Origins of Azeri Turks

A personal view


Share/Save/Bookmark

Origins of Azeri Turks
by Ben Madadi
27-Jan-2008
 

While nothing is really black and white in this world, and many accepted theories of yesterday are no more valid today and many accepted theories of today will not be valid forever, one thing is clear, that in order to have a just society we need to respect every and each human being. This is not a theory, but a fundamental human value.

Maybe some of the readers can bring more information about this issue, but I think (I don't remember it very well any more) we had a theory in our Iranian school textbooks during the Pahlavi regime saying that the inhabitants of Azerbaijan (the Iranian side) are Aryans (the racial word for describing Iranians, or that was the intended, or perceived, purpose of the usage) who have been "linguistically" Turkified, to use the exact term. I doubt they still have this in today's IRI textbooks (maybe they do), but I have been quite amazed to find it in many places on the Internet, also on Wikipedia, about issues relating to Iranians, where Iranian editors have been very actively pursuing, and trying to prove, this theory. I have some serious problems with this theory's validity, and also a more serious problem about the reasons behind the active propagation of it, in the past and today.

Please bear with me for the following short personal presentation of the issue and in case you have anything against my view then please comment with your opinion. I have done quite a lot of research about this theory and others and there isn't really some unbiased and truly scientific conclusion out there, so all I can write is going to be an unscientific personal view or presentation.

It seems very likely to me that Turkic peoples migrated from Asia to the Middle East at some point in time. Views differ on this too and some, even within some academic circles, have said that Turkic people resided in the Middle East for thousands of years. However there is more evidence to the opposite from historical writings suggesting that the majority of the population of north-western Iranian plateau and Anatolia were non-Turkic peoples probably up until about 1,000 years ago or so, though Turkic peoples may very well have coexisted among others in the region, though in smaller numbers and usually within nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes.

Turkic speaking nations of central Asia are mostly Asiatic while Tajiks, who also live in central Asia, are mostly Caucasian. Well, there are mixes here and there, also in Afghanistan, where some Caucasian-looking people speak a Turkic language (Uzbek or Turkmen for instance) or some Asiatic-looking people speak Tajik Persian. I think it is scientifically reasonable to say that it is at least more likely that the origins of the Turkic peoples (or Oghuz people) are in Asia and they all used to look like Asians some time ago. This is not the case today, as Turks of Turkey, Azeri Turks in Iran and Azerbaijan, and Turcomans of Iraq are very large Turkic communities who look nothing but Caucasian.

How did this happen? It is probably quite simple to say that Turks, just like Huns (ancestors of today's Hungary), massively migrated to Caucasian-populated areas in the Middle East and intermarriages over time created distinct populations who did not look like their cultural (and to some degree genetic) ancestors any more. The languages, folklore, traditions and customs, that these Asiatic tribes brought along, survived to some extent, while their looks changed. This idea is something quite reasonable. When all this happened? That is something vague though.

Turkic peoples originally used to live more to the north, most likely in central Asia. Then they started to move south and west. We know that about 1,000 years ago Turks both in the Iranian plateau and Anatolia were already so strong they actually ruled most of these areas. They could not have been so few in numbers at that time. However it is likely that they were not completely racially mixed (they were both Asiatic-looking and Caucasian-looking) with the local populations yet.

For racial and nationalistic purposes, many Iranian circles, have tried to show that the Turkification of Azerbaijan is something as recent as 200-500 years ago, which is absurd. People do not change so quickly, neither culturally nor physically. And also saying that Azeri Turks are (using the present verbal form) Aryans (whatever it may mean) who have been (even probably by force) linguistically Turkified by the ruling Turks is even more absurd. North of the Araxes river was lost to Russia some 190 years ago and the language shared among the Azeri populations of Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan has not changed so much. They understand each other perfectly.

I found something amazing about the two sides of the border that may be very important from a historical and linguistic point of view. The number 80 is pronounced Hashtad in Persian, while its Turkic version is 'seksen' (or saksan). Original and correct Azeri language is supposed to used 'seksen' which is also more often used in Azeri writing in the Republic of Azerbaijan. However ordinary Azeris, not just in Iran but also in the north, do not use 'seksen' but 'hashtad'. This number has entered Azeri language from Persian while there is no other non-Turkic number used in Azeri language except for zero (sifir, which is of Arabic origin). And it has entered the Azeri language before the Caucasus was lost to Russia. Ever since there has been no significant or fundamental change to the language other than the new words that are used for things, or statements, which have been discovered, adopted, or invented recently.

So, despite having been under completely different conditions the original language has stayed about the same, which shows how long it actually takes for a language to change. Although there are dialects of the same language both in Iran and in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the differences in the dialects have existed even before the separation, as Shirvani dialect (predominant in Azerbaijan) of Azeri language has been one of the most important dialects, along Tabrizi (predominant in Iran) far earlier than the separation of the Caucasus from the Qajar Empire.

