Iranians root in Central asia
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=15846
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 13:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Iranians root in Central asia
Posted By: shinai
Subject: Iranians root in Central asia
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 13:53
|
Dear Iranian members, unfortunately because of western negetive view on Iranians, everybody consider us middle eastern, but we ourselves know how deep is our roots in Central Asia and Afghanistan.
Frasi Dari which we speak is from C.A.Turkic dilects are the second largest family group in Iran.
Scythian and most probably Persians, Turks, and mongols as our fathers were from C.A.
Our Noruz is a C.Asian ceromony.
Our music is more close to C.A. than Arabic music.
we have strong sign of genetic marker from C.A. (R1a1,R1B, N), which other middle eastern including Turks of Turkey and Cacause Turks do not have it.We have more central asian blood and culture than Turks in Turkey.
Please share your ideas, and tell why west culture classify us as middle eastern.and also why don't we claim our cultural roots in Central Asia?
|
Replies:
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 16:01
|
Proof please??? ------------- |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 16:23
| there is no pure race even turks are not pure. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 16:26
|
this might be true but you couldn't have been more wrong we "Turks" were in east asia untill that time. so untill the 6th cent ad there was only contact between the persians who lived in the east and not in the capital area(persipolis) it would be wrong to think persians are a pure homogenous group. why is it that sogodians and sakas show blond hair and collored hair and modernday iranians don't or few have. there had to be a local population in iran before the iranian arrived(unless they killed or chased them all away) the persians assimilated the local as you call middle eastern people.
More CA than turkey yeah right. Modernday iranian culture is just sub arabian with old persian costumes.
same is for turkey middle eastern
the socalled Ca persians do not exist any more they are assimilated in the Turkic population or mixed with middle easterns.
Iranian culture= middle eastern(arab) culture with old persian customes.
Turkish culture= middle eastern(arab) culture with old Turkic customes and persian& greek or byzantine elements
|
Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 16:46
Yes there is no pure race. We all mixed. ------------- |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2006 at 23:04
|
Hey Kardesler , neden kizdiniz? ben sadce Iranlilarin orta asia koklerinden soz etdim. What I ment was only ask Iranian to think about what they have from C.A.
Yeah our culture is arabized, as Turkic culture did too.But I say Turks are Turks and Persians are persians, The roots of both of us are in C.A.
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 13:21
 ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 13:51
|
I agree Shinai, both have Central Asia roots, infact from Western China to Turkey the two languges are Turkic and Iranic. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: OSMANLI
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 15:02
How about the Tajiks and the Pushtons/Pathans? -------------  
|
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 15:18
good question
I doubt that they are "pure"
|
Posted By: kingofmazanderan
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 02:24
| Hey everyone i know this is off topic but was Ataturk racially asian or caucasian? I searched some pictures of him on google and to me he looks completly european not a drop of asian blood in him in my opinion. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 13:57
|
Racially we need to do a DNA test. Ethnically he was a Turk, a member of a Turkic tribe, being a Turk isn't about race.
Do Persians today feel that they have a Central Asian identity? ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 18:22
|
Dear Bulldog;
As an Iranian I feel myself central asian, an Afghani or a Turkmen or a Tajik is much closer to me than an Iraqi, or Syrian.
Even If look like middle eastern in my face( which I donot) still I think I am C.Asian.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 18:50
|
I feel like a person; a person who impatiently needs to get somewhere. ------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 00:31
Tajiks perhaps (linguistically Persian derived). I have no idea how you come to the conclusion of Pushtons being central asian persians though.
I dont see why Iran isnt a part of the Middle East anyway. Middle East isnt just restricted by ethnicity to Arab countries, it's a geographical region that has many ethnic groups.
If it's genetic markers you're going by, then Iranians have much more similar genetic markers to some mediterraean groups than some Afghan and non Turk central Asian groups. ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: shayan
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 11:25
|
@ teldeinduz lol dude the middle east is the arabian plateau which iran isnt part of ;) Btw people like to think about Iranians as Arab or middle eastern because of the islam :) If we are talking about the muslim thing, Indonesians are also muslim, does that make them middle eastern? no. Iranians are Iranic or Turkic (mostly Iranic) like the region from west China up till Turkey. :S duhhh.... didnt need to open a thread for that people its a known fact... :S @teldeinduz, Iranians arent that much mediteranian,,, just iranic, it's its own ethnic group :) maybe 0.000001% mixed with some greeks but i dont think much more than that... ------------- Iran parast |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 23:21
|
Its all about language families. Farsi, Dari, Tajik (which are all
pretty much the same language), Kurdish, Baluchi, Luri, Pashtun, etc
are part of the Indo-Iranian language family along with Punjabi, Hindi
and Urdu among many others. While Azeri, Turkomen, Uzbek, etc are in
the Altaic family with Korean, Japanese and Mongolian. There's been a lot of mixing in areas like Azerbaijan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan and China so its really hard to distinguish genetically, you have to look at it linguistically. As for roots, Khwarazm is specifically designated as Airyanam Vaejah (Aryan Homeland) in the Avesta. Dehkhoda called it مهد قوم آریا. I dont think Having said that, most Iranians currently dont think of themselves as Central Asian, but i do know Tajiks consider themselves Persian.
These were the Elamites and they were completely assimilated. Their language was part of the Elamo-Dravidian group and was not related to any semetic language (ie sumerian, akkadian). |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 00:18
 ------------- |
Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 01:56
You might be right, and Iran isnt a part of the Middle East. G8 might be wrong I suppose. I can most certainly accept that the Middle East is not of fixed definition. But noone actually bases the definition of the Middle East on Islam, it's simply a location. Indonesians are part of the Far East, that much has always been accepted.
Iranic is just a linguistical definition, so there's no global placement within the Eurasian continent eg. West->Near East->Middle East->Far East. In other words, you cannot claim that there is a Middle East by using the Arabian Peninsula or Iranian plateau as geographical boundaries also. Either of these has to fall within the standard definition of regions above. Really to place Iran into the Near East would make India the Middle East, and somehow I just dont accept this. I'm not sure how you disagree with the map of the G8..the reasons that you do. How would you divide up the following map for example?
 ------------- Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre................. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 07:35
 ------------- |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 18:22
This might be a tad off topic, but by the UN definition, Iran is actually considered to be in South Asia. ------------- "I like rice. Rice is great if you are hungry and want 2000 of something." - Mitch Hedberg |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 19:00
|
Iran is not a middle eastern country, we do not share middle eastern foofds, music, art with Arabs. Our foods is more close to caucase and central asia ( qorma, gima, Kebab, ash,..), Our music Maghamat is same as Moghams in central Asia.
I agree some parts in west of Iran like Kurdistan, and zagros show some kind of Semtic influences, but it is not too much in comparison of our central Asian culture. |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 12:51
|
Can I ask what is wrong with middle east? Also , what exactly does Central asian mean? Is it purely a geographical distinction you are trying to make ? Eventhough it is realy mixed now , originally there was a huge difference between Iranic and turkic people, both racially and culturaly. Which one of them do you mean by central asian? Middle east is not only arabic. It is an ethnically diverse region which was mostly arabized with the arrival of islam. Iran just happened to survive the arabization ,hence the difference between Iran and other middle eastern countries such as Iraq and syria.
Shinai , with all due respect ,I suggest you to speak only for yourself.it is better not to speak on behalf of a diverse nation with 70 million population. Iran is what it is and it does not make any difference weather it is central asia or middle east. I think it is more important for you to look in to your own mind and find out why you need to belong somewhere (in this case central asia) more than another , than just feeling good after deciding that Iran is central asian. You are you and be proud of yourself without the need to belong somewhere. Why do you need to categorize instead of letting it be? I hope you do not feel bad about this and please do not take it badly. It is just my honest opinion.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 18:04
Being Middle-Eastern is a negative thing? ------------- |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 17:08
|
Being a middle eastern is not bad or good, but changing the facts because of the political reasons is very bad.
cuting Iran from central Asia when khorasan is still a part of Iran and connecting Iran to Iraq and Syria is a mistake.
