Iranian Diversity
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28318
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 00:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Iranian Diversity
Posted By: Molokane
Subject: Iranian Diversity
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2010 at 19:54
Hi there everybody! I'm new here to the forums, and I'm just browsing people's posts about Slavic and Eurasian cultures and there seems to be a lot of speculation! I was wondering if I could give my own two cents on the subject of origins and diversity of the Iranian population.  Please note that I am not here on an agenda to draw racist remarks. I am simply here to discuss theories and speculations of anthropology stemmed from curiosity of my origins. I have personally visited Iran seldom, and my parents have lived there since their 20's and emigrated to the Americas. They have made several visits in the past several years, and I have asked them for anthropological purposes to photograph the populations as well as several of their families (Iranian families are very big and traditional just like the old days hence the 67+ million population). And wow am I surprised to see the large ethnic diversity of this very land. It's on par with America, and there's no doubt that this behemoth of a civilization was once an extensive region of trade and tradition. I have speculated why is this so, and who exactly are these people? Among theories I have read on AEHF, they seem no different from others nor wikipedia articles. But then again, these are only theories provided by several others which yield contradictions. For example, my mother told me she has ancestors from Urmia, Tabriz, and the Fars province. These are Turkish regions consisted of the Qashqai, Seljuk Turks, and the ancient Perisans themselves. If you look further into their speculated origins, the Qashqai are a mixture of Lurish ethnic background and Oghuz Turks; the Seljuk Turks are also origins of the Oghuz Turks; and the Perisans, I'll leave that for later. So to speak... It seems that the Oghuz Turks are dense among the Azeri population or perhaps to a certain extent, significantly contribute to their development as a minority. Oghuz Turks are from Transcaucasia, which is a Western Mongolian/Chinese region, an ethnic group Slavicized by the Russians according to documentation. I would expect these phenotypes in depiction as: almond shaped eyes, blue/green eyes, white skin, tall, straight brown hair, wide Nordic noses, like the girl below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijani_Girl.jpg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijani_Girl.jpg If this ethnic group is dispersed among Iran, why are these so called Oghuz/Azeri Turks portraying Semitic phenotypes (coarse curly hair, bushy eyebrows, hooked noses, dark eyes, long eye lashes) seemingly 40% of Iran's population? More specifically, why is it that this ethnic group of a Caucasian/European/Mongoloid background do not adhere to their genetic maps? It is said that they have mixed with Iranic elements, such as the Persians. But are not the ancient Persians a reflection of European race? This draws me to a conclusion that many citations of the origins of Azeri/Oghuz Turks are perhaps misleading, that they are in fact, derivatives of Semitic cultures, and not necessarily partial to Transcaucasia. Or perhaps Caucasians in Iran were simply that: a predominant group of similar skull types to Indo-European branches. Meaning more in depth, the Iranian region was a capital for cultural exchange. I have noticed many Caucasian/European intermarriages which produce a predominantly European phenotype, and this was perhaps the case with Iran as it saw many faces of different cultures. The Russians to the north, the Greeks/Byzantium/Roman empires to the west, all possibly responsible for the European phenotypes in Iran. The Jews have dwelled for thousands of years in the Persian empire, but usually are very incisive in genetic imprinting as they have their spouses convert to the religion of Judaism. On the contrary, their semitic cousins, the Arabs, and many ancient Semitic tribes (Assyrians, Babylonians, Akaddians, etc.) might have gradually absorbed Indo-European Persians and many of their tribes while adopting their cultures and orthodox practices. Perhaps the Persians were an Indo-European race, yes, but sparse in origins with a very attractive lifestyle. Similar to how the Arabs in Turkey were fond of Turkish traditions and gradually adopted their culture simultaneously leaving their genetic footprints among the faces of a morphed society. The Mongols, the Arabs, the Indian tribes to the East, and many ancient Semitic civilizations shaped an early Persia. Linguistics should not be wholly responsible in determining the genetic make up of a country, especially since the Hungarians and Finns speak Uralic languages.
