ETHNIC

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:
//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:
//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

Don't try to play the game

Don't try to play the game of innocent victim, you have consistently written racist-based anti-Iranian garbage, trying to present it as facts. What's interesting is even when facts are presented to you (and by references from numerous different sources, and from different nations). You still try to put a spin on the truth and stick to your racist anti-Iranian ideology.

As for you being given the lime-light, that's a fact also (why are your comments not shown under the Blog Section? someone chooses which comments go under the Blog Section, and which ones are shown as a major commentary). Lie and spin facts, that's all individuals like you are all about.

language and race

I did some research on this -- Iranians spoke Arabic for 200 years -- bet you didnt know that? The farsi language was preserved in the courts of Kings in EAST Iran. Khorasan. So today Farsi is spoken as far as central asia, where as in west Iran people continued to speak Kurdish(original language) and Azeri(language of Turkic invaders). Also there is a racial element. Iranians are mixed race -- a lot of Iranians -- like Pakistanis -- have soft eyes. (hehehe) -- this is the contribution from central asia. Armenians and Kurds are descendents of the original Aryan inhabitants of the area.

Saadi (he has an Arabic name I believe) wrote "Dokhtare Torke shirazi" (Tork = white skin).

My 2 pennies.
(refugee)

Welcome back Vahraz!

You see, there two sides of the matter. Iranian Azeris (or Turks) are quite numerous, so it is not something strange to write about them, and I am not doing it often enough I guess ;)

The other thing is that I love my Azerbaijani heritage, language, culture, music etc, so in case some people dislike me because I talk about these issues, then it is not actually my problem. I believe in an Iran where you can preserve your own values, not in an Iran where if you speak about your values you are going to be attacked and insulted. But you see, there are enough people who are on this side, where they attack people like me. They don't even read the article to see where they disagree, they simply attack because I don't write glorifying the pre-Islamic Persian Empire. Anyway! You are yourself a Zoroastrian Iranian, and you are indeed a much true minority, religion-wise or ethnic-wise, than me. But I respect you identity too. You may be a convert, or you may be one of those originally Zoroastrian Iranians who are very few in numbers in Iran. In order to have a tolerant and free society we need to respect each other and act on good faith ;) This goes for all of us.

Enough Racial Division

First of all, almost every Azeri Iranian that I know considers himself / herself a proud Iranian first, even though they preserve their very rich and unique culture (as they should). Second, Ethnic Turks in Iran (with the exception of the Qajar disaster, which in and of itself was a creature of the collective culture and events of that era in Iran) have contributed greatly to the Iranian culture.

Lastly, I'm going to quote Ben:

"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?"

I agree!! Why DO you have to constantly talk about "Azeri" as if it is some separate phenomenon from the Iranian nation? You don't see a Beluchi or a Lor raising these arguments on Iranian.com on regular basis like you do. You are obsessed with this issue.

There is no such thing as a pure race. It just does not exist, and anyone who thinks like that should also belive in Santa Claus. There are, however, differences in culture, and the greatness of Iran lies in its acceptance of these different cultures and the coexistence of these various groups of people in peace (for the most parts) for thousands of years.

Why?!?!

Why am I given this room indeed???? Jahanshah, you remember the last time I sent you a huge check? You told me that I will get one article per 5 days and I have only been getting one article per 6 days. You think that is okay? I am going to cut the future ckecks, one zero off :))

Hehehe... Jahanshah I hate you so much =))

Jahanshah, I hate you :p

Just kidding JJ! I will only cut a small percentage, not a zero :p

And why is someone like you

And why is someone like you given the benefit to consistently post such incorrect racist-based commentaries as a major article at Nothing is Sacred Iranian . com , and not under its blogs sections? why are you given so much room? Have you heard of the Israeli-American Brenda Schaefer (professor at Harvard?)? she too (supposedly) is very concerned for the interests of "Southern AzErbaijan", and out of the goodness of her heart of course (!). She too, is in the fiction-telling business (trying very hard to present it as an unbiased truth, just like you).