I see only one reason , that is making a gap between Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikestan, Turkmenistan and Ozbekistan.
Almost 40 persent of Iranian are Turkic, are they middle eastern?
|
Posted By: AFG-PaShTuN
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 22:52
There is no need to doubt anything, it is probably a well known fact that the majority of Afghans/Pashtuns, specially those residing in the Central & East Afghanistan are the most untouched and purest. We sure would have some mixes in us, but majority remains pure. Regarding the topic, yes, in my view, Iranians are more closer to the Central Asians than anyone else, notably the Afghans and Tajiks. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2006 at 17:48
Two words: Oil Politics. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2006 at 20:27
What kind of Semitic influences? There are less Semitic influences in the Kurdish and Zagros cultures than the rest of Iran. I think you need to learn a thing or two about the Zagros; the Goranis did not convert to Islam until 600 years after the rest of Iran.
And if you look at Lors, their dress has not changed since Achaemenid times. ------------- |
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 07:54
I agree that Pashtuns are definitely of Central Asian stock (most likely Tocharian/Scythian, Hunnic, and Turk affinities to boot), but I can not agree that the majority are pure. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 13:05
|
Zagros, maybe lors did not mix too much, but they were originally non Iranian ( gotti, Lulubi,..). I think in Iran to make Azeri Turks weaker, the governments support of Pure Iranian Kurds, and Lors propaganda. Phisically and genetically west of Iran (zagros) has the minimum Iranian blood.
Steppe riders did not like the mountains,they try to avoid going there.
Good places for them were Iranian sttepe in Khorasan, and Azerbayjan.
The same historical path have been followed by everybody from sttepes.(Aryans, Turks, Mongols).
Based on Herodut Persian, Meds and scythian has similar language, So they came and settled in the areas good for their horses.(like Semnan
Kharand area, Turkministan, north of Khorasan, Azebayjan.
The same areas were also targets for Turks, and Mongols.
Even now Azeris as the hard working Iranian work everywhere but Lorestan.
|
Posted By: dodo
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 13:28
| I want just to say is not beter that we coming to think that at first place we are all human's.is actually not so important that some 1000 year's ago that soldier to deliverd my Genoa that we have now was an Arab,Mongol, Indo,Turk or what ever i think generaly we have to respect every culture and people we are pars from Iran or turk or or or dosen't matter we most to share our value to gether otherwise that is the begining of being racist |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 14:33
So who do you think was in Azarbaijan before the Aryans? You mean to say that it was empty and the Aryan Azaries came? You seriously believe that most Azaries are descended from Aryan riders? Azaries of today are mainly Turks who were themselves already mixed when they came to Iran.
What propaganda, why woudl an Azari supreme leader prefer Kurds and Lors over his own people? Be specific here. Lowland Kurds, Lors and Bakhtiari have more linkage to ancient nomadic horse riders than almost all other groups, they now occupy the heartlands of ancient Iranian civilisation, Pars, Kermanshah, Kordestan, Illam and Khuzestan and they wear teh same traditional dresses as the Medeans wear in Persepolis reliefs and of Iranian soldiers from Firuzabad reliefs.
What is Iranian blood? And what do you mean by physically? People who today call themselves Kurds and Persian look very diverse, as do Azaries.
Steppe riders also did not like cities, but their descendants live there now.
Based on modern facts Persians, Kurds and Lors speak very similar languages, most Azaries have a Turkic look about them.
Remember, the Mongols, Timur and other invaders massacred most Persians. and during the Timurid times hundreds of thousands of Turks settled in Azarbaijan and also again, when Shah Abbas removed Kermanji Kurds to Khorassan he replaced them with Afshar Turkmen from Eastern Iran.
I am sorry, but you cannot just conjecture like this give some solid proof. ------------- |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 18:50
|
Dear Zagros, with all my respect, I wanna say that old Iranians should be similar to central asians (Tajiks), technically there was no diffrence between Mads, Persian, Parts, Turks, and Mongols. They were rider from central Asia, having a nomadic life and they took the same path to come to Iran, Khorasan and Caucase. They assimilated the locals.
Kurds and lurs even most of western Persians are assimilated semetic, Ilami, or caucasians ( Kurds), the Hurrian root of Kurds now is proved.
I agree with you there were people living in Azerbaijan before meds, they were scythians, that's why you have seen Turkic faces ( I'd like to call it Aryan Face, small eyes and flat face, squre jaw), Oghuz turks could be assimilated Scythian or even their direct children.
Most of kings rulled in Iran were from Central Asia ( Parthian, Turks, Mongols, I say maybe old persian too).
Persian warriors are painted by greeks like scythians. They are too diffrent from Guardians in Persepolis. in Persepolis then tell me what do you see ?a flat face, with small eyes.
Any how Kurds should be the oldest People living in Iranian lands.
|
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 22:29
Really? If you ask most people they would tell you that Kabul[very eastern] is easily the most mixed city in Afghanistan. And I am not sure why you put Afghans/Pashtuns with a slash between them. Afghan is a nationality and pashtun is an ethnicity. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 22:41
That is an interesting statement. You are saying that the IRI which is dominated by Azeri Clerics is deliberately trying to make their own ethnic group weaker in some way. This must be a complex equation here, so can you elaborate?
So you are saying lors do not get along only with Azeris or do lors have big problems with Kurds also? |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2006 at 15:21
|
Shinai
I wanna say that old Iranians should be similar to central asians (Tajiks), technically there was no diffrence between Mads, Persian, Parts, Turks, and Mongols.
They were rider from central Asia, having a nomadic life and they took the same path to come to Iran, Khorasan and Caucase. They assimilated the locals.
Good point, they all rose to tremendous power and became dominant in these area's.
What was it with these Steppe people? many of them became very successfull and later became semi-nomadic and sedentary.
Iranic, Turkic, Mongols could all have a similar root, wouldn't that cause a stir  ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2006 at 20:43
|
The Mads were Indians for sure.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2006 at 23:38
Bulldog , any thing is possible and since none of us has a time machine to go back and see things ,nothing can be said for sure, but in my opinion just the fact that some people shared the same land (in this case central-asia) and mixed with each other for the past 1.5 millenium, is not enough to claim that they have similar or same roots. Being nomadic was probably just the most suitable lifestyle in central-asia so just being nomadic does not prove anything either. Guessing from linguistics and race ,it is quite safe to assume that Iranic people and Turkic/mongol people came from completely different places/roots in to central-asia and ended up together. Going back to the topic, I really agree with Dodo and do not see any point in categorizing people and countries. If there is really a need to look back and to find origins , then we have to do it objectively and accurately without being influenced by hidden desires and fantasies. I have a question for everybody. First of all I am not intending at all to offence any one and please consider this seriously before denying it completely . Why does every body use history and all the related subjects to make himself/herself feel good? This can be questioned regarding the whole All-empires forum but in my opinion this particular thread can be a good example of this tendency where people use history just to make themselves feel good. Just think about it . What if a person who has abolutely no knowledge of the history of this particular region which is being discussed here, happens to read this thread. He /she will fall into total confusion and will start to believe in all kinds of stories that people just made up in order to make themselves feel better. What we need is a mature, objective and rational expert or a professional historian on the subject. ( I am not one by the way.) |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 00:55
totaly wrong. acording to your ideas every cuacasian is indian. the same idea that every body is turk but diffrent version.