|
Replies:
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 08:45
|
iran at the time of achemenid empire was more mixed than USA is today.iranian were very tolrent toward other non iranian nations. only reading the scriptors of cyrus the great about the respect of defeated babylon's population give us a great insight in the iranian culture at that time. today even in the most remote and unreached tribal places in iran like lorestan and zagros mountain the population are result of racial mixture of many ancient non aryan population with later arrived aryan imigrants. what made iran a great nation is the teaching of zaratostra which is our cultural father. the shape of face or special phenotype is not of importance. you can have in a same family brothers and systers with different colour of eyes and hair and skin in iran due to the such a rich racial mixture. one thing for the sure there is no danger of inbreding in iran
 |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 09:57
Even Kurds who claim they are pure are even mixed. As it depends on the location. Genetic testing found that Kurds of Georgia are closer to Georgians where as Kurds of Turkey were closer to Turks of turkey and Iranians. Kurds of North Iraq were related to Iranians and populations that live in Northern Iraq like Assyrians and Arabs. Here Y-DNA results for average per country or population so not every ethnic group will have the same make up certain citys will be different to another. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml - http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Kurds have no J1 
|
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 10:42
|
as i said before there are no population in iran with a realy pure racial background and kurds are no exception . maybe kurds in turkey have low frequency of J1, but in iran and iraq there is a lot of J1 too. the funny thing is absence of Q and N haplogroup among azeris when there are 4% Q and 2,5%N in iran - lt seems the turc nationalist are very disappointed by this result so far they have very low altaic y haplo . may be it is different in mtdna studies because language is often associated with mother than father. i had a chilian friend that loved his mother and diden't care att all for his father and i asked him why? he answered one can always be sure that their mother is 100% their mother, but when it comes to father side nothing is sure
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 11:07
I am pretty sure Kurds of Syria and Northern Iraq will have a small percentage of J1. Kurds on whole have high J2 at around 25% average, most is found in Georgian Kurds at around 40% and Iraqi Kurds 20-25&. Kurds of east Turkey were more further away and more isolated from arabs and that might explain low J1. The and Q and N of Iran could most likely be from the Turkmens from Northern Iran who really are Mongoloid. J1 of Iran will be mostly from the south where their meant to be 2-3 million arabs. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 11:22
Heres one for MtDNA.  |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 12:48
|
According to your map, it seems Haplogroup HV (yellow color) somehow relates to Iranians, of course about Persians, it has almost the same percentage of haplogroups U, J and V, these ones can be found in Europe and north Africa too. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 13:16
Most MTdna haplogroups orignated like 30-60 thousand years ago so it is not accurate to describe the make of the population as anything could of happend 20K+ years ago. Where as Y-DNA has many younger origins from 10-30 thousand years ago. Like J1,J2 and R1a and G that are believed to have orignated within 10-20K years. I have also noticed that about HV, but it is also found in small percentages in East Africa mainly among the sudanese. |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 13:27
|
very strange about turkey and turkish speaking people in iran is despite very low level of asian altaic y and mtdna origin and very different phonetype from real asian turcs. they are so turc nationalist and chauvinist
, can someone explain this fenomen please? |
Posted By: Zert
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 14:09
|
If I understand your question well, you're asking that Turks in Turkey are quite different from the "real" Turkic people in other parts of the world? Indeed that's true, the percentage of real "Turkishness" they have is actually quite low, as they intermixed heavily with the peoples living there when their tribes entered Asia Minor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people#Ethnogenesis_and_genetic_links Read this to be enlightened a bit more, or to get even more confused. You can also see it when you look at their physical appearrances, as Turks look like Greeks, Persians and Kurds (though not entirely indistinguisable), and other Turkic people are more like Mongolians. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Edit: Why are there no Arabs on that chart? I'd like to know how much Saudi-Arabians, Iraqi&Yeminites, Egyptians, Israelis and North Africans differ. Does anybody know? |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 14:12
Their explanation is that Turks are not mongoloid but Nordic looking. Even tho their languages are East asian. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 16:01
|
one thing for the sure there is no danger of inbreding in iran [/QUOTE]My maternal grandparents are first cousins. :( |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 16:05
All of the Turks I see in Tehran and the majority of Iran look semitic. Even if Turks mixed with Kurds and Persians, I don't think they'd look semitic. I'm just very confused about these claims that anthropologists make about Iran since the general phenotype of Iran does not really consist with documentation. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 16:55
From what I know Yemen has 70% J1 and 10% J2 and others. As for saudi they have 50% J1 and around 15% J2 and others I am not sure of. Will look for more info and let you know. |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 20:42
But if ya look like the spitting image of your Daddy, and you've got the same taste in certain things, e.g. females for instance, I guess you could be pretty sure.
 If ya end up marrying a girl who looks like the spitting image of your mother, then you can be absolutely sure. Absolutely same taste, ya see.  ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 20:57
|
A maternal uncle of mine had several wives during his lifetime, at least two at any one time. No friggin polygamy law to stop him. Muslim, ya see.
My child's instinct somehow told me that, the one he loved the best, or lusted for the most, was one tall, big bummed, big boned, sharp featured type.
 Ya know, today, I find myself often most strongly drawn physically to precisely that kind of female. I think I've inherited that uncle's gene type, perhaps indirectly through my mother.
Ok, back to thread, Shieldy.
 ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 23:14
|
I searched for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=World+Haplogroups&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= - "World Haplogroups" and found this map: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf - http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
It seems haplogroup I has the highest percentage among Persians and then haplogroup R1a, as you see these haplogroups have the highest frequencies in Europe, especially in the northern part, I think it supports my theory of "A Possible Iranian Migration from Scandinavia": http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27994 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27994 -------------
|
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2010 at 23:29
|
That's most enlightening.
 Interestingly, it also recalls the legends of 'Arya Vaeja' and the Peshdad Dynasty (if I recall the name correctly). So, that mythical ancient homeland of the 'Airyanam' could have been in Scandinavia. Those legends spoke of a time when the ancient Airyanam had to move away from a land that became too cold for human habitation (the Ice Age, perhaps?). ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2010 at 00:19
one intresting thing is amount of R1a1 y haplo among altaic people which may are ancestor to the today's turkish peoples it is much higher than iranians nearly twice as high!!even mongol looking kergyz have much higher R1a1 than average iranians!!! it come to my mind that maybe the turkish speaking tribes like ughuz were allready very mixed with aryans long before invasion of iran and turkey and why real asian y haplo is so rare in turkey and maybe explain that both azeris and turcs from turkey do not have an asian phonetype and look molokane i don't agree with you that azeri turcs in iran have a semitic phonetype. have you been in tabriz or rezaeie or in azarbaijan ? in my opinion azeris in iran look much kurds or mazandaranis .i had many azarbayjani friends and none of them looked like arabz from khuzestan!!