Almost two centuries of living under completely different circumstances has not been able to change almost anything seriously (linguistically and culturally speaking) while it is theorised that it could have been possible to impose a language and do it so well to a large population of 500 years ago and succeed in it in such an amazing manner (totally annihilating the previous language) without using any techniques such as compulsory schooling?! So, it seems that the only purpose of saying that the population of Azerbaijan spoke any other language up until about 200 years ago is simply too much close to fantasy than reality or science.

While Arabs were unable to change the local languages of Iran even though they did try to impose Arabic on Iranians for hundreds of years how could have Turks done it in Azerbaijan in such a short period of time and so well? How could they have also done so well also in Anatolia? And there is of course no evidence about this because Turkic peoples did not have an advanced writing (we can say that because they were mostly nomadic they had no writing), and they more often used Arabic or Persian writings than their own language, though writings have appeared from some 800 years ago or so in Turkic, in the Middle East.

There was also no schooling in Azerbaijani or Anatolian Turkish, to be used for forcing their languages on the local Caucasian populations. And even this policy has failed to impose Persian on non-Persians of modern Iran. And if there was any forcing, history has shown that such methods usually don't work. Look at Iran itself where there have been direct policies of Persian assimilation for more than 80 years already with almost no success in most Iranian regions. However many Azeri Turks who have migrated to mostly Persian areas have willingly Persianised due to their numerical inferiority.

The only real and plausible possibility (why Azerbaijan's original population turned Turkic) is that large numerous Turkic tribes that moved to the Middle East settled in various areas, married locals, but probably due to superior numbers in Azerbaijan (north-west of Iran, and the Caucasus) and also Anatolia, little by little absorbed many smaller populations of those regions and hence we have accidentally come up with two predominant modern languages of the Turkic peoples, Azeri Turkish, and Anatolian Turkish. This trend has been continuous until very recently and as we know areas such as Astara (and south of Astara) in Iran are no more Talysh as they used to be some 200-300 years ago because the original Talysh population has been absorbed into the migrating more numerous Azeri Turk population.

This whole process must have taken many hundreds of years. And the process must have been a finished natural success already some 500-700 years ago when local Turks (no more from central Asia) ruled both Anatolia and the Iranian plateau. Iranian Turkic rulers of 500 years ago onwards, the Safavid, Afshar, and the Qajar did not look like Asians at all. They were already established Caucasian-looking people who spoke Azerbaijani, or similar, Turkish, just like other Turks within the Iranian plateau.

But how did a Turkic language replace an Iranic language in the north-western areas of the Iranian plateau is something that for political purposes has lost its scientific purposes within the Iranian community and has turned into a political tool to create racially-based false bonds between peoples who have already had cultural and religious bonds strong enough to keep them united. Azeri Turks have not been Turkified by force or any other means. They are most probably the descendants of migrant Oghuz Turks who have mixed with the local populations and their Turkic language has turned out to become the predominant language of the area because of their sheer numbers, just like in Hungary or Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). 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.

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, if that was the case? England is a modern prosperous state whose inhabitants are mostly the descendants of some nomadic barbarians as they were considered by the Romans. And look at them now, and compare Manchester to Napoly! Japanese people are from Asia, while Albanians are some of the oldest of European Caucasians. Where is Japan and where is Albania!? When did Iranians and Iranian peoples needed theories to become united anyway? They were already united and strong in their traditions and beliefs when these theories started to appear almost a century ago.
 
I am no scientist, and these have been my personal observations. And I doubt you actually need to be a scientist to realise that it is extremely dodgy and implausible to impose a language on a people especially with the possibilities and conditions that were available hundreds of years ago. And there is no evidence of such an act anyway. While it is known that Arabs did not really tolerate any language but their own, and they failed to impose Arabic on Iranians!

And even with today's possibilities it is nearly impossible to impose a language on a people. So the most probable cause of the Turkification of Azerbaijan is migration, as it has happened throughout history so many times to so many peoples and places. Mass migrations can bring huge changes, just like it has done to Britain, and of course the American continent much later, where due to mass migration from Europe local indigenous peoples almost disappeared (absorbed by more numerous Europeans) in many areas, especially in many American states.
 
Let's hope that a future more free and more democratic Iran will have more respect toward its own peoples, their distinct realities, customs and languages! This also goes for some Iranians who still believe in dodgy theories that may also be insulting to other peoples.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
33
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
15
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
72
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi
 
default

In hungary they do not speak

by Anonymous848 (not verified) on

In hungary they do not speak Turkish.