Stop posting false information.
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 01:27
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 08:36
|
No Pashtun is not an ethnicity. Pashtun means pashtu speakers, just like Persian means Parsi speakers, Pashtun being called an ethnicity is same mistake as once Europe thought all of today's Iran was Persian.
Pashtun can be an Indic, Turkic, Iranic etc etc etc. SO in that sense Pashtun isn't a single group.
BTW The word Afghan is much older them Pashtun, and its related with the word Aogyan mentioned in Avesta as Natives of Aryana, and it also mentions a river called Argyanwiat, (which is today's river Arghandab runs 300 miles in length).
Aogyan is close to the word Pashtu speaks called themselves, AWGhan. And if you ever ask a linguist they don't mind mixing up word of Awghan, Aogyan and Aryan, depending on geographic area where different languages are spoken. Or if you ever taken linguistic. You would know what i am taking about.
SO in that sense Pashtun does not mean Afghan and nor is pashtun an ethnic group. Although Links with Pashtu culture, language and most of eastern looking Iranians have alot with the word Afghan/Aogyan/Aryan.
------------- |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 09:59
|
Originally posted by AFG-PaShTuN
To some degree, Pashtu speakers should be pure at least 85% pure as they were 5000 years ago. Bakhrians/Tocharian/Scythian (sakas) were not different from eachother they also spoke same eastern Iranian language, related to Avesta, but Hunnic, i hope you are not applying the Altic people who are also known as Huns to Europeans. Regarding Turks?? there is no such as pure Turks, there are many kind of Turks who share some kind of Altic words. Afghans/Iranians might have it either from Turanians, Ugrals, mongolian. But not sure about blood mixture.
Central Asia a very complex region of the world. We know the fact that present central Asians were not natives of central Asia, (ie the Turks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Turanians and other Mongolids). Central Asians 5000-2500 years ago shared looks with Aryanic groups. Today we only have Afghans in central Asia who look different from other central Asians, and therefore you should accept that Pashtuns/ Pashtu speakers must be somewhat Pure. However i am not saying Afghans are not mixed, 80-85% of them share the same looks as they did 5000 years ago or atleast that's what we know from Genitics and written history. And others like Uzbeks/Hazaras/Kazaks, Jats, are mixed mongolians who came in the past 1000 years, not just in Afghanistan but also in India and Iran. The word that that always gets me and have been used as an ethnic group of Afghanistan for the past 15 years. Is Tajik. No-one really thinks about this new word since its known the world after Russian creation of Tajikistan in 1992. 50% of Afghans almost all Dari speakers are classified as Tajik, where the same people back in Afghanistan count themselves as Afghans. The word Tajik came from the word Tardjik, Its a turkic word used for non-Turkic speakers, even if the people is ethnic Turkic yet does not speak Tajiki is Tardjik. Another words any Turkic person not speaking native Turkic language is counted as Tardjak. This word was used among Turkics and since Russians were the first who have recorded it back in 1900 when they took over Bokaras and noticed that there were two languages among Turkic people. And Turkics were very anti-Parsis who, so russians decided that they would divid or remove people in order to decrease violence. And that's how today we have Tajikistan.
Regarding Tajikistan a population of 4 million blended people have have over 6-8 ethnic groups known as Tajiks. Like Kazaks 5%, Kyrgyz 5%, Afghan 25%, Uzbek 35%, Turkic mixture 10%, Russians 7%, Ukrainian 3%, mongolian mixed 5%, Russian mixed 5%. The 25% native Afghans of Tajikistan can be seen in many Tajik cities, TV, media, singers, are not differ from Eastern Iranians and from most of pashtu speakers, so in that since it doesn't make sense to call Afghan Dari speakers Tajik, when yet the meaning of the word doesn't even relate to Afghans. One should also look at history of Tajikistan, up to past 100 years, it shared with Afghans and east Iranians. Upon russian invasion of central Asia, not only Iranian land was taken but also Afghan land which is today Tajikistan, and British from south and south east first took Balochistan made it somewhat independent and then reoccupied along with NWFP, making Afghanistan much smaller.
  Tajikistani have many looks and ethnic groups so in that sence, Tajik is not an ethnic group. Tajiki is close to Dari and Iranian parsi, Tajiki is a subgroup of Turkic languages because it has mixed Turkic words and also Russian. In modern terms it applies to Tajikistanis but not Afghans. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 14:01
I don't know what you are talking about. Most hard core pashtoons in Afghanistan do not recognise most of the Pashtoons in Pakistan as authentic Pashtoons. In fact there was a time when even non-pashtoon afghans were not recognized as Afghans. |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 15:47
|
Vivek Saharama:
"The Mads were Indians for sure."
What do you mean by sure?
Indian culture and people never passed Iranian desert.
Iranian desert isolated west from east.
do you know where Mads were living?
at least 4000km away from Indian borders.
Have you ever met anybody from Tehran, or Isfehan?
Why do you think everybody in Iran should be Inidian?
my feriend I assure you there was no and there is no connection between Iranians and indians, the language similarity is also exist between indians and russians, are Russians Indian too?During the Pahlavi era , Iranian history was messed up by some western scientists.
They made up a history for Iran based on Zorasterian and try to connect Iran to India and disconnect iran from Islamic world.
Durin this time two Indian agents, Shapur and Ardeshir J were playing an important role to clean up the central asian and Islamic face of Iran( this faced was created by Seljuks, Kharazmshah, Timurids, Safavids, and Afshars) and make up and Indo Iranian face.
nobody proved the existance of IndoIranian so far.
Gentic analysis have shown that Iranian and Inadians are diffrent.
R2 halpo group( Indian marker) only was found in 2 % of Iranians.
man our culture is too different, the Mads you mentioned are peopel of Fire as we Iranian are still , beleive me we are too diffrent
if there was an immigration it was from Iran to India not from India to Iran.
During your history how many times India could attak and get other lands?
the same question about Iran?
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 16:23
|
Vivek
I dont know about the turks. Although if they claim that the Yue-Chi / Kushans / Huns were turks, the a great portion of Indians would also be turks. But I don't claim that.
The Hun's were Turkic the other's were not. There were not many Turkic migrations into India only maybe into Northern parts. There were Buddhist Kingdoms like the Turki-Shahi who later became the Hindu-Shahi. Prior to Islam due to the Mahayana missionary efforts in the 3rd Century BC some Turkic tribes had became Buddhist and may be found in the far North of India but apart from that there wasn't alot of contact as far as I know.
Omshanti
Bulldog , any thing is possible and since none of us has a time machine to go back and see things ,nothing can be said for sure, but in my opinion just the fact that some people shared the same land (in this case central-asia) and mixed with each other for the past 1.5 millenium, is not enough to claim that they have similar or same roots. Being nomadic was probably just the most suitable lifestyle in central-asia so just being nomadic does not prove anything either.
Guessing from linguistics and race ,it is quite safe to assume that Iranic people and Turkic/mongol people came from completely different places/roots in to central-asia and ended up together. I meant it in a cultural sense. As they were all nomadic race/ethnicity meant pretty little, the tribe and clan had far more importance. In such a society, tribal confederacies, tribal marriages to join, one tribe subdueing another killing or exiling its leaders and through time assimilating them. Nomadic tribes had alot of mixing.
Nick
Central Asia a very complex region of the world. We know the fact that present central Asians were not natives of central Asia, (ie the Turks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Turanians and other Mongolids).
It depends what you term as Central Asia, if your consider Altay and the surrounding region to be a part of it than Turkic people's are native aswell.
Nick
Just like Ottaman at first had Persian as their national language.