...

It is often better to ignore the comments section and not engage in responding because I am responding to anonymous after anonymous and they pop out here and there and it become simpractical. And anonymous-this says that anonymous-that is right and anonymous-she approves that anonymous-he. This is a huge problem preventing a civilised and orderly discussion here. And I agree, I unintentionally misread "undereducated" and I appologise to Mr Jahan-Parvar for that. He (and everyone else) is always welcome to become registered and comment on my articles.

Ben Madadi who owns your Ass Now

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7O_gC4m_s&feature...

Origins of Azeri Turks

Mr. Ben Madadi,

Please accept my congratulations because you are on the right route of research. Your logic is much more better than that of all those politically biased pseudo-historians referred to in the comments of your opponents.

Don't hesistate to proceed with your research.

Best wishes,

Patriot

Ya Madadi Ben Turk eh !!!!

After reading your article on your “personal view” and the discussions here, it’s apparent that you have been scientifically and rationally proven wrong by overwhelming amount of evidence and reasoning put forward by quite a few. But you are still insisting on your unjustified “personal views”, and since it is "your" personal view, therefore you are right. That in itself shows that saying you are undereducated is a huge understatement, clearly what you misunderstood from that claim as “uneducated” was probably a more accurate description. Not only you do not have much factual knowledge on the subject and keep arguing pointlessly just for the sake of arguing, it is clear that the education you claim you have received and have a piece of paper as proof for it, did not teach you much on rational thinking or logical reasoning. What a waste, if I were you , I would demand a refund on what you paid for that education.

To Ali (anonymous 848)

I hope you don't mind going further with the chat ;)

Still the problem remains, at least for me, HOW did the area Azerbaijan become Turkified. I mean how was it practically possible? You see, there are theories saying that Oghuz Turks may have already been mixes, or even completely Caucasian-looking when they migrated to Azerbaijan. Turkmen of Turkmenistan are a mix too, so are the Uzbek, but it is pretty clear that they were Asiatic back in time. This is of little importance now anyway. But how do you see it as practical that people turned Turkic? My belief is that at some point they outnumbered the rest at least in one of the areas in Azerbaijan, and then started absorbing other peoples from the surrounding areas, being the largest ethnic group. Those who have political power but have no, or few, presence in one area are not able to change the language of the inhabitants. For instance, as you well know, although the Safavid and the Qajar were originally Turkic and had Turk soldiers, they did not cause the local populations to turn Turkic. However Turks still advanced toward the east, near Qazvin, even became very numerous in Saveh, simply by their natural process, and not through any political influence. The same happened quite recently in Astara and more to the south in Gilan. It was nothing to do with politics but a natural process.

Mr. Madadi

Mr. Madadi,

You need growing up like you need salvation. Since you dismiss me as a "mere" student, I assume that you are older than I am. Act like an adult then. I have posted my name, and I do not hide behind lame psodynims. Own up to what you say, I do. I have enough integrity to say what I need to say. The fact that you consider someone who liked my replies as me posting under a different name speaks volumes of your level of personal integrity.

Also, it is not my problem that you have difficulty understanding and processing texts and information. I am not confused, but you seem to be. After all these discussions, you do seem to be bitter, mule headed, uncouth, rather provincial, and yes, uneducated. Since you mentioned in one of your earlier posts that you live in the UK, please go out and socialize. Does you a world of good to hang out with normal people.

My time is more valuable to continue this thread. Good day to you sir.

To Ben Yes I have gathered

To Ben

Yes I have gathered up all these sources. Specially with regards to Turkish racial features in Persian poetry. Then I found out that late Professor Schimmel agrees:
"The Turks were considered as beautifull as the moon, even though he might be cruel. Soon the Turkish type of beauty became prominent both in pictures and in poetical description: a round face with a narrow eyes and minute mouth"(Annemarrie Schimmel, A two-color brocade: The imagery of Persian poetry).