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2010 at 04:49
R1a1 is highest found in East Europe and India and Afghanistan. I do not think that R1a1 is a Turk marker as it is found highest among North Indians who are also meant to be Aryans. I believe R1a1 has something to do with the Indo-Iranian marker.  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/GlobalR1a1a.png |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2010 at 05:51
Haplogroup I is no doubt, a Northern European marker, but Afghans and Indians have low to none frequancey of it. It is highest found in Central/Northern Iran and among the Kurds. Also Haplogroup J2 is also high among Iranians, J2 is believed to be the marker of Masopotomia maybe from Assyrians and Native Anatolians? Also I am a Kurd from East Turkey, up to the age of 7 I was blonde now it is shades of colour light brown and Dark brown and I also have some red hair around my chin and side burns. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2010 at 22:16
|
I think there is a lot of misconception of the diversity of Iran and how its origins of populations dispersed throughout the country. I've never understood the concept of Aryanism, because I feel it is an extremely theoretical term when describing persons or group of cultures. It is used linguistically, and I'd just rather use Indo-European when comparing languages, it's easier, more precise, and modern. The term aryan should become extinct, oh wait, it already is, so let's stop using it! It's confusing and misleading. It's just an aimless definition of describing white people who do not dwell in Europe. I don't think a single person in this forum has answered my question about why Iran is the way it is. I wasn't just referring to Turks, but I was wondering why the diversity reflects many different faces. I don't believe it's just limited to people who have always existed in the region (e.g. Arabs, Ottomans, the countless groups of Turks, Persians, Medians, Parthians, Akkadians, Mesopotamians, Assyrians, Georgians, Armenians, Afghanis), but the Greeks, Russians, Romans, Byzantines, who have either helped preserved or perhaps morphed Iran's populations and the ancient Semites who have mixed ancestry and outnumbered the "Aryans" of our so called nation.
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 12:25
|
I skimmed your post so please forgive me if I get some things wrong here (I'm very tired) but I will try to clear some things up. First of all, regarding Azeri's, you have to distinguish those living in the Azerbaijan Republic and those living in Iran. To make this discussion easier, I will call the ones from Azerbaijan Azeri and the ones from Iran Azari. The term Azerbaijani/Azeri are new terms, and simply refer to a people who speak the same language, but are not of the same ethnic origins. Azeri's are of Caucasian origin, and Azari's are of Iranic origin. During the Oghuz invasions (the Oghuz Turks, like all ethnic Turks, had mongoloid features) they intermarried with the larger local population but their genes were overwhelmed by the larger genetic pool of the local population, which is why their is little physical evidence of their presence in Azeri's/Azari's today. Their language, however, did catch on and spread. So, Azeri/Azari are of Caucasian and Iranic origin. |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 15:18
|
You really don't need a haplogroup to make the intelligent guess that population of middle east is probably one of the most diverse groups in the world if you don't take into account the more modern examples like the US. The map just verifies what would be expected based on common sense. -this area has been settled longer than any other in the world having had the longest chance for people to move there -it has been the seat of many major empires spanning multiple continents and cultures. That either facilitated people to move there from other parts of the empires or for surrounding nomadic people to attack it to get a portion of the loot -has been traditionally the richer part of the world creating attraction and motives for people to move in that direction openly or by using force -was located in the physical crossroad between the 3 major continents People had the motive and easy physical access. The diversity should not be surprise The reverse is also true. If you take out the modern layer the least diverse locations and the most isolated location on different corners of the world |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 18:15
Really? What is next? African? And Oghuz Turks being Nordic/European? In Iran Azerbaijani Turks were/are known for being "white" (or whatever you call it) throughout the history, like Circassians among Arabs. Of course that may not be the case with Persian "aryanist" supermachists who reside outside of Iran. Oghuz Turks were never Mongoloid and this European/Nordic theory must be the craziest thing ever. "Wild division" of Tsar Russia army (consisting mainly of Azeri Turks)  |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 18:26
We are not same peoples? Did you think before typing that? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 21:59
|
Aras river can't really make a big difference between two people with the same name, I don't know what you mean by "Caucasian" and "Iranic", from the north to the south of Azerbaijan some very Iranian-speaking people, like Tats and Talysh, live who have preserved their Iranian culture better than Iranian-speaking peoples of Iran, for example it is said Tats use a script very similar to the Pahlavi script to write. -------------
|
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2010 at 22:03
|
I think it should be noted how Tats became present in Azerbaijan. They settled by result of migrations and they were/are simple insignificant. Tats are not original innhabitans of the region and the word Tat itself means "foreigner". Talyshs, both their presence and them as "regional people" are insignificant too, even tho they are natives. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 05:44
|
edit..... |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 06:07
|
Some intersting old photos. From Kavkazweb.    |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 06:10
   |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 08:50
|
@ Cyrus and Emil_Diniyev: Genetic studies have already proven that Azeri's on the different sides of the river are not ethnically related, and that Azeri's are of Caucasian origin where as Azari's are of Iranic origin. This is not something that is disputed in scholarly circles. and Emil_Diniyev, you are using modern pictures to describe people who came to the area a thousand years ago? The Oghuz Turks were mongoloid, we know this because of the statues and paintings left behind of them, as well as descriptions. Ethnic Turks are the ones living in Central Asia, which clearly have mongoloid features because they did not interbreed with middle eastern populations. Turks from Turkey and Azerbaijan and Iran are not ethnic turks, they are the descendants of the original people who inhabited those areas, their language merely replaced local languages. This is called Turkification, its the same as Arabification and Iranification (for example, Egyptians are linguistically Arabs, not ethnically Arabs). |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 09:46
|
Yes, a lot of people seem to be so convinced that each and every ethnic Turk must look Mongoloid, and I'm not so sure I could agree with that.