It wasn't however, if your aim was to point out that Persian was an important language then your correct about this.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2006 at 17:17
|
I don;t know which palace it wass in Turkey, but my uncle was visiting and he could read the calligraphy and the tour guide didn't know what they even said... One was something like, "A good shah is the shadow of God on Earth" ------------- |
Posted By: Shiroyeh
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2006 at 12:35
|
doesn't the fact that Iranians feel 'closer' to lets say Afghans or other 'Iranic' Central Asians go without saying? I really don't get what the big issue is ------------- ' How shall a man escape from that which is written; How shall he flee from his destiny? ' Ferdowsi |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2006 at 21:56
| Maybe the big issue is that East Iranians are culturally and genetically not quite the same as Western Iranians. It is a pretty wide country, take a look at the map. |
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2006 at 23:01
|
Nick,
All I can say is Parsiwans (as Pashtuns call them) no matter if they want to call themselves Herati, Kabuli, Panjsheri, or whatever, are all cousins to Pashtuns, if not directly related to blood to them. It is culture and culture alone that seperates fiercely independent, semi-nomadic, tribal Pashtuns from urbanized & sedentary Tajiks. I would say not even 1% of Pashtuns or Tajiks are 'pure' Pashtun or Tajik. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2006 at 19:51
yes you are right Iranians could be divided to 4 general groups,
East Iranian(aryans or real iranians), west Iranian( semitic, caucasian), northe west( meditranian+ mongolian=Turks), central and south= Persians.
ofcourse all these groups are mixed but iranians themselves really know the diffrences. most of these groups were iranized by Aryans from east(afghanistan, Khorasan), Genetic studies show that the percentage of R1A1 marker is about 30 percent in east and 5 percent in west.
Only Azerbaijan in the NW show an increase of R1A1, because of their admiture with central asians( Aryans or Turks I do not know).
The key point is that to understand that aryans and Turks and Mongols were very close to each other genitically ( Altai has the highes percentage of R1A1 about 50%) and culturally( horsemen nomads, with a distractive power to distroy and rebulid).
|
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2006 at 10:31
Yes you do have a good point, but going far you might want to study the region.
The Total population of Pashtuns, in Pakistan according Pashtuns themselves is less then 14 million, but according Government of Pakistan the population is over 28 million, in some cases its 35 million, however according independant research total population of Pashtu Speakers is 18 million, which includes Punjabis, Sindies who live in NWFP, Balochis, Police men, Pakistani Army, etc etc. and that native pashtu speaks are less then 12 million. So in depands on you whom to belive.
A Pashtun from Afghanistan not recognise all pashtuns of Pakistan as one of their own. Why? There are many tribes in Pashtunistan (NWFP) who have links to Afghanistan, an Afghan must know the of their 7 forefather must connect with a tribe whom he/she belongs to. In many cases Punjabis, and Indics are not included.
Other reason is that Pashtun is not an Ethnicity, Hinkos (Indic mixture), Multanis, Kasmiries, Punjabis, etc etc who lives in Pashtunistan (NWFP/Balochistan) speak Pashtu as their Mother Tongue, but don't belong to what majority Pashtuns belong, (ie the Race of Afghan), just like Persians who speak Persian but that does not belong to the same ethnic group, he/she could be a Turk or an An Africian, the english language is another example where English belongs to ethnic Angles but today a world class language that must be spoken.
It depends, i mean there are Afghans who are not Afghans, Genetically speaking the Mongolid race of Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkic Farsi speakers of Tajikistan, Even thought they have been Afghanized and speak both Dari And Pashtu, and adapted the culture yet fingers are pointed at them.
Its not a good thing, in the old style of world politics it was a good tool. Genetically speaking 85% of Afghan are the same, Pashtuns are classified as hardcore East Iranian people not true as what Dr H.W. Bellew thought as Afghan being Semitic. In some forms you can Say Afghans are pure up 4000 years. Some people would like to label them as pure Aryan etc but it won't be good as to memories of nazis, the word "Aryan" has bad Reputation.
------------- |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2006 at 10:31
Yes you do have a good point, but going far you might want to study the region.
The Total population of Pashtuns, in Pakistan according Pashtuns themselves is less then 14 million, but according Government of Pakistan the population is over 28 million, in some cases its 35 million, however according independant research total population of Pashtu Speakers is 18 million, which includes Punjabis, Sindies who live in NWFP, Balochis, Police men, Pakistani Army, etc etc. and that native pashtu speaks are less then 12 million. So in depands on you whom to belive.
A Pashtun from Afghanistan not recognise all pashtuns of Pakistan as one of their own. Why? There are many tribes in Pashtunistan (NWFP) who have links to Afghanistan, an Afghan must know the name of their 7 forefather must connect with a tribe whom he/she belongs to. In many cases Punjabis, and Indics are not included.
Other reason is that Pashtun is not an Ethnicity, Hinkos (Indic mixture), Multanis, Kasmiries, Punjabis, etc etc who lives in Pashtunistan (NWFP/Balochistan) speak Pashtu as their Mother Tongue, but don't belong to what majority Pashtuns belong, (ie the Race of Afghan), just like Persians who speak Persian but that does not belong to the same ethnic group, he/she could be a Turk or an An Africian, the english language is another example where English belongs to ethnic Angles but today a world class language that must be spoken.
It depends, i mean there are Afghans who are not Afghans, Genetically speaking the Mongolid race of Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkic Farsi speakers of Tajikistan, Even thought they have been Afghanized and speak both Dari And Pashtu, and adapted the culture yet fingers are pointed at them.
Its not a good thing, in the old style of world politics it was a good tool. Genetically speaking 85% of Afghan are the same, Pashtuns are classified as hardcore East Iranian people not true as what Dr H.W. Bellew thought as Afghan being Semitic. In some forms you can Say Afghans are pure up 4000 years. Some people would like to label them as pure Aryan etc but it won't be good as to memories of nazis, the word "Aryan" has bad Reputation.
------------- |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2006 at 10:48
Yes Turks are the natives of central Asia as that's where they were born. But there is a period of time we are talking about. As per Aryan theory which was proven wrong that Aryan lived in southern Russsia or siberia etc etc. And today we have prove that Aryans were the natives of south central which which is today Eastern Iran, Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan, and some parts of northern India (ie Kashmir), And therefore northern parts of central Asia are the homes of altics who came from far East, As time past by Northern central Asians invaded south or immigrated south and intermarriages took place (between Northern central Asian (Altic) and southern Central Asians (Aryanic/Iranic) and from there Turanians were born, the rest is history.
------------- |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2006 at 11:02
genitically speaking they are blood related, even the Hazaras something that makes them close to his fellow Afghans.
------------- |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2006 at 23:12
Good observasion, shinai. Altaians as the group who remained in the original land of Turkic people shows the highest percentage to R1a, proving R1a to be the main genetic mark of original Turkic people, which spread to eastern europe and nothern India through continuous migration in the known history. However Mongols have predominant yDNA of C, which is the highest among the Tungustic Evenks in Euroasia. ------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 04:31
|
This is such utter nonsense. R1a is neither Turkic or Aryan or anything else; Pakistanis, Slavs, Uzbeks (plus some othr Turks) have high proportions of this marker yet they are all VERY different.
To try and use this marker as a racial denotation is utterly flawed. Such markers are only useful in showing ancient human movements, NOT the genetic integrity of tribes we have only known of for a couple of millenia at most.
"East Iranians (or real Iranians)" back this statement up... The Majority of East Iranians have at the least significant Turco-Mongolic admixture - Real Iranians are denoted by culture, not by some amateurish and flawed genetic hypothesis. ------------- |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2006 at 10:58
Very well said.  ------------- "I like rice. Rice is great if you are hungry and want 2000 of something." - Mitch Hedberg |
Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 00:02
Nonsense is something that someone makes up without any proof, genetic study is science, and what I've provided is based on numorous such studies. The results are giving us the general picture of Human origin, migration and interaction.