So if Turks were in Iran in large numbers, then Azeris would have to look like Turkomens. It is afterall Turkomens that speak the purer Oghuz language.

Anyhow per your question and theories. The number of spanish conquerers that came to Mexico was even smaller than the number of Turks that arrived in Azerbaijan. 90% of Mexico do not look Spanish but 90% speak Spanish. Anyhow, we are at the stage where genetic studies can answer some of these questions.
On Turkey for example.
"Another important replacement occurred in Turkey at the end of the eleventh century, when Turks began attacking the Byzantine Empire. They finally conqured Constantinopole (modern Istanbul) in 1453. The replacement of Greek with Turkish was especially significant because this language belongs to a different family—Altaic. Again the genetic effects of invasion were modest in Turkey. Their armies had few soldiers and even if they sometimes traveled with their families, the invading populations would be small relative to the subject populations that had along civilization and history of economic development. After many generations of protection by the Roman Empire, however, the old settles had become complacent and lost their ability to resit the dangerous invaders”(Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza , in “Genes, People and Languages”, 2000, pg 152).

You do not need a large population for a military conquest. Specially if the military conquerers are all warriors and the majority of the conquered population are Dehqans and city dwellers.
Note the status of Persian at one time in India (even Brahmins knew it) or the status of English now in India ( India has the largest English speaking country in the world).

Let me reiterate that what we have in Tati from Tabriz is called by these sources as "Zaban-e-Tabriz" (language of Tabriz).
See for example Abdul Qadir Maraqhi (lived in the 14th century)
and
Safineyeh Tabriz:
//www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/Ashraf...
//www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/zabank...

They mention specifically "Zaban-e Tabriz".
So from the Seljuqids all the way to the end of the Ilkhanids, the major cities of Azerbaijan were not Turkish. Between the Ilkhanid to Safavids it is harder to judge, but my analysis indicates that the tide was in favor of Iranic languages.

So the Safavids were a major component of Turkification of Azerbaijan:
//www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/26.pdf

Major cities have always had one language, since they absorb immigrants and immigrants lose their language in one or two generations. So at least in the Ilkhanid era, that is the 13th/14th century, Tabriz had Iranic dialect.
Same with Maragheh as mentioned by Hamdullah Mustawafi. These were the TWO MAJOR cities of Azerbaijan. Hamdullah Mustawafi brings sentences in what he calls the language of Tabriz. He also ays Maragheh speaks Pahlavi (which is vernacular Iranic dialect). Ibn Bazzaz also narrates sentences in the language of Tabriz and Ardabil, again around 1350 or so. Now the Ottomon traveller, Awliya Chelebi mentions the majority of the women in Maragheh speak Pahlavi. That is in the 16th/17th century. So you really can not doubt all these proofs. Indeed the only poet I can recognize that has written Turkish before the Safavids from Azerbaijan is Shah Qasim Anvar. But he also has a Gilaki poem (very rare for someone to know this language and so he was not probably of Turkic origin) and many authors attribute his Turkish poem to his travels in the Timurid realm.

Another indicator is that these areas practiced Shafi'ite Sunnism. Note Hanafism and Turks went hand in hand.

C.E. Boswroth brings an interesting praise of the Seljuqs by their Persian historian, Rawandi. “The Persian historian of the Saljuqs, Rawandi, dedicated his
Rahat al-sudur to one of the Saluq Sultans of Rum, Ghiyath al-Din Kay Khusraw,
and speaks of a hatif, a hidden, supernatural voice, which spoke from the Ka'ba in Mecca to the Imam Abu Hanifa and promised him that as long as the sword remained in the hands of the Turks, his faith (sc. that of the Hanafi madhhab) would not perish. Rawandi himself adds the pious doxology, "Praise be to God, He is exalted, that the defenders of Islam are mighty and that the followers of the Hanafi rite are happy and In the lands of the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines and Russians, the words is in the hand of the Turks,
and fear of their sword is firmly implanted in all hearts!””.