Central Asia is a vast, vast expanse of land, and I don't think Turks on the westernmost boundaries would look exactly the same as the ones living on extreme East Asia, or even Xinjiang. Even thousands of years ago. Even before they became Arabised, or Iranised, or Anatolianised, or Grecianised, or even Indianised.
Perhaps we should have a view from a Turkish scholar from somewhere, a neutral one, preferably. ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 09:53
|
Dont get me wrong, TURKS ARE TURKS, WHETHER IN TURKEY OR UZBEKISTAN, THEY SHARE A COMMON LANGUAGE AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT A SIMILAR CULTURE. THEY ARE ALL TURKS, JUST AS NORTH AFRICANS ARE ARABS. But science and history should not be affected by modern day nationalism. GENETIC TESTING HAS BEEN DONE, AND ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE CLEAR AND SCIENTIFIC, THERE IS NO DENYING THIS. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:01
Azerbaijani warriors of Seljuq army. Mongoloid?  |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:06
That's almost like saying, Europeans are Europeans, so they must all look exactly the same, have exactly the same genes, speak exactly the same language. Be they Scandinavians of the extreme north, or Slavics of the extreme east, or Greeks of the extreme south.
Because the expanse of land space settled by Turks was/is even bigger than all Europe combined, excluding Russia.
They're not all the same kind of Turk. Their languages are not all exactly the same. Neither are their looks. An Uzbek Turk looks much, much different to a Uyghur Turk from Xinjiang, or a Kazakh Turk from Kazakhstan. Even thousands of years ago.
------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:19
|
Iranians were also an immigrant people, like those Turkic peoples, so Azaris couldn't be Iranic, the ancestors of Azaris of Azeris were Mannaeans, Urartians and some other non-Iranian peoples who lived in the northwest Iran for thousands years. -------------
|
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:27
You include Azeris of Azerbaijan (country), Georgia, Dagestan to northwest Iran aswell? There is no need to make a fuss about it, Turkic tribes settled in large numbers in Azerbaijan, northwestern Iran (southern Azerbaijan), southern Georgia and southern coastline of Dagestan and became "Azerbaijani Turks". I really wonder why so many other peoples around us did not become "Turkified" but they specifically chose us. |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:41
|
Because you were pretty folks? ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 10:48
Please lets not joke around. I find being "Turkified" logic very stupid. "Turkification" only started with Ottomans in 16th century anyway and that was from other regions. And I ask to these guys, why didn't other peoples became "Turkified"? We even have Dede Korkut tales from 11th century! It belongs to people of Azerbaijan and Turks of northeastern Turkey. You can compare it to Scandnavian "saga". Do you think an assimilated people would have a such thing? |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 15:47
| I agree with you, Cyrus. Azerbaijan has adhered to the same region for centuries, and the only smidgen of a difference has been the Soviet influence for the past 70 years in the northern region, otherwise ethnic wise, nothing has really changed. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 15:51
| I think what would help is if somebody could post ancient maps of Azerbaijan to see the recollection of ethnic groups inhabiting certain regions. I've been trying to find some, but they are very complicated to read, and are not in the english language. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 15:57
Emil, it is said that Oghuz Turks are a Russian tribe who have lost their Mongoloid features in the process of immigrating to places like Iran and Azerbaijan. If this theory is correct, I would say Azeris are white. And I don't disagree, I think in many cases Azeris can be white, but I do not understand why a lot of Turks display many semitic features in both Azerbaijan and Iran. And why is it that if these Oghuz Turks are basically Russian in origin, shouldn't it be widely documented or viewed upon as these people being part Slavic? |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 22:09
Its actually since 1800 (when Russian invaded). And Greater Azerbaijan shall be united again one day. North already freed. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 22:12
It dosen't matters much, but I can explain to you. In northern Azerbaijan (country), it was Caucasian Albania in western half and Scythian tribes in eastern half . In southern Azerbaijan (Iran), Atropatene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atropatene  |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2010 at 22:19
And there are also many with blond hair etc...So what? Just like there are some that would resemble Middle-Easterns. I posted here pictures from 1800 - early 1900. Your theory are just funny. Oghuz Turks were never anything like that. Oghuz Turks migrated via south of Caspian Sea, they never met Russians in their history. Your theories are none-sense and funny. And your very ignorant about the matter, yet you talk. And your only posts on this forum have been in this thread so far, I really wonder what is your intention with your non-sense. |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 01:20
|
Emil I agree with you about that the modern azarbayjani people looks like the picture you have posted, but it is a mistery why they should look like the people in the picture and not looking like turkish speaking turkemans or som uzbaks . by the way the picture you send with painting of ughuz turcs in armor why they are dressed exactly like the other non turc middle eastern peoples. persians or kurds and what ever. we have painting of our ancestors which were not turcs and they were dressed exactly in the same manner with same armor type same weapon, sure the oghuz turcs if they looked like that and dressed like that might have very heavily mixed with other iranic people and somehow managed to keep their turkish language. anyway modern DNA technic says too that azarbayjani people have very little altaic origin and a lot IE like the other caucasien people. it is very fascinating .
