dagestani peoples form over 3 per cent, and Russians 2.5 per cent. These figures approximate the official position; however, in reality the size of the Dagestani Lezgin community in Azerbaijan is unknown, officially put at 200,000 but according to Lezgin sources substantially larger. The Kurdish population is also substantial, according to some sources over 10 per cent of the population; in the south there is a substantial community of the Iranian ethnic group, of Talysh, possibly some 200,000 –400,000 people. "

So 1 out 8 million (which is what I estimate currently) is 12%..but I said if the proportions in the begining of 20th century had held, it would be around 20%. Note the quotes I brought from Bakikhanov and the fact that 120,000 tats are mentioned before the begining of the 20th century.

Thanks
Ali.

Ali...

So, you do agree that things are pretty much clouded, and there hasn't been enough research done. But you know that the text-book versions in Iran, especially from Pahlavi era, intentionally switched the facts to show that the Turkification was not a result of a natural process of mixture and adoption but a purely linguistic thing, Aryans (Iranic peoples though with a racial twist of Pahlavi style) adopted the language without mixing with the Turkic peoples. Which is, as you also say, not the realistic case.

On the issue about the Republic of Azerbaijan it is not exactly what we are talking about and I am not enough familiar with it. What I know today is that in case Talysh are 500,000 and Kurds 10%, therefore some 800,000 then we must have a population of 1,3 million Kurd and Talysh in Azerbaijan Republic, or 20-25% as you mentioned it yourself. I wouldn't expect this from a man of your rich knowledge Ali. How can you say something like this? Look at the statistics published by any source! I have never found anything like this. And in my interactions with citizens of the Rep Azerbaijan I actually met one person whose father was Talysh, and actually a true Talysh who cared about his identity a lot. From my own experience and from various sources I can say that it is most likely that the population of R Azerbaijan is not NOW 25% Iranic, but it could have been like that in the past 200-300 years ago, and Iranic peakers must have been absorbed into the Azeri population. And even in this regard I don't think it is fair to blame Azeri authorities. It must have been a natural process. They haven't been ruling their country except for about 16 years. But this is not related to Iran, so let's go back to Iran.

Let's agree on one thing, and if agree, then I think we can have a unanimous verdict ;) The Azeri Turks, or Turks as we can say, outnumbered every other Iranic-speakers, but most probably not all of them put together. So, Turks must have been mosre numerous than all the other locals (I am not talking about Christians, but Muslims) as put separately. For example there were Tat, Kurd one, Kurd two, Kurd three, Talysh etc etc, but Turks had a united language and as ONE GROUP they were the most numerous among the Muslims, not just in Azerbaijan, but also in Anatolia. So, in time, this numerical advantage worked in their favour and in a few hundred years they became almost the only existing people, though as we all know non-Turks still existed (and exist) in the fringe areas. About Tabriz, or other Azerbaijan cities, being not-entirely-Turkic up until about 4-5-6 hundred years ago it is apossible, but we also know that Turks were already there in significant numbers there. And it is also true that Turks did not have a writing tradition, so it is very likely that we are left with more Iranic writings and less Turkic writings.

By the way, I know about Ali Doostzadeh reading posts etc on Wikipedia. I don't do anything there but I like reading the discussion section once in a while. So, if you're not him, then please enlighten me!

Salam Ben As I said you do

Salam Ben

As I said you do not need numerical majority to impose/change language. Look at Haiti, Jamaica, most of the American continent (spanish speaking Mexico and etc). On Talysh and Astara, only the city of Astara is mainly Azeri speaking here, but not the villages. Most of Astara in Caucus though is still Talysh. Also there is a large number of Talysh in the republic of Azerbaijan which has been underreported as well as there used to be large number of Kurds and Tats. They were mainly assimilated (many by political reasons) in the last century. So probably if it was not for the assimilationist policy of the republic of Azerbaijan, we would have about 20-25% Iranic population there.

Anyhow I have independent sources that say Talysh could be at least 500,000 and Kurds could be between 5-10% of the population there.

ttp://www.osce.org/documents/ob/2006/08/23087_en.pdf

According to Thomas de Waal:
“Smaller indigenous Caucasian nationalities, such as Kurds, also complained of assimilation. In the 1920s, Azerbaijan's Kurds had had their own region, known as Red Kurdistan, to the west of Nagorny Karabakh; in 1930, it was abolished and most Kurds were progressively recategorized as "Azerbaijani." A Kurdish leader estimates that there are currently as many as 200,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan, but official statistics record only about 12,000. ”

If you look at Behzadi's Azeri dictionary, he says that 50 years from the publish of the book (so I guess it is now 70 years ago) Astara spoke Talysh and his grandfather was actually Talysh speaking.