But we know Azerbaijan was Shafi'i land and Shams Tabrizi, Shaykh Mahmud Shabistari and the author of Safinayeh Tabrizi etc. were all Shafi'ites like the Tats of Khalkhal, Kurds of Azerbaijan and Turkey, half of the Talysh population in Iran and the Persian speakers of Larestan. It is almost impossible to find Shafi'ism spread amongst Turks in history in any noticeable number.

So as long as Azerbaijan was a Sunni Shafi'ite land, it was also a Iranic speaking land. And that is the reason someone like me pushes the the turning point for Turkification was the Safavid era (along with the all evidence I mentioned). And I note again that none of the Kizilbash tribes were natives of Iran and their version of Oghuz Turkish is exactly the one in Azerbaijan. So I consider the Safavids at the turning point.

RE: Houshyar

Is Mr Jahan-Parvar turned someone else now, or... doesn't matter! Okay, as long as I started to reply to people, I will reply to all. Jahan-Parvar should have clearly said what his view is about the subject matter. I still do not understand exactly what he disagreed with. He wrote that I said things about chauvinsitic tendencies etc etc about him? He was either day-dreaming, or dreaming one way or the other, or talking to someone else and having confused me. I expect from someone who is studying in an American university to show a better attitude in his conversation. I am still looking forward to see what he disagreed with. Or maybe he simply didn't like me. What the hell...

RE: Anonymous848

I think I know your style. Ali Doostzadeh? ;)
I know about these sources too. I am not that un or under educated, but I can NEVER find sources when I need to, or remember them exactly, because my field of activity is far too different from these things. Okay, let's go to the issues you brought up.
The poetry that are written in an Iranic language that we call Tati and are found in Iranian Azerbaijan are a strong indication that the inhabitants were not almost exclusively Turkic as they are not (at least in more central areas) but as you very well know Turkic peoples were nomadic and they did not all settle at once. They still may have had huge numbers but they did not WRITE much, which does not mean they did not have poetry etc, which they had. They did not have a tradition of writing, as Persians did. About Maraghe being Pahlavi speakers 300-400 years ago I profoundly doubt it, whoever may have written that. But it is not impossible. Pahlavi speakers should have already been on the disappearing side by then. The Ottoman guy may have got it wrong! I don't know for sure.
Okay, let's look at Mexico. Why is Mexico a Spanish-speaking country now? We know that there were no Spaniods in the area some 500 years ago. After the Spanish went there, who was more numerous, the Spanish, or the indigenous population? The Spanish became more numerous, right? And they absorbed almost everyone else, either through marriages, or in time simply because of being more numeorus. The same happened in Azerbaijan, but much earlier.
In Azerbaijan (Republic, I guess) Talysh speakers are around Astara mostly and I think they are lss than 5% but this is a bit outside the discussion.
I read the rest. Interesting read, and it confirms my idea that Turks were originally Asiatic-looking.
But, in case it was not because Turkic peoples were more numerous in Azerbaijan and Anatolia how did the areas become Turkic? How could it have happened? Was it because after the Seljuq Turks were politically powerful and people changed language because the RULERS were Turkic. How could this happen practically? If Turks were not in huge numbers how could they over-take the original inhabitants and turn them into Turks?

Mr. Jahan-Parvar is rather too kind ...

Salaam Ben,
.
Mr. Jahan-Parvar made it clear why he had labeled you "undereducated".
.
He also criticized (correctly again, it appears) your hasty replies to criticism. (You managed to misread "undereducated" as "uneducated", in this one instance, as if proof was needed ...)
.
Simply put, I believe Mr. Jahan-Parvar (very politely) highlighted the apparent lack of the necessary mastery of facts and methodologies required for a discourse on your elected subject matter.
.
& That you nevertheless chose to do so repeatedly is the likely explanation for the less kind and thoughtful responses to the same.
/& salaam

best way to show the degree

best way to show the degree of Turkic DNA influence is to study Tati speakers of Khalkhal, Harzand and Takestan. Then take samples from Turkomens and Turks of Turkey and see if Azeris are closer to the Khakhal , Harzand , Takestani Tats or to the Turks of Turkey and Turkomens of Iran and Turkomenistan. The reason I mention these groups is that Turkomens, Turks of Turkey and Azeris speak languages of the Oghuz family.
My guess is that Azeris will be a lot closer DNA wise to tats of Khalkhal, harzand and Takestan.