These people are now quite different racially (in the mind of racists), however they had one linage of ancestor that bonds them together, the nomads of EuroAsia. The differences have come from other linages, which genetic studies also confirm. We are not talking about the current nations, what we are talking about is the original emergence of a specific group.
Yes, it's flawed to use genetic marker as a racial denotaion, but using this marker to trace the original ansectory is the aim of these studies. It doesn't only show the ancient human migration, human migration in the known history also changes the genetic pattern of a specific group, which can be deduced from these studies, moreover, these studies are quite concurrent with archeological and historical studies, refuting ultranationalists' and racists' claims.
Actually, Eastern Iranians have much stronger Turkic admixture comparing to the rather local southern Iranians, due to constant Turkic migration and rulings in this region. You are historian, you know that well.
Genetic studies are amateurish and flawed? IIRC, you had spent money to do genetic analysis for yourself, why did you bother then? You said you had R1b, believe me Zagros, your father side might be from an Uyghur, if you remember Ilkhanids.
 I do agree, current ethnic identity should be based on the culture.
------------- Either make a history or become a history. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 03:24
|
Barbar, I will show you exactly what I mean in due course - you have even misquoted me. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 07:53
I don't know why you took such offence, I was aiming my post at shinai who seems to be able to discern who was really what based on Y chromosome HG. If you would like to see the proper application of this technology then check out: www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic I personally have had one of these tests and at the end of it, there was no congrtualtions, you're a Turk or an Aryan or whatever. All it does is denote when my great x X grandfather entered into a region.
No, they are quite different culturally and racially in the mind of anyone who has two eyes and otehr competent senses of cognition.
Prove that they started off as the Nomads of Eurasia. All it means is that they share the same great great x X grandfather if you go back ten thousand years... There are theories of its origination in Pakistan, what's to say they arent valid?
Again a flawed discussion: What's to say the emergence of said HG CAME from a NEW group? It mutated in a man from an EXISTING group. The link I provided details this.
That is the butt of my argument. But Mr Shinai uses R1a to denote "real Iranians".
I never said that, this application of it is: to say who is real this or real that based upon it.
Maybe, but highly unlikely... There is also a branch of R1b isolated in Anatolia/Zagros region for millenia, a branch of the Cromagnon. Since I know my tribe and they were plains pastoral nomads until 500 years ago with a strong cultural heritage linking to the Sassanids. --- Shinai you should really have a look at the Zagros before you start uttering nonsense about horses not being sustainable there. ------------- |
Posted By: Shiroyeh
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 14:55
What about Northern Iranians? For example Mazandrani & Gilakis? ------------- ' How shall a man escape from that which is written; How shall he flee from his destiny? ' Ferdowsi |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 16:50
anyhow I am an Iranian not because of my genes or my culture because I was born in Iran, even if I had the purest Turkic blood, I could not be a Turkish man or a Turmkmen from Turkmenistan. That is not my fault, I am just paying my grandfathers mistakes cost. I am ok with that.
suru den ayrilan lari kurtlar yiyer.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2006 at 17:31
|
Shinai don't take it personally, I don't mean anything against you by what I say, I just do not agree with what you are propagating here.
Iranian Azaris are of course Iranian just like anyone else from that country, but you keep referring to genetics as proof of Iranian-ness... Azari culture and language is a mix of Iranian and Turkic (language mostly Turkic and culture mostly Iranian) and this is a reflection of the rich history of Azarbaijan. Culture is not mostly language, language is just a part of it.
Don't say such things, don't look so deeply into race. There are no pure races in Iran or anywhere else that I can think of, we are what we are and we have to accept it. To claim one is Aryan or a real Iranian based on race,EVEN IF true, what is the benefit of such a thing? No hard feelings bro. ------------- |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 01:30
|
I have seen some Iranians (even in Tehran) who clearly have African roots. In the south especially around Bandar-Abbas , there are many Iranians who can trace their origins back to the horn of Africa, They are as Iranian as other peoples in Iran.
|
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2006 at 19:41
|
Zagros; Actually I agree with this idea that there is no pure race and there is no blood thing in forming the nations. all Iranians are Iranian, that is the western culture( a culture likes to categurized peopel and predict their actions) who got confused when they see Persians,kurds,Arabs and Turks in Iran feel themselves as Iranians.That is good to be Iranain
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2006 at 18:42
|
Shinai
So if the culture is the most important factor and language is the most important part of the culture, AZERIS ARE TURKIC, ISN'T IT? Who said their not, ofcourse they are Turkic, I don't see how it conflicts with being from Iran thus an Iranian. Shinai anyhow I am an Iranian not because of my genes or my culture because I was born in Iran, even if I had the purest Turkic blood, I could not be a Turkish man or a Turmkmen from Turkmenistan. That is not my fault, I am just paying my grandfathers mistakes cost. I am ok with that. You don't have to be from Turkmenistan to be a Turkmen, you don't need to be from Turkey to be Turkish, you can live anywhere on Earth and be Turkic, borders don't determine ethnicity. Again, why should being Turkic and Iranian conflict, Turkic people's are a large entity of Iran and a part of it, they have had their influence and impact on Iran, its culture and society and this has fused with the other elements. Shinai suru den ayrilan lari kurtlar yiyer. Suru'de olanlar koyundur, kurtlar hur ve asil'dir they're free, not followers and are leaders.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2006 at 18:30
 Good point,Man
"vallah Yalniz bir kurt ki koyunlar arasinda yasiyor soni Koyin ola biler"
you mentioned the only concern I have about the Azeri culture in Iran, anyhow it was a good point
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 22:52
|
You are confusing "Iranian" as citizen of Iran and Iranic people(Persian, Baloch, Pashton, and Tajik"... off course any one can become or can be citizen of country called "iran" that is matter of legality....BUT in same token they can NOT be iranic... for being Iranic is genetic/language/culture requirement. Fundamentally there are two cultures in country “ |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 02:26
|
what you are saying about tehran and ispahan, being similar to Azari-turk culture, is wrong. Azari culture is a dominant culture in North west of Iran include tabriz, ardebil, zanjan. In hamadan and qazvin both persian and azari culture are strong. In rest of country Persian culture in very strong. in addition to Azari culture is turkish but heavyly influenced by Persian culture. Azaris are descendant of Medians(Iranic) and Turkomans(turkic) tribes. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 02:51
You are right. those africans are very few and if I am not mistaking having brought to Iran as slave or servants. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 06:05
|
This guy, he has been reading the unqualified ramblings of Oslonor. The alleged "Nordic" Swedish guy who claims to look like Trinity from the Matrix and gets all of his information from his Persian wife which I suspect is no more than a blow-up doll.
12345, where is the evidence? Give us examples of Tehran, Shiraz, Khorramabad and Caucasus cultres so that we can analyse for ourselves.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 06:21
Evidence for this please, because as far as I have seen, Kurdish Y chromosomes are substantially of the R1b category. Same as rural Fars and Lori tribes. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 07:27
Sorry but what's with the "genetic" requirement, have you tested your genetics hmm and what exactly is the quota you have to meet in order to qualify.
Genetics has no place in determining identity, ethnicity and nationhood, are you going to tell me that Persians and Tajik's look identical? or that they have the same gene's, please stop believing whoever is telling you such fantasy stories.
There is one race the human race and that's it.
But this is a little hypocritical, you say that "language" is a requirement for being Persian. But the Torke language roots are right in Central Asia and so is the root ethnicity and culture which has fused with local one's. So how do you cut off their link to Central Asia while you include Kurds as being from Central Asia?