Here are what some scholars and authorities that support this position. For example Professor Tadsuez Swietchowski (who is fairly Pro-Azerbaijani source) states:
What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran. According to the most widely accepted etymology, the name “Azerbaijan” is derived from Atropates, the name of a Persian satrap of the late fourth century b.c. Another theory traces the origin of the name to the Persian word azar (”fire”‘) - hence Azerbaijan, “the Land of Fire”, because of Zoroastrian temples, with their fires fueled by plentiful supplies of oil.

Azerbaijan maintained its national character after its conquest by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century a.d. and its subsequent conversion to Islam. At this time it became a province in the early Muslim empire. Only in the 11th century, when Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty entered the country, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant number of Turkic inhabitants. The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia. After the Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Azerbaijan became a part of the empire of Hulagu and his successors, the Il-Khans. In the 15th century it passed under the rule of the Turkmens who founded the rival Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Aq Qoyunlu (White Sheep) confederations. Concurrently, the native Azerbaijani state of the Shirvan-Shahs flourished.
(Swietochowski, Tadeusz, AZERBAIJAN, REPUBLIC OF,., Vol. 3, Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 02-28-1996)

Professor Vladimir Minorsky also states:

‘’ In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the G̲h̲uzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seldjukids occupied Adharbayjan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Adharbayjan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone.”
(Minorsky, V.; Minorsky, V. "Ad̲h̲arbayd̲j̲an " Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007.)

Professor Peter Golden who has written the most comprehensive book on Turkic people, in his book (An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992)). Professor Golden confirms that the Medes were Iranians and Iranian languages like Talyshi/Tati speakers are being absorbed into Turkish speakers. Considering the Turkic penetration in the Caucus (Caucasian Azerbaijan) and the Turkification of Iranian Azerbaijan, Professor Golden states in pg 386 of his book:
Turkic penetration probably began in the Hunnic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol(Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan(Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran(derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

It should be noted that Professor Golden on pg 12 of the same book states:
“Turkic population of today shows extraordinary physical diversity, certainly much greater than that of any group of Altaic language. The original Turkish physical type, if we can really posit such, for it should be borne in mind that this mobile population was intermixing with its neighbors at a very stage, was probably of the Mongloid type(in all likelihood in its South Siberian variant). With may deduce this from the fact that populations in previously Europoid areas of Iranian speech begin to show Mongloid influences coincidental with the appearances of Turkic people. The physical transformation of these Turkicizing peoples, however, illustrated by the population of Uzbekistan, Karakalpakia and especially the Turkic population of Iran and Turkey itself. To add to the complexity of this process, the Turkic populations that moved to Central Asia were themselves already mixed. In general, then, the further east, the more Mongloid the Turkic population is; the further west, the more Europoid”

Indeed this physical description was that of Turks in Persian literature is of a Mongloid group and not Cacausoid. Cheshm tang is used by Nizami, Hafez, Sanai, Rumi and etc. to refer to Turks.

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:
“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 few researches undertaken (Planhol, 1960) demonstrate the indisputable predominance of Iranian tradition in agricultural techniques (irrigation, rotation systems, terraced cultivation) and in several settlement traits (winter troglodytism of people and livestock, evident in the widespread underground stables). The large villages of Iranian peasants in the irrigated valleys have worked as points for crystallization of the newcomers even in the course of linguistic transformation; these places have preserved their sites and transmitted their knowledge. The toponyms, 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 Dagh, near the border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness to this continuity. 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.”
Prof. Gernot Windfuhr in the article: Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes, in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. On pg 468, he writes: One may add that the overlay of a strong superstrate by a dialect from the eastern parts of Iran does not imply the conclusion that ethnically all Kurdish speakers are from the east, just as one would hesitate to identify the majority of Azarbayjani speakers as ethnic Turks. The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialect.

It is interesting to note that the Oghuz Turks who turkified Azerbaijan linguistically were not themselves pure Turks according to Mahmud Kasghari. Although without a doubt ethnically Turks and considered themselves Turks, Turkology-expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):
"... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kâshghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ..."
N. Light further explains:
"... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ..."
The actual Arabic statement of Kashghari is follows:
«الغزیة لما اختلطت بلفرس نسیت کثیراً من لغت الترک و استعملت الفارسیه مکانها ج.ا، شماره 73)
Translation:
The Ghuzz due having mixed with Persians(Iranians/Fars) have forgotten many Turkic words and use Persian words instead.

Taymas, Abdullah Battal. “Divan Lagait – Turk Tercumesi”, Turkiyat Mecmuasi, Cilt (XI), Istanbul. 1954, pg. 76”


default

You do not need massive

by Anonymous60 (not verified) on

You do not need massive immigration to induce linguistic shift. Check the various latin American countries like Mexico or how the India today has the largest number of English speakers. Unfortunately, Ben is trying to get involved in an area which he is not an expert. Given his rabid pro-Turkic nationalism mixed up with psuedo-scientific theories, the result is nothing but a poorly written artic.e


Ben Madadi

RE: Mr Jahan-Parvar

by Ben Madadi on

Sir, okay, I still don't fully understand what you disagree with. I don't know what exactly Mr Khodad has said that confirms what you have said. I am not a historian. I am not a linguist. I do not earn my living through any academic arena whatsoever. But you are writing that my paper qualifications cannot exceed yours. You don't know that.