|
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 01:40
The Oghuz seem to have been related to the Pechenegs, some of whom were clean-shaven and others of whom had small 'goatee' beards. According to the book Attila and the Nomad Hordes, "Like the Kimaks they set up many carved wooden funerary statues surrounded by simple stone balbal monoliths." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks#cite_note-Nomad-3 - [4] The authors of the book go on to note that "Those Uzes or Torks who settled along the Russian frontier were gradually Slavicized though they also played a leading role as cavalry in twelfth and early thirteenth century Russian armies where they were known as Black Hats.... Oghuz warriors served in almost all Islamic armies of the Middle East from the eleventh century onwards, in Byzantium from the ninth century, and even in Spain and Morocco." An excerpt from Atilla and the Nomad Hordes. I'm just trying to find what the truth really is, because there are so many claims as to what really is. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 01:44
It's been longer than that. And my point was that it was a cultural difference, not that of an ethnic one. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 02:10
|
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 05:29
| Emil_Diniyev, great photo`s exactly. Also well-known map. But I can`t take in your point! Modern Azerbaijan direct successor of Caucasian Albania? And what kind of language had been used by ancient population of this area? Turkic? I think term "Turkification" is right on place when we talking about Azerbaijan. |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 05:47
|
emil very nice picture . who is the man on the picture? do you know him by name? isn't he from baku? or teblisi? i have seen some picture of some one in an old album which looked very like him!! wasen't his name Bayram sultan?
|
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 05:49
Azerbaijani officer of "savage" division. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Division The picture is from museum of Azerbaijan history. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 05:53
No, I didn't say that. I only posted a map showing the nations that existed before Turks in Azerbaijan. Caucasian Albans spoke Ibero-Caucasian. Native Caucasians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Caucasian_languages I think they spoke some sort of Iranic language in Atropatene. Maybe Iranian members here, specially Cyrus have more info on Atropatene. |
Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 07:57
| It doesn't matter if you admit what you call falsified theories or not. The thing is that anthropologists consider the Turkic people having features called Mongoloid. As for the modern Azerbaigani people I should say that because the region was inhabited by mainly cacausoid people ( don't forget considerable Arab population) by the arrival of the Oghuz Turks searching for a jihad against Byzantine empire and the subsequent intermarriages with locals over centuries the result is what you see in Anatolia, Azerbaijan and even that of Crimea i.e. one can see a person having features of both or even people clearly resembling either. Of course in Turkey or Azerbaijan you can easily find people who completely look like their Oghuz Turkmen kinsmen and that's not a surprise. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 08:37
|
Yes, they declared Jihad in Azerbaijan with Christian Albans... Why you don't make sense... |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 13:06
|
Azerbaijan and Arran/Albania WERE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES, with different cultures, languages, and peoples. Azerbaijan and the whole "Azerbaijan was divided by Russia" are recent inventions, first introduced by Turkish nationalists and pan Turkists during WWI, and later expanded upon by the Soviets and Iranian nationalists who believe that Azerbaijan should be a part of Iran. The terms Southern and Northern Azerbaijan are fictional as well, and they were created in the 1930's for propaganda purposes by the soviets in order to infiltrate Iran and set up communist states. The term Azeri is also a recent term, only in use for 100 years or so. Its a myth, its historical fiction. Azerbaijan and Arran have their own separate histories. And by the way, THIS IS A STATUE OF A SELJUK MALE FROM THE 12TH 13TH CENTURY:  CLEARLY MONGOLOID, JUST LIKE ALL THE ETHNIC TURKS OF CENTRAL ASIA. THE TURKS OF TURKEY, IRAN, AND THE CAUCASUS ARE LINGUISTICALLY TURKIC, NOT ETHNICALLY. Science and history have spoken on the subject, its fact and there is nothing wrong with it, why hold on to propaganda? sorry |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 15:32
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 18:51
Nice round, flat face, small flat nose, small, narrow mouth. Ummm ...
Give me some clay to play with. I'll make ya a statue of anything ya want. Ya tell me what a Turk's face is like, I'll give ya a Turk's face. Well, a 'Turk's face' according to the specifications ya give me. Even if I haven't seen a Turk all my life.
TGS, not even all Mongols look like that statue, not even all Chinese, nor all Japanese. Let alone all Turks.