So because of supposed "genetics" you don't accept the Kurds as Iranian? even though their language and culture and identity is Iranic? this is why I can't stand "racial" nationalism. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 19:14
|
Azeri culture is very close to Persians, Azeries may have Turkic gens,but lack the Turkic identity, Azeri Hero Koroghlu was fighting against ottoman Turks, Azeries and Tehranies are identical.
ones zagros mentioned that there were two types of iranian culture in the north and south, azeri culture like Kurdish belong to parto-scythian section (pahlavi language).Our foods, music and celebrations, dances are like central asians.
I found Turks and Kurds more close to each ther, they look like each others, their food is same ,thier dance is same.
Persian, ubek and azeri dances are identical.
|
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 19:28
|
shinai, your assumptions are wrong.
Kurds more close to Turks than Iranians? ------------- They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this. Abdul Rahman Qassemlou |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 19:59
|
Why does this happen so often, individual's like to talk on behalf of whole groups. What you just wrote is ironic, if they are "Torke" that's what they are, that's the identity which other's give to them and which they have themselves. If your going to talk about "native" culture of the region, it's neither Iranic or Turkic as both migrated to the region from Central Asia at some point.
Turks don't all look the "same" neither do all "Kurds" so this argument of basing people because of "looks" is out the window.
Koroghlu is not only a Azeri Turk legend, its also one shared in Turkey, Cyrpsu, Balkans, Turkmenistan, Ozbekistan and other Turkic groups. As is Karacaoglan, Dede Korkud, Asli ve Kerem, BattalGazi etc etc
Persian, Ozbek and Azeri dances are identical? really and what would these dances be, which one's, Tekereme, Lezgi, Gelin Oyunu, Seyh Samil Oyunu, Alagoz, Uzundere.....etc etc???
Bar Oyunu is danced in Azerbaycan and Turkey, Hacer Bar'i is famous.
Seyh Samil dance is danced in Turkey, by Chechens, in Daghistan and most famously by Azeri Turks.
Lezgi is danced across the Kafkas.
Terekeme is danced by Turkiye, Azeri, Turkmen, Karakalpak Turks, you can see some of them and their costumes below.
http://www.terekemeler.com/default.asp?id=33 - http://www.terekemeler.com/default.asp?id=33
You can see Mesrep Uygur style dances in most Turkic communities.
Infact if anything Azeri dance resembles Kirim Tatar, Nogay, Karacay dances much more.
How is Bandari, Khaleeji or others the same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhtOFdbEDLg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhtOFdbEDLg
Sure there are similarities and overlaps occur but to make such sweeping statements would be incorrect. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 21:40
They are linguistically closer to Iranian but they are mostly Sunni Moslim, eat same food as do Turks.
Kurds are Iranic, but because of the diffrent religion they did not integrate in Iranian people completely( Shie kurd did, like Kemanshah).
And dear Buldog.
the people of R. Azerbaijan do not represent azerbaijani people.
Azerbaijan starts in zanjan in south and ends up at Aras river at the north.The peopel of R. Azerbaijan are not azeri, azeries are only from Iran.
the name of the country was Arran and people were a mixture of Caucasian and Turks. They are culturally different from Azerbaijanies.
There are political reasons behind it.
18 m azeries live in Iran their dans is identical to persian dans.
The Uzbek dans is same. Torki is only a languge, spoken by Azeries, they do not have any kind of Turkic identity. Turks came to azerbaijan, mixed with them but could not change the Iranic Identity.
I am sure you know that Ottoman turks could not control azerbaijan ( I mean the real one in Iran), They donot hate the others, but they are proud of their Iranian identity and they always try to show they are not same as R.Azerbaijanies, who defeated by a small country like armenia.
Iranian azerbaijanies like Armenians and many of them do business with Armenia.Those kind of dances you mentioned is not our dans, caucas ends up at Aras river.
If you do not belive me ask somebody from r.azerbaijan who had visited Azerbaijan in Iran. There is only one Azeri culture, an Iranic identity with a mixed Turkic blood.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 08:37
|
Shinai
the people of R. Azerbaijan do not represent azerbaijani people.
Who said anything about "representing", however, the fact is they are Azeri Turks aswell this cannot be denied or changed.
Shinai
The peopel of R. Azerbaijan are not azeri
 whose been telling you these stories.Shinai
18 m azeries live in Iran their dans is identical to persian dans.
No its not, tell me these dances then, I know the dances very well, which Persian dances, there are so many dances and varieties.
Infact there are some Azeri dances so unique that they don't resemble anyone else, they are original and everybody knows that they are Azeri Turk dances.
Are you telling me that the Terekeme isn't danced by Iran Torke...I've seen many dances of R.Azerbaycan danced by Iran Torke but I never saw them dance Bandari or Khaleeji. Infact Torke music and dance has influenced Iran alot aswell, Bayat-e Turk, Khorosani, Turkmen music etc..
Shinai
Torki is only a languge, spoken by Azeries, they do not have any kind of Turkic identity.
Umm they're called "Torke" I think that's enough of an identity, if I'm called an Arab and am an Arab that's my identity how can I be called an Arab and am an Arab and then say I'm not its totally ironic.
And stop trying to represent people, give your own personal opinion isn't that enough? why do you think you have the right to speak on behalf of others, I know many Iran Torke and they have totally different views to you, some of them are the most proud Turks going but I don't use them to represent everyone and block out any views which differ unlike yourself. Why don't you accept that you are not the spokeperson, you are not in charge of what's what and accept that not everybody thinks or shares the same attitude you have.
Shinai
The Uzbek dans is same.
What do you mean the Ozbek dance, do you know how rich Ozbek dance is and how many different dances there are?
Do they still teach dances in Iran? why don't you know any, do you know there meanings? when theyre danced, why they're danced. Dance and music is Iran is dying, most Torke artists and singers go to Azerbaycan, Turkey and other Turkic countries alot of Persian artists go to the West. Today in Azerbaycan area of Iran they watch Turkish Tv, films, music etc they wouldn't do that if they all thought like you
 ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 09:07
|
And dear Buldog.
the people of R. Azerbaijan do not represent azerbaijani people.
why? They call themself azeri, they call their culture azeri culture(Not persian culture)
The Uzbek dans is same. Torki is only a languge, spoken by Azeries, they do not have any kind of Turkic identity. Turks came to azerbaijan, mixed with them but could not change the Iranic Identity.
If you ask me, azeries at azerbaijan is more azeri than azerie wanna be persians. I should add langauge is much more important than dances.
18 m azeries live in Iran their dans is identical to persian dans.
So what? greeks, laz, turk, georgian even armenians at blacksea coast had same dance, music and foods.
I am sure you know that Ottoman turks could not control azerbaijan
so what? selcuk turks did. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 11:14
|
Let's look at Cavit Tebrizli http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDfljhVUUM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBDfljhVUUMThis isn't a Persian dance its Azeri.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxDOc_ND6oU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxDOc_ND6oU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqrpyJ3anuA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqrpyJ3anuA
Here he sings "Dostlar meni Hatirlarsin", by great Asik Veysel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SBw52HP69E - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SBw52HP69E
How about Alim Qasimov, he even one a Unesco Music Prize, Azeri Turk music and dance is fantastic and actually it has influenced other musics alot.