Most people in and around Baku

Actually many people in and around Baku used to speak Tati (Persian) 200 years ago. Here are two sources:
Abbas Qoli Agha Bakikhanov, a 19th century literary figure from the Caucus mentions in his Golestan Aram large number of Tats in the area around Baku:
درصفحه‌ 18 كتاب‌ مذكور آمده‌ است‌: هشت‌ قريه‌ در طبرسران‌ كه‌ جلقان‌ و روكال‌ و مقاطير و كماخ‌ و زيديان‌ و حميدي‌ و مطاعي‌ و بيلحدي‌ باشد، در حوالي‌ شهري‌ كه‌ انوشيروان‌ در محل‌ متصل‌ به‌ دربند تعمير كرده‌ بود و آثار آن‌ هنوز معلوم‌ است‌، زبان‌ تات‌ دارند. ايضا" در صفحه‌ 19 كتاب‌ ياد شده‌ آمده‌ است‌: محالات‌ واقع‌ در ميان‌ بلوكين‌شماخي‌ و قديال‌ كه‌ حالا شهر قبه‌ است‌، مثل‌ حوض‌ و لاهج‌ و قشونلو در شيروان‌ و برمك‌ و شش‌ پاره‌ و پايين‌ بدوق‌ در قبه‌ و تمام‌ مملكت‌ باكو سواي‌ شش‌ قريه‌ ي‌ تراكمه‌، همين‌زبان‌ تات‌ را دارند... قسم‌ قربي‌ مملكت‌ قبه‌ سواي‌ قريه‌ ي‌ خنالق‌ كه‌ رباني‌ عليحده‌ دارد و ناحيه‌ ي‌ سموريه‌ و كوره‌ دو محال‌ طبرسران‌ كه‌ دره‌ و احمدلو مي‌باشند به‌ اصطلاحات‌منطقه‌، زبان‌ مخصوص‌ دارند و اهالي‌ ترك‌ زبان‌ را مغول‌ مي‌نامند.

For example on Tats:
“In the nineteenth century the Tats were settled in large homogeneous groups. The intensive processes of assimilation by the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanis cut back the territory and numbers of the Tats. In 1886 they numbered more than 120,000 in Azerbaijan and 3,600 in Daghestan. According to the census of 1926 the number of Tats in Azerbaijan (despite the effect of natural increase) had dropped to 28,500, although there were also 38,300 "Azerbaijanis" with Tat as their native language.”(World Culture Encyclopedia: “Tats”, //www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/T... accessed Dec, 2007).

Thus actually large number of Kurds,Talysh, Tats were assimilated only in the caucus. In Azerbaijan (that is the historic region of Iran), several steps were responsible:
Seljuq invasion
Khwarizmshah invasion
Mongol invasion
subsequent turkomen/mongol dynasties (black/white sheeps, Chopanids, Jalayerids)
Safavids (who were actually originally of Iranian stock and Kurdish).

I think the era from 550-400 years was key. Since 700 years ago we have Safineyeh Tabrizi, Hamdullah Mustawafi, Mama Esmat Tabrizi, Maghrebi Tabrizi, Homam Tabrizi, Pir Zehtab Tabrizi showing Tabriz, the most important city in Azerbaijan was Iranic speaking.

So I think saying Turkish was forced is not wrong since most of the Shafi'ite Sunni region of Azerbaijan was Iranic speaking until when Safavids and Kizilbash tribes transformed it into a Shi'i turcophone region.

