|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Nov 1, 2011 1:40:46 GMT 3
Here is the historical references to the Arab migration and settlement in Azerbaijan after the Arab conquests, which should have been posted in the proper thread which unfortunately has been locked. So I provide them starting a new thread.
According to History of Prophet and Kings by Tabari, the 5th volume, To encounter the possible skirmishes and violent encounter with still unconquered people of Gilan, Taleshan and and Mughan, Arabs had to settle large number of constant forces numbering about 6000 from city of Kufa, which should be replaced by another similar force every four years.
Yaqubi in his book of Al-Buldan asserts: "Thus upon its conquest, the Arab fell upon it"
Al-Baladhuri in his book Futuh al-Buldan says: "I have learned that once Azarbijan had been conquered, Arab tribes from two cities (i.e. Kufa and Basra) and Al-Sham (Syria) moved towards it, each of them tried to take over as much as possible, some acquired the land by paying the locals, and some villagers left the control of their towns to them in return of protection."
Al-Ashaath ibn Gheis the governor of Azarbaijan during Caliph Uthman wrote: "People of Ata and Divan ( those who were privileged by receiving annual salaries from Beit ul Mal) are settled there in order to call people into the new faith". "A group of people of Ata and Divan are settled in the city of Ardabil".
Al-Aghani in his 11th volume regarding the continuous warfare between bani Taghlab and Bani Gheis during the reign of Umayyad caliph Abdul-Malek ibn Marwan, states: "So Taghalb sent a herald to summon their settlers in Azarbijan and Shuayb ibn Malil with two thousands horseman arrived."
Yaqubi says in the events of late second century after Hijra in the 2nd volume of his work, that Abu-Jaafar the Abbassid caliph, appointed Yazid ibn-Hatam Salmi as the governor of Azarbijan and he brought the Yemeni tribes from Basra with him, "Then he settles Rawad ibn Muthna Azadi in the Badh area and Mar ibn Ali taei in Nariz and Hamdani were settled in city of Miyane, he scattered the Yemeni tribes everywhere". Al-Estakhri and Ibn Hoghel who both visited Azarbaijan in the middle of 4th century Hijra, counted Arabic and Persian as both local tongues of Azarbaijan, which shows the considerable settlement of early Arabs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 2:17:08 GMT 3
Do you even read your source? It only speak of some very few thousand people.
And I must repeat it again, 7-8th century has nothing to do with Azeris Turks, whom are descendets of Oghuz tribes.
Several thousand Russians settled in Azerbaijan following Russian conquest, but it dosen't adds any "Russian" element" into Azerbaijani Turk nation in any way.
But all in all, even in your own sources your present it shows that in no way those Arab settlements could have any serious impact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 2:21:51 GMT 3
Or for instance, many Khazar families settled in Azerbaijan after the peace treaty between Khazar Khagan and Alban prince Javanshir, also following the agreement the daughter of Khazar Khagan married Javanshir.
But we don't go out and say that Azerbaijan has a "Khazar element" (I.E, in form of ethnicity) . And you can have many more such examples.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 1, 2011 3:37:19 GMT 3
Your language is too offensive Attila, soften it up. Oh and yes, if the Azerbaijani Turks or Azeris are "pure Turkics", why do they look the same with their Iranic and Caucasian neighbours instead of Central Asian Turkic peoples? Because of heavy admixture they had with the locals. Same case with Anatolian Turks too. Though we can say both in Azerbaijan and Turkey, ethnic mixing between Turks and locals happened mostly in urban areas, whereas admixture was on much lesser levels in the countryside.
Thank you Azadan for your info. Actually the ancestors of Salah al-Din Yusuf al-Ayyubi were also from those Arabs that migrated to the region from Yemen in the 8th century. In similar ways, thousands of Arabs also settled in Transoxiana too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 3:54:30 GMT 3
First of all, I did not claim such a thing. Also, Oghuz Turks really are not that Mongol like. Even the people in Turkmenistan, you can see alot of people that have non-Mongol face. Overally they are not that "Mongol" looking if you know what I mean.
But again, I was not really talking about that. Such facts dosen't changes that we are Turkic.
And regarding this subject, for the sake of it, I don't see what has 7-8th century a relevance to nowadays nation of Azerbaijan which is formed by Turkic settleements centuries after that, morover Arabs did not had any serious impact. Otherwise you could claim that people Azerbaijan has perhaps hundreds of ancestry because of some other settlements. It dosen't means anything really, we are Turks and that is that. There are other ethnicites in Azerbaijan, other than Turks and they have neither lost their language, or culture. There are Iranian Tats and Talysh. But Turk is Turk, Tat is Tat, Talysh is Talysh, Lezgi is Lezgi in Azerbaijan.