You are, like your earlier comments, instead of focusing on whatever you first should have tried to convey, wasting my time too. Please for once say what you disagree with in the article! If you don't then I will just pass you on as an angry Iranian for some reason ;)

Where did you see I wrote the words you have mentioned: "hidden agenda", "cultural insensitivity", "chauvinistic tendencies" ??? What are you reading man? Please write what you see in SHORT as a problem in the article and leave my education alone because you don't know that. I am here to learn and to share what I think. But get to the point and chill out!


default

Good God!

by M. Jahan-Parvar (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi,

I said you are "undereducated", I never said you are "uneducated". You are not a historian, are you? You are not a linguist, are you? You do not earn your living through archeology, do you? Yet, you write about all these subjects, which is OK, but accuse the opposing views of having hidden agendas, cultural insensitivity, chauvinistic tendencies, ... . This is incorrect, this is wrong. In that sense, I am undereducated too. That is the reason why I am happy to see that Khodadad and I agree on everything, since he is qualified to address these issues as an expert.

I simply and clearly said what I disagree with. You did not bother to read them.

And I am really exasperated with your persistence on gnat picking on petty issues. No sir, education has nothing to do with the number or the level of degrees that you hold, but even in that case you can not exceed mine.


Ben Madadi

Re: Rostam-e-Dastan

by Ben Madadi on

I am trying to reply to people and I hope it will work, but it is difficult to answer someone who is a student, or anything, doesn't matter, and starts by saying using personal attacks. Anyway, that is not your case. I am only responding to names anyway, not knowing who the person is.

No science, no theory, no academic work is perfect. In the article I have clearly said that this is NOT scientific work, but my personal view. Why? Because in order to have scientific work you need to be in an academic environment and get your work accredited.

What I have written in the article (I am repeating myself again) is that I DOUBT, truly doubt, that the Turkification of Azerbaijan is anything but the result of mass migration of Turks to the area. Turks ruled the whole Iran, and the whole Ottoman Empire and many other palces and most of those areas are not Turkic now, though they were under Turkic domination. Azerbaijan and Anatolia became Turkic because Turkic populations mixed with indigenous locals and slowly and steadily the result has been a Turkic population. This does not mean, and my article does not say, that Azeris and Turks are nothing but the descendants of the migrating Turks. They are a mix. My article is about HOW these Caucasian peoples got Turkified. They got Turkified because Turkic peoples were truly numerous in the area. Very little research has been done in the field, and as you have mentioned the best we have is Kasravi with the very little possibilities and poor equipment of some 80 years ago. We should have had more research, but not for political purposes, but for the sake of science.


default

Mr Madadi, You need to

by Rostam-e-Dastan (not verified) on

Mr Madadi,
You need to accompany your claims with facts and provide references to high quality scientific work (poor quality scientific work with a political agenda does not count). Otherwise your theories would be without much merit. I suggest you refer to the work of experts in this field: Ahamd Kasravi has done extensive research in this area. He won numerous prestigious awards for his work on the Azari language. He is still the ultimate authority when it comes to language of Azarbaijan.


Ben Madadi

Re: Mr Jahan-Parvar

by Ben Madadi on

If I did not have your e-mails in my inbox I could not have remembered you. Your reply was to my article regarding the Aryan-ness of Iranians. But I also have e-mails in my inbox that I found. There I also saw that you are doing some things in an American univeristy because it was in the e-mail foot-note, and also the e-mail address. I still did not understand exactly and clearly what you did not agree with, which I did not see matching Mr Khodadad's comment. Instead of saying that I am an uneducated person you could have simply and clearly said what you did not agree with, and leave my education, which on paper may actually exceed yours. You don't know that. Anyway, thanks still for caring to comment!


default

Another note

by Mohammad Jahan-Parvar (not verified) on

Thank God that Khodadad, who is in fact a good historian, and yours truly agree on almost every single point raised. So I guess I have my facts right.

That said, Mr. Madadi you got it wrong again.

First please read a post before responding.

Second, tolerence has nothing to do with legitimate criticism.

Once you write something and post it for publication, the door is wide open for criticism. It has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. You are entitled to have ideas, but your ideas, once published, are absolutely fair game for criticism.

Not in a single point, I wrote that you should not write. What I said, and I stand by every single word of it, is that "please refrain from using suggestively negative language when it comes to discussing opposing views."