Just look at Yao Ming, the professional 7 ft. 6 in. basketball player. Pure Chinese, He doen't have even a drop of Caucasian or IE blood in him. Now, does he look anything like your statue? ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2010 at 22:28
There are exceptions to height in all nations. Height is not determined by ethnicity, because I know plenty of African Americans who are tall as well as Indians.
|
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 01:35
|
No, I was not talking about Yao Ming's height, but his face. He's pure Chinese, therefore pure 'Mongoloid'. Now, does his face look anything like TGS's statue? Now, would ya still believe all 'ethnic Turks' look like that statue?------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 10:11
|
Not all mongoloid people look alike, just like not all caucasoids look alike, but they are classified as having the same features. The Turks who migrated to the Middle East were MONGOLOID, we know this because of the statues they left behind of themselves, descriptions we have of them, as well as paintings done from the time period. TURKS FROM TURKEY AND THE CAUCASUS ARE NOT ETHNIC TURKS, THEY MERELY SPEAK A TURKIC LANGUAGE. DNA tests have proven this to be true. |
Posted By: Azadi
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 10:58
|
If that's true TGS, most of Turkey's history books would be classified as false, together with their 10.000 year old research done by highly educated, and non-corrupted, scientists. I don't know what to believe anymore... ------------- 
|
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 11:05
Actually, Turkey is known for skewing and rewriting history. This was the official policy of Ataturk and its been continued. Turkish textbooks are full of fiction, and Turkish historians who are the masterminds behind such ridiculous claims as the "sun language theory" and "Turks originated from Anatolia" and "Hittites and Sumerians were Turkic" are discredit and no one in the international scholarly world gives them any credit. Believe me, Turkey's got a lot of problems in this regard, as does the Azerbaijan Republic, which is plagued with decades of Soviet propaganda as well as propaganda from Turkey. ----------------------- Here is a description of Atilla the Hun (from The Goths by http://www.romansonline.com/Authors.asp?IntID=5363 - Jordanes , a 6th century Roman) :
http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?DocID=Gth_Goth_35 ----------------------------- GUYS, WHY ARGUE AGAINST HISTORICAL FACTS AND SCIENCE? PUT NATIONALISM ASIDE AND FOR ONE SECOND AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG. Also, please do not misconstrue my comments as "anti-Turkish". Turks and Azeri's are certainaly Turkic today, they speak a Turkic language, and share a Turkic culture, like the Central Asia Turks. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE NOT ETHNICALLY TURKIC, THEIR ANCESTORS ARE NOT TURKS. |
Posted By: Azadi
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 11:40
|
Couldn't have put it better myself, thanks for pointing that out, TGS. +1. -------------
|
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 12:09
|
TGS somehow the historical truth can be manipulated very heavily by politicians that concentration of truth can go much lower than under 10%  . real heros can be turned to traitors and traitors turning to hero. they can creat the race which never existed and make a nation of one pure race nationalism is like the salt in the food withouth it the food taste nothing ,but if we add too much then it becomes uneatable at last. it is the case of extrem nationalism everywhere and turkey is not an exception. today with the help of modern DNA technic it is possible to punch a hole in these kind of baloons. if his highness the great butcher gengiz khan had blue eyes and red hair and mongol was so mixed despite their asiatic look, then more caucasoid ughuz turk had to be very very mixed long before moving to azarbaijan and turkey too. i read somewher that in the the turkish language persian and arab words were more than 20% in turkish language before language cleansing done by ataturc, i don't know how true it is , but i woulden't be surprised if it is true!
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 20:00
It is true that Turkish contains thousands of Arabic and Persian words in it.  |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 22:15
Heh, a legend would be nice please. |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 23:17
|
That's most enlightening.
Interestingly, it also recalls the legends of 'Arya Vaeja' and the Peshdad Dynasty (if I recall the name correctly). So, that mythical ancient homeland of the 'Airyanam' could have been in Scandinavia. Those legends spoke of a time when the ancient Airyanam had to move away from a land that became too cold for human habitation (the Ice Age, perhaps?).
Arya Vaeja is probably Western Siberia! Arians didnt come from Scandinavia but from central Asia, with acestral home in western Siberia!
Scandinavias was not populated with indo-europeans by 1500 years before Christ! ------------- |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 23:19
| this diagram is it before or after language cleansings in turkey done by nationalists in 1920-30?? |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 23:43
|
svarun you are probably right about the location, because iranic and turanic people(cyberia altaic) lived in neighboring area and permanantly were in war with each other according to shahnameh but the puzzling piece is presence of high % of R1a1 HG(iranian marker) in scandinavia and I hg too in in both iran and scandinavia and naturally the similarity of iranian and scandinavian words and languages too. i hope modern science and DNA technic shall solv this mistery in fufture,
|
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 04:28
|
Good Gosh, that Svarun dude. He stole my legend, and somehow he got the credit for it from Kalhur. Talk about copyright infringement, I should have patented it first. Well, as long as it's for our common benefit, I'll excuse ya this time Svar ...