Look at his "Kaytagi"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avWqejE750U - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avWqejE750U
What happened when he sang "Sari Gelin"
How about Uzeyir Hajibeyov? he's was a fantastic composer.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 11:34
|
I don't know mate, my dad fled the mullahs to the USSR and lived in Baku, he says the people there are very similar to Iranians in general and Azaris in particular, this is not surprising since the area was only detached from Iran in 1812. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 11:37
|
I understand what you mean though Shinai... R of Azerbaijan is not the real Azarbaijan, since it has only officially been known as such since 1918, but the fact is that the people there are Azaris. Same as how Azaris also live in other parts of Iran but those areas are not Azarbaijan. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 12:21
|
I don't think its accurate to determine people through borders, ofcourse people in R.Azerbaycan are also Azeri Turk but so are many people in Eastern Turkey. The "Yerevan Khanate" used to have a large Muslim-Turkic population (also non Turkic muslims). Infact the city Yerevan was around 70% muslim untill the Russian forces armed the Armenians and forced them out. They fled to today's Turkey, that is why around Kars, Igdir, Erzerum even Elazig you can find many Azeri Turks and the actual accent in East Turkey is no different to Azerbaycan Turki. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 16:55
|
Azerbaijan is the name of a land, bordered by kurdistan in west, Gilan in east, qazvin and hamedan in south, and aras river in the north.if somebody was born there, is an azeri, the peopel of republic of Azerbaijan are not azeri, that name has been chosen to make trouble for Iran, Azeries are not turkic culturally, They are decendent of meds and scythian mixed with turks after slejuks came. Azerbaijanies are strong shie believers,people in republic of azerbiajan forgot their roots, They did not help us in the war with Iraq, we did not help them in their war with Armenia, there is no connection between us, except some visitors who travel to do business. I feel myself closer even to an Iraqi Shie Arab or an Iranian Armenian than somebody from Badkubeh( Baku).
It is somthing like a small group in Iran start calling the city of Sardasht in Border of Turkey, "Anatolia" then they start claiming that their culture is true anatolian culture.
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 17:00
|
I dont think anyone will care If you prefer persians or japans, but you have no right to enforce your ideas to other people. They call themself as azeri, world call them as azeri, even your persian friend call them azeri, and you Turco.
Okey If you want to change your etnic, You have that right, but you have no right to change a lot people etnic. So pls stop this crap.
Also If azeris are not turkic, tell them to stop talking turkish(If you can persuade them.) I dont know why but It looks like you are hating your own ethnicity.
It is one thing to say, we have different ancestors, It is totally another thing to say, we are that ancestors.
Turkey turks have greeks, armenians and other anatolian ancestors too, but we dont call ourself greek, armenian or hitits.
If you want to call yourself persian, call you self persian, let them other call themself as they wish.
Also persuade persians about your turkic ground not us.(They are calling you turk.) It is becoming boring.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 17:32
|
Mortaza
I dont think anyone will care If you prefer persians or japans, but you have no right to enforce your ideas to other people. They call themself as azeri, world call them as azeri, even your persian friend call them azeri, and you Turco.
 Exactly.It's one thing putting across your personal opinion, that's fine, if you want to be Persian that's totally up to you but you have no right to enforce and speak on behalf of everybody else claiming that its your way or no way. You have a chip on your shoulder, so what if they're Turks, speak Turki and have this identity, it doesn't stop one being Iranian aswell.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 20:11
|
No, all i am saying is that there isn't much difference between Azari from Tabriz and an Azari from Baku. That's all I have said Mortaza; Shinai is an Iranian Azari, that is very clear and he isn't the first to have objected to others calling themselves Azaris. The name of the area was almost changed in 1910s to Azadestan by local leaders because of the objection to Arran being renamed as Azerbaijan.
Apart from that I think R Azerbaijan are not very different to Iranian Azaris because:
1. They speak the same language.
2. Have a very simililar culture, almost indistinguishable also they are Shie there too.
3. The Caucasus Arran/Shirvan was annexed by Russia in 1812 before that it had always been connected with Iran except for brief periods post Islam.
|
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 04:47
| Shinai, no matter what people say or how much doubt you have , you are a true Iranian. I understand that you have some doubts about your iranic-ness racially but believe me if you are from Iran regardless of what ethnicity you belong to now , you will definitely have an Iranic lineage somewhere in your ancestry. Of this I am hundred percent sure , so you have every right to consider yourself racially iranic too. A toast to our true Iranian friend Shinai. |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 05:22
|
Mortaza; Shinai is an Iranian Azari, that is very clear and he isn't the first to have objected to others calling themselves Azaris.
I am aware of it, problem is that. He is refusing azerbeycan azeris, and turkic root of azeris. (Do you know anyone who dont call azeris as Turk)
As I said before, He have every freedom to call himself what he want, but He have no right to call others.
It is one thing to change your own ethnicity, It is another to try to change others etnicity.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 10:34
|
Omshanti
so you have every right to consider yourself racially iranic too. What on Earth is this, "RACIALLY" Iranic?
 Zagros has already beautifully exposed this double edged sword argument. Why do you have to be "racially" Iranian, Hazara's speak Persian, my Iranian friend told me that there was even Black Iranians but they're still Iranians. Mortaza
I am aware of it, problem is that. He is refusing azerbeycan azeris, and turkic root of azeris. (Do you know anyone who dont call azeris as Turk)
As I said before, He have every freedom to call himself what he want, but He have no right to call others.
It is one thing to change your own ethnicity, It is another to try to change others etnicity.
I agree ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 10:39
|
Salut Omshanti, my friend.
I donot care about my ethinic back ground, I am what I am now, but I say that many Turkman tribes in Iran like Afshars, Qashqayees, shahsevens,Shamlus, Bayats,qajars,Zolghadrs,Moghaddams,....could have an Iranic root from Scythians, and particulary Azeries of iran are a mixture of Turks and Iranian but their culture is Iranic.
Being an Iranian is not a proud or shame so is being a turk. Personal achievments make the diffrences.
And Mourtaza I do not hate myself or anybody else.
"Tari insani , kurtlardan korusun. Kurtlar aska dusmandilar, Kurtlar isik dan korkarlar"
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 10:54
|
Bayat's, Afshars, Shahsevens etc don't just live in Iran, they are part of the Oghuz they live from Turkmenistan to the Balkans. Who are you to "tell" people what their culture is, it's totally a matter of your own opinion, let people decide what they are and accept them for what they are not what you want them to be. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: gok_toruk
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 11:32
|
Bayats, Afshars, Shahsevens are part of Qyzylbashes; they're not Turkmen. You can find Bayats and Afshars among Northern Horasan Turks. Aside from this, because they were nomads, they were called Turkmen. No Shahseven lives in Turkmenistan.
I, too, believe Azeris are a mix of Iranian heritage and Turkic language (not even Turkic culture). 'Black Iranians' seem darker just because of the sunshine they get during the year. They're quite different from Blacks.
You said it. Everyone can decide on his own name. But this does not change the fact... ------------- Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 12:05
|
What? Bayat's, Afshars are not Turkmen? they're Kizilbash? what is it with everybody and "sweeping" comments. There are Bayat's in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, some may be Kizilbash other are not same as Afshar's. So what about Barak Turkmens Gok_Toruk huh....Bayat's, Afshar's are Oghuz, there part of the 24 confederacy and are Turkmen they even exist in Turkmenistan today. Most Shahseven live in R.Azerbaycan.
Well Gok_TOruk that's your opinion and everybody in entitled to one.
Gok_TOruk
'Black Iranians' seem darker just because of the sunshine they get during the year. They're quite different from Blacks.
Really this is getting silly, what have you got against "Black" people, there can be Black Iranians there can be Black Turks yes BLACK AFRICAN. Why can't you accept this, they can be real Iranians they can be real Turks.
Gok_Toruk
You said it. Everyone can decide on his own name. But this does not change the fact...
Fact's, there are no fact's when it comes to identity, its all perception. If your talking about fact's they can only be realistically attributed to non-emotional aspects such as language.