Then I see these two priceless pearls of wisdom: Responding to an almost full length refutation of your current article, and after telling you that privately I can provide accepted references for my claims, I get: "your messages thus far does not bring something that could change my mind." Great! This is truly the mindset of a modern man. I am struck speechless by the depth of your openness to new ideas. Ata boy!

Here comes the next: "What have they educated you with in the US?" Well, he answer is: they made sure that I won't write, reason, and judge like you do.

As a side effect, I also got a deep understanding of what to expect when I am wrong and insist on my faulty positions. Mr. Madadi, it was not pleasant, as it should stay that way.

For the record, this statement is also wrong: "first time we had e-mail exchange was because you were dissatisfied about an article of mine about Iranians' Aryan-ness" No sir! I posted a full length article refuting your post here on Iranian.com. There was no e-mail exchange.


default

Knowledge!

by G. Rahmanian (not verified) on

Mr. Reza Khani,

Your account of the historical events in response to Mr. Madadi's article were intriguing. Langugaes transform and Cultures are constantly impacted and there's no way stopping such processes.

However, as I recall, in one of your earlier articles you stated that Iranians who have migrated to the U.S.(California?) and drive Mercedes Benzes or BMWs are suffering from inferiority complex.

My question: How come with your knowledge of historical linguistic and cultural tranformations of various minority/ethnic groups you could not see a similar trend taking place within the Iranian immigrant communities in North America?

Our knowledge of socio-economic and cultural facts, whether historical or current, become more useful when we are capable of applying it to the state of affairs at hand, otherwise such knowledge becomes ineffectual and had better remain in the confines of librarires for the mere purpose of academic research.


Ben Madadi

Mr Rezakhani

by Ben Madadi on

Thanks for your comment! One can write and risk being interpreted, or not write staying perfect. I write and I get interpreted one way or the other. The problem, the REAL problem, is not I mixing up this or that, but something else. The real problem is that we should talk about issues and have good faith and open mind and not jump to all sorts of interpretations and misinterpretations. But it is inevitable anyway.


Ben Madadi

Mr Jahan-Parvar

by Ben Madadi on

I looked at my old stuff and I do remember you now. The first time we had e-mail exchange was because you were dissatisfied about an article of mine about Iranians' Aryan-ness. You were unhappy that I showed doubt about Iranians being Aryans. You study, or do something similar, in an American university. What have they educated you with in the US? Mr Jahan-Parvar, I think for the sake of your own level of education, which you believe is beyond mine, you may also learn from your fellow univeristy cooleagues some tolerance. Regards!


Khodadad Rezakhani

Ethnicity, race, language, migration, and change

by Khodadad Rezakhani on

The problem is, like many, you have mixed these concepts up. So, despite all sorts of research, your look into the sources and evidence can be as easily clouded or unclear. Talking of race is useless, no one is anything racially that can really be traced. Persian speaking Iranians are as much (or little) "Aryan" as anyone else in this country. Ethnicity, then, is not race, and saying that Azeri's are ethnically Turks does not mean that they are not racially the same as the rest of the Iranians, and as such, for sure, they have lived in where they are living now for thousands of years! Then, language is not an indication of race. If the Americans speak English, that does not make them English, or better yet, try telling an Austrian that he is German because he spekas German! Then, language change is hardly a matter of "forcing" people, rather often a function of political, but even more economic and social domination. Turkic speakers have had much presence in Iran since the time of the Seljuks (around 1000 years) and they have been in an around Iran since the time of the Sasanians. Their prominence in Azerbaijan also dates from the late Seljuk times (so before the Mongols, which is the misguided usual Iranian view). They have also been quite active economically and intellectually. So, not amazing that slowly, Turkish language took over the region. The process is alive and progressing: 100 years ago, barely anyone east of Qazvin spoke Turkish. Now, check out the rural areas between Saveh and Takestan and you will see that almost everyone speaks Turkish. Even more interesting, the Turkish domination has not been absolute outside the urban areas (which is often where linguistic shifts happen). There are still villages around Khalkhal and Ardabil with Tati speakers, as well as rather large communities in the former Soviet Azerbaijan. So, I see no problems with this vision of Azerbaijan: people of Azerbaijan, like the rest of the Iranians, are native population of that area and a mixture of many "races" (aryan, kassite, kadusian, Urartan, Guti, and maybe even Assyrian). Around 1000 years ago, various Turkic tribes which moved to the Iranian plateau gained political and economic prominence in Azerbaijan. This initiated a language shift in the area which was at times strengthened by other factors and still continues today. Along with language came other beautiful elements of ethnicity, including music, fables, myths, and lore. This is what we call the Turkish Azeri culture and is among the many cultures of Iran.


default

To really understand turks

by Nader Vanaki (not verified) on

If you want to understand turks just watch this:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlIleRtbx_A&feature...

then you will understand why people make so many jokes about them.