Lets review some facts. Turkomens speak purer Oghuz than Azeri and Turks of Turkey and they show a much higher admixture. The Turks that entered Turkey were definitely originally mongloid. Mowalana uses the term "Chesm tang" for Turks repeatedly in his stories. See the story Tork-i-mast"
ترک خندیدن گرفت از داستان,
چشم تنگش گشت بسته آن زمان

دو چشم ترك خطا را چه ننگ از تنگي*********چه عار دارد سياح جهان از اين عوري

گفت كاي تنگ چشم تاتاري******صيد ما را به چشم مي ناري؟

قاصرات الطرف في حجب الخيام************حال تركان است گويي والسلام
............
..........
.........
تنگ چشمانند ليكن دوربين***********خوبرويانند ليكن خويش كام

and here is a picture of Seljuq:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b...
So Mowalana even in Anatolia recognized these features.

So the mechanism of Turkification in Azerbaijan was not one uniform process. There was economic, political, trade, migration, religious reasons and etc. involved. It was the language of the rulers. Another reason is that the Iranic dialects had diverged for example taking Tati, Kurdish, Talyshi, Gilaki..these are close but not the same. Standard Persian Dari did not advance as far as Azerbaijan and it was a written language unlike the Iranic dialects I mentioned. Even today in West Azerbaijan there are two Kurdish dialects and then if you to Kurdistan province, the Kurdish of Garous is different than the Kurdish of Mahabad.
So Turkish being a new language had an advantage here as it did not have as many branches. So probably if Qajars still ruled, both the Kurds of Mahabad and Garous might have become Turcophones, since their dialect is mutually unintelligible.

I pointed out that Maragha is described as Pahlavi speaking (which should be taken as an Iranic dialect) in the 13th/14th century. But Awliya Chelebi in the 16th/17th century mentions that the majority of Women in Maragha speak Pahlavi. Note he says majority of Women. The reason I believe is that the Men were in trade and economics and slowly Turkish was gaining prominence amongst them. Where as for Women, they did not need to go out much and interact economically and politically.

Interestingly enough, in Azerbaijan there are two types of music, Muqam and Ashik. The Muqam music terminology in the republic of Azerbaijan is heavily Persian. Those this was the music of the cities and Persian based. The Ashik music which Turkomens have, was probably due to the Ghezelbash times.

So the factors of Turkification of Azerbaijan are many and I agree(language of rulers, economics being in the hand of Turcophones, divergence of Iranic languages and etc.), they need a detailed study. The Safavid upheaval and the subsequent Ottomon control of Azerbaijan for a good period after the defeat of Ismail I, and also the constant Ottoman-Safavid warfare did also contribute. Anyhow given the fact that we have Safineyeh Tabrizi, we know that Tabriz up to say 650 years ago was not Turkic speaking. Shams Tabrizi also describes two areas of Tabriz, Surkhab and Charandaab both having Persian names. I believe given the statements of Pir Zehtab Tabrizi and Mama 'Esmat Tabrizi, we can safely say it was either right before the beginning of the Safavid era or right afterwards. Different areas could be different. We know it happened because of many historical attestations but a detailed study on all the mechanism that made it happen has probably not been undertaken.

But the numerical superiority theory I believe is based on invalid assumptions (the most important being add least racial features where Azeris look closer to their Iranic speaking (Persian, Kurdish, Talysh, Gilak) and Armenian neighbors than the very purer Oghuz speaking Turkmens (it has 18 vowels instead of the 9 of Azeri and its vocabulary is much more purer). Also DNA study shows Azeris of the caucus share more similarities with Armenians than say Turkomens, Uzbeks and etc. I think doing a similar study between DNA of Sunni Tat speaks of Khalkhal and Shahroud in east Azerbaijan province and Azeris will also prove more similarities than say those of Azeris with Turkomens.

I think we all need to approach this matter more scientifically and less emotionally. So it is important that if you write on this manner, you do a comprehensive research and use proper referenced materials.