Perhaps we could say that Iranians and Turanians were distant cousins who gradually grew even more and more distant ... then ... many, many thousand years later ... they started growing closer and closer again. ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 06:04
|
It is genetically confirmed that the Arians were the bearers of haplogroup R1a1 as to a lesser extent R1b1! The assumption is that they eventually evolved from a small group of mammoth hunters who inhabited the territory of the Russian steppes, the northern part of Central Asia as in the later stage of proto-Arian and the south-western Siberia! It is believed that haplogroup R1a1 originated somewhere in Central Asia about a haplo group R1b originating from the European cromagnjon! ------------- |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 08:29
|
dear S O D you can have your ½ of glory too. LOOOL as you know hungrian are of finn- ugric origin, but they have one of the highest % of R1a1 in europe!!! and even in finland this HG is very high after hg N altaic). it is my assumption that turc people (turan) were mixed in very great % long before turcs were converted to islam and seldjuc period. story of BIJAN O MANIJEH and RUSTAM O SOHRAB in shahnameh are only some exemple that they married with each other and ejoyed peace and co-existance too and it was a permanant exchange of culture and gens too .under a very long period of time maybe thousends of years. before turc's expantion and dominance over turkey and iran !! this may explain the modern turcs physical resemblance to iranic people rather than asiatic mongolic , they maybe have been ½ aryan ½ altaic from the beginig???
|
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 09:12
|
Features of original Turkic nations from Central Asia.
Yakuts. Location-Eastern Siberia. Almost 100 % Mongoloid appearance
  Kyrgyz people. Living in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan). The purest Turks by many authors.
   Kazakh people. Central Asia. Kazakhstan is one of the world biggest country by territory
  Uyghurs. Location-Western China. The name means "Unite". Mixed descendent of Turkic tribes came from Mongolian steppe and old Indo-European population of Tocharians.
  Some Caucasian genes still preserve
 |
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 10:11
|
Oghuz Turks, Gokturks and other myths about Caucasoid looking proto-Turks had been created by Pan-Turkists from modern Turkey and Soviet Union (like Lev Gumilyov and many others). That is a fascist semi-scientific theories which want to explain Turks as pure human group of people and indigenous to many locations on Euro-Asia. They even create some kind of new human race-Turanid. This race share features of Caucasiod and Mongoloid race, and is older then both. Absolute craziness!
The corn of Ottoman empire-Ottoman dynasty and close elite around them were pure Turkic and Mongoloid. But due to inter-marriage with European females the dynasty lost Mongoloid looking. Sultan Bayezid`s mother-greek, Sultan Mehmed І mother-serbian, Sultan Mehmed ІІ mother-greek, Sultan Suleiman І "the Magnificent" mother-georgian, Sultan Selim II mother-ukranian (Aleksandra Lisowska). Just like human incubator farm! The modern Turkish nation is product of long years of discrimination and assimilation of local population on Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor, which were 100 % non-Turkic. There was a "Blood tax" and every Christian family were forced to give to the government one male child. Only durnig rebellion of Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 17th century over 100 000 peasants from Ukraine were sold as slaves in Ottoman markets. Many accept Islam to free them. The base of modern Turkish nation consist only by two elements-religion (Islam) and language (Turkic).
BTW many Arabs and Sub-Saharan African muslim (called by Bulgarians "Arapy") made career in Ottoman empire and occupied high positions in society and army. That why modern Turks from Republic of Turkey have big percent Semitic and Negroid genes and appearence.
|
Posted By: Kanas_Krumesis
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 10:30
|
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 13:53
|
kanas krumsis well even if it is known that the seldjuc turks used very brutal methods to stablish an empire , but it dosen't really explain so low rate of altaic hg like n or c if they had used rape and use of force then they should left a very high % altaic y hg behind. another points is if they become caucasoid by interbreeding with european woman, then they should still have a higher % of altaic y dna hg .another point is in azarbaijan which is far from europe they coudn't mix with eoropeans people can even people still look caucasuid like in turkey . it is known that sultan toghrol orderd to cut the tongues of every one who refused to learn or speak turkish in azarbaijan- if they were not heavily mixed with tochaians and already caucasoid from the begining then maybe systematic language cleansing has done the job. i would know the opinion of historical experts for this matter.
|
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 16:37
That's very insightful. So this is a fabrication as to why many Turks have semitic features in Iran and Azerbaijan. I always see Turks in Iran, especially in Tehran and they all look Arabic, but they are Turkish. So these are basically Arabs taking on a Turkish identity. |
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 17:06
|
the semetic feature among some azaris if so which i haven't noticed that is maybe the result of islamisiation of turks . they have been islamised by arabs and som mixing had happened. my obeservation of turkish tribes in iran like qashqaei and qajar is that they have even lighter skin than average iranian and no altaic phonetyp at
 |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 17:29
|
I don't know how many of you have actually looked at the old photos of military people which were displayed earlier in this site?
But, since I have no bone to pick, or side to take in this "ethnic" presentation, I will have to say that I agree with The Great Simba in most of his posts! And, if you guys and gals, care to look at the first two or three pages of this line, you will see a lot of men wearing "woolen" hats/caps, etc.! I will tell you all that those hats/caps, etc., were "black!", and made from a very special lamb! I will further state that all of those wearing such hats/caps were called or were at one time called, Cossacks! Yes, Cossacks! All you have to do is a little research? Try it, you might well like it? regards, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 18:07
Geeeee, thanx dude.