In regards to Turkey, it's the same but there are alot of people in Turkey that actually has non-Turk Balkan and Caucasus origin and it is neither secret, while there is no such thing in Azerbaijan.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 1, 2011 4:17:38 GMT 3
Most of the, at least urban, Azeris also don't look like Turkmens of Central Asia, who have preserved their "Turkic" (or "Mongol" as you say) facial features. It is evident that they have undergone heavy mixing with the various Iranic and Caucasian native peoples around. There were also lots of Anatolians and Greeks that became Turkified after the 11th century, but groups of Greek still exist in Turkey, so this doesn't mean they did not mix with the Turks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 4:29:43 GMT 3
As I said, I do not think that Oghuz Turks, really had that much of "eastern" features compared to other Turkic groups. But what does it say anyway? Syrian - North African - Gulf Arabs are all different from each other but they are all Arabs.
The peoples you can all mention are all isolated mountain ethnic groups opposed to Azeri Turks. I really don't see how there could be mixing with Lezgins or Talysh in their very isolated geography. If we look at Azerbaijan today, Azeri Turks hardly populate any mountain area, while other ethnic groups all populate mountain areas.
Or even in Dagestan, Azeri Turks live in Derbent along Caspian Sea while to the west (mountains) there are those Caucasian tribes. In Karabakh, Armenians settled in mountain parts, while Azeri Turk settlements were in lower parts.
And I m not only talking from modern perspective, but also historical.
Mixing in such situation was a rarity.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Nov 1, 2011 12:53:31 GMT 3
Yes exactly, that's what I am trying to say. Talking about ethnicities you are not able to deny the Azerbaijani heritage omitting the heavy intermarriages that took place so far in the region of Azerbaijan of Iran and Azerbaijan republic. Even if Azeroglu really read our allegedly laughable claims completely, you wouldn't say so now. many times I said in the whole middle-east and even Central Asia no one could talk about purity of blood or ethnic confinement only to one historical nation or tribe, the same goes also pretty much for Iran which many migrations as well as that of Arabs happened - many Arabs become later Irancized that's why it is hard to track their massive migrations during centuries, for which they originally orchestrated their conquest. furthermore how many do you estimate the population of 7th, 8th and 9th centuries or medieval Azerbaijan to say that that Arab settlement was insignificant? Yes you are talking about modern perspective but you are trying to use historical evidence for your claims that unfortunately can not accompany your claims. As Ihsan said the heavy mixture in today Azerbaijan republic, Turkey and Iran is something that no one could never ever deny. You can see for yourself go and see the people, they are very various. One can notice someone with pure Mongloid traits, one with pure European, one with typical faces of middle-east and many who are have it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 14:01:46 GMT 3
In your own sources, I repeat again, in your own sources it shows how small-scale these settlements were. If there were really any significant Arab settlement, there should be at least some traces of it, there should be some Arab speaking villages left in Azerbaijan or at least toponyms related to it.
To say that we are "heavily mixed" are absurd, for the simple reason the way Oghuz settlement occured in Azerbaijan. The massive amount of Oghuz settlements in Azerbaijan were recorded by medieval historians, describing Turkic tribes in Azerbaijan as having seen "ants", referring to how much in numbers they were. Such settlements continued in next centuries, and there is no doubt absolute majority of Azerbaijan consists of the Oghuz tribes. So the "heavy" part are absurd, like said.
But the main point is that what really shaped Azerbaijan was Oghuz Turks, and before that it has no real significane.
I do not want to and will not repeat the same things next.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 1, 2011 15:39:04 GMT 3
This was actually a view defended by conservative-nationalist Turkish historians like Bahaeddin Ögel, İbrahim Kafesoğlu and Faruk Sümer (all three were great historians btw). They thought that the Oghuz had the real facial features of original Turkic peoples prior to the Mongol invasions, and all the other Central Asian Turks started looking "Mongolic" only after the 13th century. Of course it's easy to see the very Turkish or Anatolian-oriented view here. And in fact, if you go to the Turkish countryside, you can still find many Oghuz-Turkmen people who have more Central Asian facial features contrary to how those Turkish historians thought, or wanted to believe.