Ben Madadi

RE: Mr Jahan-Parvar

by Ben Madadi on

Sir, I still don't remember who you are, but that is okay. You could have been a better person to exchange ideas with in case you used words such as 'uneduated' less and more get to the point. This style of attacking (for what?) is not productive. If you think you know more than me, that's okay. You may know some thing more than me. You may be more educated than me altogether. I am pleased you are trying to educate me.

I presented my view above and your messages thus far does not bring something that could change my mind. Maybe it changes other people's minds. The other issue is that the truth is not known for sure. Many people also say that Oghuz Turks were Caucasian-looking even before their mass appearance in the Middle East. You say that large numbers come from agriculture. I doubt that is something historically proved. The Netherlands has been a very populous country (compared to the size) due to the simple fact that theykept animals (mostly cows), and sold the meat, and bought other stuff from neighbouring areas. That could have well been the case for the Turks of Iran and Anatolia.


default

Mr. Madadi Please !What is the PURPOSE of "A Personal View"?

by Nima (not verified) on

If you want to educate us then write something that is historically true and documented.If you want to write about your "Personal" view then tackle something like reviewing a movie or something nonhistoric.We all love Iran and Iranians of all background.Bring them all together rather than trying to divide them.


default

My statement

by Mohammad Jahan-Parvar (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi,

When I say you are poorly educated, I am not joking. I am dead serious :) You prove it every time you write. My dear friend, central asian nomads were never numerous. Even Aryan tribes who migrated to Iran were never the majority. Nomads can not produce large numbers of people. That comes with agriculture and a stable food supply. Language adoption had and still has everything to do with terms of trade between groups and political power.

Eurasian nomads (from Aryan-speaking Medes, Persians, Parthians, and Scythians to Altaic speaking Huns, Khazars, Tunguz, Turks and Mongols) owed their supremacy to their mobility and horsemanship, the fact that they could deploy noticable numbers of well trained cavalry (the battle tanks of ancient world), and after the conquest to the important economic fact that by raising very large numbers of animals their produce of meat and diary products was relatively more valuable than grains that sedentary populations produce. While grains are less valuable unit for unit compared to meat, they support large populations. Sheep and goat herding in a tent does not. But it produces a means for trade.

In an insider-outsider model of social interaction, it is economically beneficial to learn the language of the militarily dominant and meat-and-diary producing nomads, hence language adoption in Azarbaijan and Anatolia. But nomads were not an important contributor to the genetic pool in either Anatolia or in Iran and Caucasus region, as is shown by multiple genetic studies.

The military dominance came to an end by the introduction of fire arms and economic comparative advantage came to an end by modern technology (by 16-17 century standards). Nomads have been in retreat ever since, and nomadic lifestyle is now a relic of the past. So, yes, your assertion is wrong. It is probably just language adoption, mass migration probably never contributed much. Your inability or unwillingness to learn, well, what should I say?


programmer craig

To Ben

by programmer craig on

I have some serious problems with this theory's validity, and also a
more serious problem about the reasons behind the active propagation of
it, in the past and today.

Me too. I recall a similar (but unrelated) encounter I had with an Iranian "amatuer anthropologist" in e-mail a couple of years ago. He had reversed the migration patterns of many ancient Indo-Iranian peoples to show that they all originated in Iran, left Iran, and then at some point returned to Iran centuries later. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it made him feel better to think of those groups as "coming home" when they enterred Iran, than to see them as invaders and conquerors. I find it bizarre when people do things like this. It's very reminiscent of Hitlers's theories about Germanic peoples.

It seems very likely to me that Turkic peoples migrated from Asia to
the Middle East at some point in time. Views differ on this too and
some, even within some academic circles, have said that Turkic people
resided in the Middle East for thousands of years.

I thought we knew more about the origins of Turkic peoples than this? My understanding has always been that they came from "Eurasia" (Central Asia) and that they expanded their holdings in all directions until somebody stopped them - which wouldn't be an unusual migration pattern for a militarily powerful group. They made their way into Russia, China, and Middle East including present day Turkey. I don't think they were ever Asiatic looking - there are Turkic tribes in China right now who don't even look Asiatic.

You mentioned the Huns... it's very true that we know very little about the Huns. Theories have changed many times even during my lifetime, and still nobody has definitive answers. I've never thought of Turkic people as being as poorly understood as the Huns. Maybe I need to do some amatuer anthroplogy of my own. It's a fun hobby, anyway :)

 


Ben Madadi

RE: Mr Jahan-Parvar

by Ben Madadi on

Sir, maybe I know you. You know me and you say that we have had exchanges. Then it may have happened, but I don't recall.