Well, that's what always thought. Part of the problem is that too many guys are too fixated with the idea that someone must be either predominantly IE or predominantly Turkic-Mongol. I mean, there must surely be guys, plenty of guys, who lie about midway between the two. It just stands to reason. You coud argue satem or centum until the cows go home, but then there ya go.
This girl, sorry Kalhur, she could be not only a Semite. She could as easily be a Mexican, an Argentinian, a Brazilian, a Nepali, a Thai, a Khmer Cambodian, a Javanese Indonesian, a Malay Malaysian etc. She's got that pan-global look. I can easily find a girl like her in any village in Malaysia. ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 20:09
This is because a lot of the Lurs are mixed among the tribes. Perhaps some other Caucasian influence. There is pretty limited research among these tribes. Though Nissan named one of their explorers the Nissan Qashqai. How ironic! |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 23:21
|
dear S O D
you can have your ½ of glory too. LOOOL
as you know hungrian are of finn- ugric origin, but they have one of the highest % of R1a1 in europe!!! and even in finland this HG is very high after hg N altaic). it is my assumption that turc people (turan) were mixed in very great % long before turcs were converted to islam and seldjuc period.
story of BIJAN O MANIJEH and RUSTAM O SOHRAB in shahnameh are only some exemple that they married with each other and ejoyed peace and co-existance too and it was a permanant exchange of culture and gens too .under a very long period of time maybe thousends of years. before turc's expantion and dominance over turkey and iran !! this may explain the modern turcs physical resemblance to iranic people rather than asiatic mongolic , they maybe have been ½ aryan ½ altaic from the beginig???
Hungarians are a predominantly Indo-European people from the Hungarian name and language!
Finns always lived in the forests of northern Europe with the possible origin in the forests North Western Siberia!
Although there is a new theory that the Finns are some kind protoeuropean people because there are very smal mongoloid features among them! The theory of Turks as orginaly Caucasus race is nonsense! The original Turks were definitely Federation Mongolian tribes! Today Turkey's population has almost nothing to do with the original Turks and make it the dominant native population of Anatolia and the Balkans! Turks have no more than 5% of Mongolian male lineage haplogroups ! The idea of the Turks as originally Caucasus there is a race in Russia under Russian influence becouse racial caracteristic of Tatars (Volga Tatars) who were probably originally a mixture of proto Iranians, Finns and very littleinfluence Mongols! Everybody will say that Marat Safin has nothing with orginal Turkish race!
everyone will say that Marat Safin has nothing to do with the Mongols! ------------- |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 23:22
|
Sorry about bad english! ------------- |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 23:45
This guy is so funny. What has Ottomans to do with Azeris? And Persian "Aryan" supermachist, hold your funny stories for yourself. Even Mousavi is an Azeri and compare him to the Fars Ahmedinejad. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 23:52
|
edit... |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2010 at 23:58
If I could ask, what are you talking about? Cossacks? These are traditional Caucasus costumes. Cossacks copied those costumes from Caucasus. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:04
For instance, traditional clothes of Azerbaijan during traditional dance. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:06
|
......... |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:12
We accepted Islam by our own will. Semitic features. I think hes ashamed that Persians got screwed by Arabs and his Aryan" supermacy got to find some things... |
Posted By: Molokane
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:36
Low and behold: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Ottoman Empire. Oh would you look at that, is that Azerbaijan in its territory? Nope, it can't be! |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:36
|
Why should he? Arabs got Iranised even earlier, during Medean an Achaemenid Persian times. ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:48
|
We accepted Islam by our own will. Semitic features.  I think hes ashamed that Persians got screwed by Arabs and his Aryan" supermacy got to find some things... I really can not understand your turkomans!
Turks do not have no more than 5% of the genetic markers of Turkish males! Iranians are at least 7 times more than the Aryans are you Turks! Modern day Iranians are mix of nativ Iran population and Arians and at lesser extent Semites and Turks!
------------- |
Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 00:58
|
What about Bosnians then? ------------- History makes everything. Everything is history in the making. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 01:44
How funny when someone loses his argument.
And? So many other territories are part of it aswell. He talked about specifically Turkey (and mostly Istanbul area) not the whole Ottoman controlled territorities. You might claim the same from Ukraine to Austria aswell if you want?
|
Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 02:50
|
beside all extrem arguments from both side . one thing can every one see . there is a great difference between iranian azaeris and for exemple iranian turkemans( which i love both and respect their racial origin and religion too). the turkeman have very distinct altaic features and azaris don't have. it ought to be some heavy mixing among azaries with non turkish people if it happened 2000 years ago or just a few hundred years ago . i don't know i always said that there is no such a thing like a pure race turc or aryan in our region.
we iranians are a mix of many good races like aryan, turan, semites and there is no doubt about it! there are many fictions about how our ancestors looked like 3000 years ago, but today we look as we look and we are very proud of it Fars, azarie . kurd, balloch and all other minorities . |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 03:38
I think you didn't got what I meant. |
Posted By: Emil_Diniyev
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 03:40
Thanks. I didn't said we were "Aryan" neither. |
Posted By: svarun
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 04:24
|
I typed wrong! ------------- |