Ok I can understand the countryside, but what about the urban areas, primarily Tabriz and Baku?
Those numbers show a significant amount for medieval times, of course not for today. And as I said before, similar large-scale settlements happened in Transoxiana too, but over the centuries, those Arabic colonists got melted into the local Iranic and Turkic peoples (a similar case was the numerious Turko-Mongol-Tungusic peoples that settled in northern China but eventually got Sinified).
The same was written for Anatolian Turkmens too, and for example the 14th century Arabic geographer al-Umari gives a detailed list of how many tens of thousands of Turkmen "tents" (families) settled in which part of Anatolia, but we know that the Turks that settled in Anatolia, especially in the urban areas, got mixed with the Anatolian natives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 15:46:24 GMT 3
Baku become a significant city only during Russian empire, the vast majority of people that innhabit it now were originally from countryside anyway.
In Tabriz, the Turks simple became the absolute majority, as early as the Ilhanid period. And you can imagine how much so the Turk population had increased during Qara-Qoyunlu period.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Nov 1, 2011 15:50:04 GMT 3
You again taking the whole threads in circles repeating what you like to be the form of history without even citing a mere source for your claims. As Ihsan also asserted Azerbaijani Republic people of today and Azarbaijan province of Iran are conglomeration of many elements that is Iranian, Turkic and Arabic and you just because it doesn't please you can't change it, only like many more out there who apart from your claims have plenty others like: Babak Khurramdin was a Turkic Azeri, Medes were Turks, etc. . Tat is a demonym Turks attributed to some non-Turkic speaking of Arran and Azerbaijan and many Arab historians upon visting the Albania region attested that they speak a dialect similar to Iranians but not the same. Plus I think you for your own good sake need to be more accurate if you are going to talk about history in this forum which is called 'Steppe History Forum' which with no doubt concerns history. So I encourage you talking about history here with support for your claims with conclusive evidences instead of just trying to lengthen discussions you start about subjects already long discussed in other threads. Here people tend to to talk about history not propagandas. Oghuz migration to th area of notable population like Azarbaijan, Albania, Shervan and Armenia never regarded as whole replacement in the history. And just to show how you are inventing non-historical claims, I should add that Tats are considered Iranians.
My sources show a major Arab migration to a former populated land mainly by Iranians - one the most populated regions in west of Sassanid Iran- How can you say it shows a migration of little significant? just by saying No?! contrary to you I am not saying that the Turkic settling of the regions northwest of Iran was insignificant I call it significant as history has it. Like it or not heavy mixture in the above-mentioned regions is more than daylight clear with no question for historians and no historian agrees that the majority of Azerbaijan consists merely of pure and direct descendants of Turkmens just because their tongue is a Turkic dialect now. That would be better that you instead of diminishing your energy repeating just the same thing over and over again, try to made professional statements, or as you said cease to echo it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 15:57:05 GMT 3
Caucasian Albania were Iranian? In what way?
No your sources dosen't show anything "major", as I said, if it was really significant, there should be some villages left, or toponyms related to it.
You still don't get it or don't want to, after Russian conquest thousands of Russians settled in Azerbaijan and historically surely a bigger scale. But that didn't-dosen't adds any "Russian element" into Azerbaijan in any way. The same way with your logic.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Nov 1, 2011 16:11:21 GMT 3
Yes many historians considered Albania also a land inhabited by some of Iranic people alongside original local people before Iranians like people ancient people kin to Georgians for example. Albania in some theories of Indo-european migrations is considered one of the points of their departure. Arabs as you read the histories of Arab historians of the times and Armenians settled in major towns of Azarbaijan, Albania, Armenia, Shervan, they even founded big cities cities which were formerly of no significance like Maraga. And it clearly is visible that Arab settlers adopted local customs and literally become Iranicized as it is said by some historians and is the case for examples for Arabs like Rawadian dynasty. Of course Russians also added their own cultural element and demographics to the regions they conquered during their great empire, thanks for reminding me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 16:17:48 GMT 3
Iranians had no serious presence in Albania in terms of population. It was only ruled by Sassanids for some time, and during that time Tats were settled there by Sassanids, but not in a real significant numbers. And that is it.
No they didn't, that is the same logic as yours. Do not confuse culture with ethnicity.
Your comment about Maragha are interesting to me, Maragha became a important city in real sense only during Ilkhanate period, when it was the capital of Ilkhanate alongside Tabriz.
|
|