Anyway, I didn't exactly understand what you disagreed with but I noticed some sense of anger or hate for some reason, making me uneducated etc tec.

One is to say that the population of Azerbaijan was LINGUISTICALLY TURKIFIED, and the other is to say that it was a natural process of population mix as a result of mass migration. I have studied the sources you refer too as well. But many Iranian official sources very popular among many Iranians to this date say that ONLY the language has changed, and in my article I said that the langauge alone could not have possibly been changed/imposed, but the transformation must have been the result of migration, and the indigenous locals being outnumbered became Turkic in time.


default

What is the point?

by Parviz1 (not verified) on

What is the point of your article? You even use wrong word for 80 in Azari.

Iranians speak different dialects in addition to speaking Persian. I speak four dialects and languages within Iran myself. I never think where these came from. I happened to live in locations where these languages and/or dialects are spoken.

Iran has welcomed many ethnicities which have brought their own differences to Iran. Iranians love Iran first, other things come after that.

These sorts of articles can be divisive in a time when the neo-cons and other enemies are attacking Iranians and Iran.


default

Mr. Madadi, We have

by Mohammad Jahan-Parvar (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi,

We have exchanged ideas for the last two years, often but not always in disagreement. With all due respect, I have to reiterate what I mentioned two years ago again. You are entitled to your ideas, but since you are vow fully undereducated, please refrain from using suggestively negative language when it comes to discussing opposing views.

I have never seen a source which suggests the present turkic language was "introduced" to Azarbaijan and Caucasian Albania (the modern republic of Azarbaijan) between 200 to 500 years ago. What is generally mentioned is that Azari Turkish became the “dominant” language on both sides of Aras River in the last 500 years.

The absolute majority of reliable and peer reviewed/corrected historical sources mention that people who spoke Turkic languages did not cross the Oxus River in large numbers and into Iranic speaking territories until after 650 CE. There is no evidence of significant settlement of Turkic speaking people in Azarbaijan or southern Caucasus prior to 11th century CE. This is the date when Seljuk tribesmen appeared in the area of Lake Van in what is now modern Turkey and was then Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). That area was largely Armenian speaking until the massacres of 1915 (otherwise known as Armenian genocide) as attested by numerous documents and travelogues. The official, administrative, and commercial language of the Byzantine Empire was Greek. There were large numbers of Greek speaking populations living in Anatolia and Pontic coast (Turkey’s Black Sea) area until Greek-Turkish war in 1922 and the subsequent population exchange. Anatolia was turkified in a period of almost 1000 years, slowly and gradually, following the battle of Menzikert which weakened the Byzantine power and opened the Anatolian heartland to settling Turkish tribesmen. Azarbaijan followed a similar path. The native population in the area slowly adopted a Turkic language over a period between 11th and 19th centuries. By the time of Shah Ismail, the area had a “majority” of Turkic speakers, hence the references that you see. If you want, I can provide academic references for every statement made here. You on the other hand, would not be able to provide anything reliable. People active in this debate already know the resources and their value.

I do not recall any talk of “forcing” a language change from the Iranic Azari or Albanian to the current Turkic languages. But there is a mountain of evidence of a slow process of “adoption” and voluntary change in post Seljuk and especially Ilkhanid period. You are talking a bout a period of 500 years here. And this notion is supported by a parallel event which was unfolding in the neighboring area, Anatolia. There also Turkic languages were supplanting Greek, Armenian, Cappadocian, and other local languages.

There exists a rich literary repository of both ancient Azeri and Albanian history and documentation in the ancient; Indo-European languages of the region. In case of Caucasian Albania, we still have a large body of work in church liturgical literature and for Azarbaijan in coinage, poetry, and histories written in ancient Azari. Very recently, the correction and documentation of an important source, “Safine-ye-Tabriz” was completed in Tehran and Tabriz universities.

Mr. Madadi, your personal observations are based on a very limited sample. Also I do not see any evidence of systemic processing of facts in your writing. Bluntly put, what I see is an agenda to demonstrate a contrarian’s view to textbooks of Pahlavi era, which argued that current population of Azarbaijan are not central Asian immigrants in some point in past history but they are local population who have adopted a non-Iranian language (as in Iranic language family) some five centuries ago.

Your problem is that regardless of real or assumed sins of Pahlavi dynasty and administration, and I am personally not a fan of many of these policies and especially of the autocratic style of Phalavi monarchs, the bulk of historical evidence supports what was written in those textbooks. For better or for worse, they have history on their side. Read your history, and then write about it. And please don’t point fingers while uttering innuendoes and implicit threats to your potential intellectual adversaries.