So the Seljuqs and even Mongols, if we look at the Safineyeh Tabrizi, did not have an effect on the major cities.

Thanks. What is important

Thanks. What is important is to speak with facts so we can get a better understanding of the issue.

But we do have Tati poetry from Mama Esmat Tabrizi, Pir Zehtab Tabrizi and etc. during the Aq-Qoyunlu era. Also Ottomon traveller Awlya Chelebi (16th/17th century) says most of the women in Maragheh speak Pahlavi. I agree with the other anonymous, Mexico is a good example. 90% of the population speaks Spanish and 10% native. Very similar to approximately the 5% of Azerbaijan that speak Tati/Talyshi still.

The Seljuqs were soon able to overrun Khorasan and then to sweep into the remainder of Persia. We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the G̲h̲aznawid historian Bayhaḳī as present on the battle field of Dandānḳān (Taʾrīk̲h̲-i Masudi , ed. Ghani and Fayyāḍ, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khorasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). (Seljuqs in Encyclopedia of Islam)

Note the number is very small.

Here is a picture of Seljuqid prince:

//content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b...

So the Seljuqs were not caucasoid.
I would also look at genetic studies with regards to Turkey. They say that the Turkish genes and inflow from Central Asia are small.

Anyhow the Safavids were a dominant reason for the Turkification of Azerbaijan since the previous people of Azerbaijan had Shaf'ite Sunni Madh-hab (like Kurds and many Talysh do). Turks have been followers of Hanafites. The Safavids brought lots of Alevi/Kizilbash type turkomens from Syria, Rome and Anatolia. That is why they are called Rumlu, Zulqadr, Shamlu and etc.

You must remember the Turks that came from Central Asia already mixed heavily with Iranians, since central Asia itself spoke Sogdian, Alanian, Chorasmian languages. That is why Mahmud Kashgari (an eastern turk) does not consider Oghuz Turks as proper Turks due to their mixing with Iranians (even before the turkification of Azerbaijan).

Note what Persian poets say about Turks (even Hafez in the 14th century). They describe Turks as Mongloid not Caucasoid.

حافظ:
به تنگ چشمي ان ترك لشكري نازم**************كه حمله بر من درويش يك قبا آورد

نظامي:
سرآينده ترك با چشم تنگ**************فروهشته گيسو به گيسوي چنگ

مولوي:
ترك خنديدن گرفت از داستان**********چشم تنگش گشت بسته آن زمان

مولوي:
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

سنايي غزنوي:

مي نبيند آن سفيهاني كه تركي كرده اند****همچو چشم تنگ تركان گور ايشان تنگ و تار

سنايي غزنوي:
باش تا چون چشم تركان تنگ گردد گور تو***********گر چه خود را كور سازي در مسافت صد كري

خاطرات نجم الدين رازي معروف به دايه
وي يکي از رهبران مهم صوفيه و نثر نويس پخته اين روزگار است که تا سال 653 زنده بوده است. او شاگرد نجم الدين کبري است که در حمله مغولان به خوارزم در ميدان جنگ کشته شده است. مهم ترين اثر وي، کتاب تصوف مرصاد العباد است که سلوک عرفاني را به زبان پارسي دري شرح داده است. دربخشي از اي متن به حمله ترک و مغول و گريز خود اشاره کرده است. با هم اين بخش را مي خوانيم:

«در تاريخ شهور سنۀ سبع و عشر و ستمائه (617) لشکر مخذول ِ کفار تتار استيلا يافت بر آن ديار ، و آن فتنه و فساد و قتل و اسر و هدم و حرق که از آن ملاعين ظاهر گشت، در هيچ عصر و ديار کفر و اسلام کس نشان نداده است و در هيچ تاريخ نيامده الا انچه خواجه(پيغمبر) عليه الصلوة و السلام از فتنه هاي آخر الزمان خبر باز داده است و فرموده: لا تَقومُ السٌاعة حتي تُقاتِلوا التٌُرک صغارَ الاعين حُمرَ الوجوه ذلف الانوف کان وجوههم المجان المطرقة ، صفت اين کفار ملاعين کرده است و فرموده که ، قيامت برنخيزد تا آنگاه که شما با ترکان قتال نکنيد، قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده. و بعد از آن فرموده است: و يکثر الهرج، قيل: يا رسول الله! ما الهرج؟ قال: القتل ، القتل. فرمود که قتل بسيار شود. به حقيقت، اين واقعه آن است که خواجه عليه الصلوة و السلام به نور نبوت پيش از ششصد و اند سال باز ديده بود. قتل ازين بيشتر چگونه بود که از يک شهر ري که مولد و منشـأ اين ضعيف است و ولايت آن قياس کرده اند ، کما بيش پانصد هزار آدمي به قتل آمده و اسير گشته. و فتنه و فساد آن ملاعين بر جملگي اسام و اساميان از آن زيادت است که در حٌيز عبارت گنجد... عاقبت چون بلا به غايت رسيد و محنت به نهايت و کار به جان رسيد و کارد به استخوان...اين ضعيت از سهر همدان که مسکن بود به شب بيرون آمد با جمعي از درويشان و عزيزان در معرض خطري هرچ تمام تر ، در شهور سنۀ ثمان عشر و ستمائه به راه اربيل و بر عقب اين فقير خبر چنان رسيد كه كفار ملاعين..به شهر همدان آمدند و حصار دادند و اهل شهر به قدر و وسع بكوشيدند و چون طاقت مقاومت نماند - كفار دست يافتند و شهر بستند و خلق بسيار كشند و بسي اطفال را و عورات را اسير بردند و خرابي تمام كردند و اقرباي اين ضعيف را كه به شهر بودند٬ بيشتر شهيد كردند.

باريد به باغ ما تگرگي
وز گلبن ما نماند برگي
»

ملاحظه کنيد:
«قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده»

ترکان اصیل یاکوت در سیبری که زبانشان خالص-ترین زبان ترکی میباشد و از لحاظ د-ن-ا هم کمترین آمیختگی با اقوام غیرترک داشته-اند شاهد این امیر نیز هستند.

Note the Seljuqid prince picture:

//content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b...

So the era of the black/white turkomens and Safavids were key reason for Turkification. Else there is a book by the name of Safineyeh Tabrizi from the Ilkhanid era and under the words "Zaban-e-Tabriz", there is extant examples of Iranic dialect.

//www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/azarim...

Thanks (anonymous848) ...

I know about most of these sources, but one must acknowledge that these are NOT exactly the theory that many Iranians (because of being influenced by Pahlavi-era theories) embrace. The mentioned writings MOSTLY say that the Turkification has been a result of migration, and mixing, marrying, locals a process that most probably took place and already was a done thing up until the Aq Qoyunlu era, from the Saljuk time to the Aq Qoyunlu time, 1000 years ago to about 600 years ago. I have seen many clearly biased nationalistic sources (even from iranian universities) stating that the Turkification took place MOSTLY after the Safavid, up until 200 years ago and it was forced by the brute Turks, imposed, and it was not a result of intermarriages etc.

...

Replying to anonymous 1 to anonymous 1000 is going to be a headache :))

Mexico is not a place where massive immigration has taken place? And let's not forget that Latin America is still a place where indigenous populations have kept their native languages alive. But immigrants, in Spain and most other south and central America outnumber local populations before Eruopeans started going there.

Indians do not speak English as their first language, but just like me, it is their foreign language. So we cannot countr India in.

I have no Turkic-Turkish-Azerbaijani or any type of nationalism. I doubt an unbiased person would conclude this from my article where I have written about Turks that did not have a writing and were nomads etc etc. What I have presented is not a theory, but an unscientific view. Unfortunately I did not encouter enough people who would prefer rational exchanges of ideas and prefered a more aggressive verbal style.