Linguistically, Oghuz Turkish stretches from Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaycan, Kafkas, Turkiye, Balkans, Cyprus. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 12:10
|
Gok_Toruk;
You are right Turkmen and Turkoman(qizil bash) are diffrent, Turkmen are oghuze tribe men, living in central asia, and thier name could came from Turk menem or Turk iman, but Turkoman are nomadic tribes mostly caucasoid, which speak a mixed Turkic and persian language and they live in Iran and Turkey. Their name may have come from Turk o man ( similar to Turks) because of thier nomadic life style.
and bulldog who are you yourself? try to be more open to different opinions, and what is this word Torke you use? Iranian azeris use the words Turk or Tut but not Torke at all, just for your info.
The people of R. Azerbiajan coul be proud of what they are,I do not care at all, but they do not have right to steal the name of another nation.
as an example a Turkish guy told me that Azeries are heavy Vodka drinkers and they are not sensitive in some matters, I got surprised because azeries are very hard on islamic tradition. when I asked him why,he told me he saw it in baku,
I asked him next time try to ask for drink and Kadin in tebriz and if he had chance to get back alive I would accept his point.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 12:34
|
Shinai
You are right Turkmen and Turkoman(qizil bash) are diffrent,
This is getting absurd, don't you know that Turkmen tribes founded Kizilbash? some Turkmen became Kizilbash other's didn't. So Turkmen and TurkOman are different
and you want us to take your comment's as "facts".but Turkoman are nomadic tribes mostly caucasoid, which speak a mixed Turkic and persian language and they live in Iran and Turkey. Their name may have come from Turk o man ( similar to Turks) because of thier nomadic life style.
I'm really geting tired of these "racist" theories, the Admin have already asked users to stop trying to push such baseless stories but there is a little group still insistant on it. In one family, you can see people with blonde hair, black hair, more oriental eyes, darker skin, lighter skin etc are you going to divide families now.
They don't speak a mixed language. Look start backing up your comments if you want to speak on "behalf" of everyone. Your just making this up. There are non-Nomadic Turks in Central Asia aswell, there culture is not that different to non-Nomadic Turks West of the Caspian Sea. And also there are Nomadic Turks West of Capsian sea, infact the Qasqay are one of the largest living Nomadic groups living as a social unit.
and bulldog who are you yourself? try to be more open to different opinions,
Did you not read what I've been writting, ofcourse you have your opinions but that's not the problem, your trying to enforce these on other's and are speaking on behalf of others making sweeping comments.
and what is this word Torke you use? Iranian azeris use the words Turk or Tut but not Torke at all, just for your info.
I'm not talking about how they call themselves, I'm pointing out how non-Turk call Turks in Iran. Among Turks there is no differentiation, there is no Turkic or other names, Turksen Turksun its only when using English that these names arise.
The people of R. Azerbiajan coul be proud of what they are,I do not care at all, but they do not have right to steal the name of another nation.
What an accusation? how are they stealing? they are you whether you like it or not.
as an example a Turkish guy told me that Azeries are heavy Vodka drinkers and they are not sensitive in some matters
Do you realise that this is a "sweeping generalisation" your basically stereotyping and putting everyone in the same boat. There are people who drink, people who don't drink, religous people and non-religous people.
I asked him next time try to ask for drink and Kadin in tebriz and if he had chance to get back alive I would accept his point.
Again a sweeping generalisation, the Illegal Alcohol industry in Iran is rife and you should know this and how easy it is to get hold of.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 19:24
If you had read this thread carefully you would have noticed that I was the one who wrote this (read below).
I know that shinai's theories and what he/she writes about peoples' origins can be uncomfortable to some readers (in fact I did feel uncomfortable about them too in the begining), but they are uncomfortable only when you have insecurities in yourself. Maybe it is better for everyone to look within instead of attacking Shinai in this thread. Shinai, I am really glad that you wrote this (read below).
|
Posted By: Apo-Init
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 20:59
|
If you're talking about Iranian roots in Central Asia, I have two words for all of you: Andornovo Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
 As much as I don't trust everything they have in Wikipedia, I do make this an exception from many of the scholarly sources they have on this archaeological finding.
Term 'Iranian' can be confusing because, for one it is used as a nationality describing someone from the modern nation of Iran but it is also used in a linguistic sense to describe anyone who speaks an Iranian language, and as we know the geographic range of Iranian speakers is broad and even covered a greater area in ancient times.
Let it be known that there is no such thing as 'race' scientifically as biologically phenotypical features do not necessarily correlated with certain lineages. Getting to the point, various populations have inhabited the Iranian plateau at different times. I hope you guys are all aware the the earliest civilization in Iran was Elam and its peoples were indeed indigenous black peoples. Many Elamites were employed by the various Iranian dynasties as soldiers and great archers including the famous 'Immortals'. Heck, I don't know if you noticed but even the very banner of this website shows such depictions.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2007 at 07:18
|
Elamites were not black, if by black you mean African. No Elamite artifacts or those depicting them have African features; that is an Afrocentric myth. The Africans in Southern Iran are from the 70 years of Portuguese occupation of Hormuzgan in the 16th century.
Elamites were dark skinned, that is for sure but they were no more African than Tibetans are, since all of humanity originates from Africa. Their language was akin to Harappan and Dravidian, hence, no African connection there either.
Dark skin does not equate to African. My skin is light olive in colour but when I tan to the extreme it goes almost as dark as those immortals you speak of, modern people of Marv Dasht (Parsa plains) look no different to those depictions.
|
Posted By: shinai
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2007 at 11:49
|
Talking about human race could be very evil if we compare them and try to generalize their characteristics, but if we only consider the historical roots and cultural factrors ( language, music,dance, historical memory,..) it could help us to know each other better and clarify many mythicall believes.
for example I have heard that turkmen language and azeri belong to the same family but uzbek is not, intrestingly I understandd uzbek langauge(70%) better that Turkmen ( based on who talks if a nomad talks almaost 0%), this could lead us to a common point between uzbeks and azeris
, which the generalizing causes to miss this point. At this example it could be a common Iranic roots.
In case of Azeri people their Iranic culture could be an important factor to find out the relationship between Scythian or Parthian with middle eastern people, and even it could be used to solve the mystery of caucasoid Turkic speaking people who came to middle east.
There are many dark points about caucasoid turks hidden in the history
1- Were they immigrants from middle east to central asia , spent a long time there then came back to middle east? Its has been told that Khazars were from beni israils, or Seljuk were hated by other Turks beacuse they were diffrent from them ( like azeries who are different from other turks).
2-The mythical relationship between Turaj and Iraj as brothers, could be sign of a common ancestory for both groups, whichis still preserved in area like Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.
And the case of R. Azerbaijan is well described in the history books that the area was not Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is the name of a land in north west of Persia(Iran) not a people or race. Scythians, meds, persians, Armenian, Arabs, turks and mongols were rulling there. We can not extend the name of lands to everywhere we want.
The peopel of r. azerbaijan look like anatolian turks they have turkic culture, and.... but They are not azerbaijani.
Azerbiajanies are from iranian lands they have their own culture which show strong iranic roots.
Azeries do not use Turkish names, Do not eat Turkish foods, do not consider the Turksih heros for themselves. They are not proud of Timur or chengiz han.They consider Rustam, suhrab, and keykhosro as their legends. Thier totem is a lion not a wolf. The poeple of Tebriz invited russians to push back the ottoman army in WWI, They were feeling more safe with an organized army even they were not moslim. The azeries did not stop business with Armenia, after qarabaq war, and armenain consider the azeries diffrent from turks.
In all my posts I just wanted to emphesise That iranian have an old root in central asia and they are mixed with Turks there, so many caucasiod turks came to Iran in 12th century had strong Iranic root.
|