One issue remains and it needs to be addressed right now: history is about past events. The population of Azarbaijan adopted a variant of Turkish language 500 years ago. And Iran is all the more diverse and beautiful for this event. Five hundred years is a long time. Today, right now, close to a quarter of Iranians speak Azari Turkish. There are many other ethnic minorities in Iran besides Azaris, and they have certain linguistic rights including teaching their language and culture besides the official Persian language to their children, publishing in their ethnic language, and recognition for their cultural diversity. To put it kindly, Iran and Iranians have a long way to go in this regard.

But I strongly do not believe that making half-baked statements based on bad or outright fraudulent history-making is the way to gain what is the birthright of our compatriots.


default

Hungary and a comment on ethnic nationalism

by Phil LaDouceur (not verified) on

Just a couple minor quibbles: First, Hungary was not settled by the Huns, but rather by the Magyars in the ninth century, which is also what they call their own country. But Europeans have never been good at keeping track of people in the East (for example, Late Roman writers calling the Abbasid Caliph 'Parthian').

Second, the whole idea of ethnic nationalism is something we have to thank a bunch of 19th century philologists. (Tolkien was a philologist; Lord of the Rings has that weird, ugly undercurrent of racism in it because of that background.) Any talk of 'well, two hundred years ago, these people spoke this language, so they are really *our* people' is just a modern way of legitimizing policy. The same way Alexander claimed he was avenging Athens by attacking the Achaemenids in order to legitimize his empire grabbing, modern states use dubious claims of historic ethnicity to legitimize their often repressive policies.

Because really, how far back do you want to go? At least some of the people in Turkey have to be descended from the Greek speaking population. The city of Nicea, if I remember correctly, surrendered en masse to the Ottomans, and converted to Islam. Othman's right hand man was a Greek border man who'd converted to Islam.

Incidentally, there are still a few hundred thousand Greek speaking Muslims in Turkey on the Black Sea, because when Greece and Turkey split they're populations, the division was made on religious rather than ethnic or linguistic grounds.

But go back further--there was a sizable *Celtic* speaking population in Asia Minor. Would that mean that Ireland has some obligation to help 'fellow Celts' who may have been 'linguistically Turkified'? Obviously, no.

I think the simple answer to a lot of these questions is to simply ask the people involved how *they* identify themselves. But we can't have simple answers, because it involves land, and every government knows they have to hold on to what they have, because they aren't making any more of it. So we have repression and wars, sadly.

Okay, so maybe that second one wasn't such a minor quibble. :-)

But I'm really happy I found this site the other day. I'm looking forward to reading it in the future.


Ben Madadi

David...

by Ben Madadi on

I studied some similar cases of dramatic changes in Europe and the Middle East and found none to be the result of force or change only in the language. They were all the result of migration. And even migration usually took a very long time, but nevertheless it was possible to have a dramatic change even within 2-3 hundred years because of mass migration, just as it happened in America and probably even in Britain (maybe it took longer in Britain). About the looks or race (Asiatic or Caucasian) of Azeri or Turkish speakers of some 1000 years ago I am not so sure. As the other comment suggested it may have already taken place before the massive migration westwards 800-1200 years ago!!


David ET

Thank you

by David ET on

Dear Ben

Thank you for the informative article. 

I never have studied this but I always presumed this was primarily a lingusitic integration and some racial integration which started about 1000 years ago (Seljuq dynasty). Was I far off ?

a 1/2 Azeri


Ben Madadi

Thanks for the Rashid Behbudov song!

by Ben Madadi on

He was a treasure, a true artist!


default

Azarbaidjan......

by KavehV (not verified) on

Ben,

I agree with your premise that the Turkic language/culture could not have been imposed in those areas within the last 500 years. What happened 500 years ago was the ascendancy of the first Turkic dynasty in Iran, which means the Turkic migration into Iranian plateau was already complete at the time of Safavids. There is no question that the migration took a few centuries to complete. There is evidence that Turkic tribes migration to the west started as early as 200-300BC (I apologize for lack of reference on this since it has been many years since I looked into this). Also, the Turkic tribes were quite dispersed in Siberia and central Asian homelands before their west ward migration. My recollection was (and I could be wrong) that the mass migration really took place after the Mongol invasion (~1200AD) which paved the way for them. This provides a window of about 400 years for the bulk of these migrations, from ~1200AD (Mongol invasion) to ~1600 AD, the rise of Safavids.

The other issue is the racial composition of these tribes. These tribes may not have become caucasoid through interactions on Iranian plateau only. In their central Asian homeland, especially those tribes on the western edges of their homeland, provided ample time and opportunity for interaction with European caucasoid tribes to produce the modern Azari (Oghus) people. So, you could still classify Azaris as Turkic speaking caucasoids, but this classification pre-dates their migration into Iranian plateau.

Regards,
Non-Azari Hamvatan

Enjoy:
//www.youtube.com/v/uYDXDsMAuIY&rel=1
//www.youtube.com/v/Ia8zcOZa3OI&rel=1