Thanks

Re: KavehV

I am sorry I am not very familiar about your curiosity, i.e. the migration through the Caucasus.

As you see, simply writing an article about Iranian Azeris angers some of our fellow Iranian and I have failed to address both the angry and also have a discussion about the issue as such.

Indeed the opinions are similar but one thing is over-looked by the opposing view, that the REASON for the turkification was NOT that people simply started speaking Turkic because the tough and brute Turk ruling guys were speaking it (Iranian version) but because the mixing of the populations. I in the article said that I do not see historical evidence in which a new language has been adopted for any reason but mass migration and natural shifting of the smaller numbers to the bigger numbers. And in Iran itself there have been one older process, that of Talysh and even Persians turning Turkic in areas like Astara or near Qazvin and Saveh, and there is now a new one in which Azeris have moved to Tehran or other areas and have been absorbed by the Persian population because of being numerically superior. The opposite happened in Astara because Turks were numerically superior. This is what I was saying but unfortunately had little civilised room to debate!

Caucasus......

I am a little disappointed at how quickly this discussion has subsided, despite my own infrequent contributions. I, as a non-Azari Iranian, was looking forward to learn a few things about the possible migration patterns and perhaps ask some questions.

An informative discussion on this and similar topics (other ethnic groups within Iran) is a good exercise in democracy, and if there is ever going to be free multiparty democracy in Iran, this discussion would be a good start.

From my observation of all the comments, it seems the opposing positions are not too far apart. Both sides agree that Turkic migrations did take place, but the argument is over the extent and the numbers of the invading tribes. Most of the discussions, so far, has been limited to the possibility of Saljuq Turks coming from the east (east of Caspian sea) and eventually settling parts of southern Caucasus and then Anatolian peninsula. There seems to be enough evidence to support this. But, is that all ?

On the other hand, the eastern route, ignores the effects of Eurasian migrations (specifically the Mongols), just to the north of the Caspian sea. There were wave-after-wave of westward migrations that had started in the 4th century A.D (in the span of a few hundred years), with the expansion of the Huns that pushed many tribes into central Europe. Caucasus, particularly the mountain areas, have been a known refuge for some (or many) tribes and therefore, should be considered as a possible migration route into Iran, at some point.

As the result, Caucasus have been a "diverse" region for quite some time and this means continuous conflicts among the many ethnic nationalities. In fact, the loss of Caucasus and signing of the TurkamanChai ended a long period of ethnic conflict in Caucasus for Iran (as Russians inherited them). The question is; has there been a migratory route through Caucasus into northern Iran and if so, who were they and what was their route and experiences with other tribes and nationalities?

Just a matter of curiosity for an amateur, or hobbyist anthropologist.

Re: Thanks for the Rashid Behbudov song!

Hello Ben,

Since you liked Behbudov, here's another one. This is originally a persian melody, done in Azari.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMW5rYpuAlQ

Good point!

Science has been influenced by politics or nationalistic tendencies. I do believe that the turkification could not have been any thing but a natural process of adopting the language willingly by the absorbed populations and also migration, which must have started it all. at some point Turks must have outnumbered the rest and grow in numbers both by marriages and also by absorbing neighboring populations who happened to be smaller in numbers, just like Persian has been doing the same thing in the last few decades in Iran's more central areas. turks were numerous in Iranian areas outside Azerbaijan but they have been absorbed by urban persians because of been on the more numerous side. Some of the comments simply seem hateful. The article is not anything but a logical observation. Too bad science is not promoted in Iran so that true science can say the more realistic version. And too bad some of our fellow Iranians, even from some academic circles (maybe) are more preoccupied with personal attacks, rather than having a civilized debate.

joke

torke mireh sandwich forooshi, order mideh.
yaroo migeh bepicham?
torke migeh na, mostagheem boro.

poem

torkA hameh tAje saran
fArsA khodosh torke kharan

Re: comment below

Nobody chooses which goes to blog and which goes to article! It is the contributor who chooses that, not somebody else. Please write an article of your own, put some picture too so you don't look like s chicken (I mean the picture for your comment), and send your article to the website. If you want your articles to appear all the time like mine then accompany your articles with checks of at least $10,000 every now and then :)) Just kidding! You don't need money, it's all a conspiracy. I appear in Jahanshah's dreams and fool him :p