|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 12, 2008 4:42:53 GMT 3
Most Azeris have localised genes. i.e they have genes that have been present in the region for so long that they are characteristic of that region regardless of what ethnic group carries them. Its wrong to call them Turkified persians. They may have close genetic similarites to many Persians but they are not "Persian genes". They were present in the region before the Iranians entered, which is why modern Persians dont look the same as the blonde blue eyed Iranic tribes of the past. In some cases there are resemblances to the early Iranics from Europe, but this is only because of genetic drift brought by those tribes onto the local pre IE tribes. When the Turkic peoples and Mongols passed through the region they also brought the genes that they carry with them and there was a drift also that added to the genepool of the local peoples. Many Persians will carry these genes yet are in no way Turkic because of it. Its common, for example in Britain, although the ANglo-Saxon legacy is strong in terms of language and ethnic identity, most Britons dont carry the same genes as the AS, in fact genetically the British mainland hasnt changed much for thousands of years. Just some drift by migrant peoples, particularly in certain areas, but overall not much change. So ethnic identity can change without much change in genes. Also remember genetic studies is quite recent. Noone knew of genes hundreds or thousands of years ago. So modern ideas of "racial purity" dont apply to historical ethnic identities. That is probably right, better say Iranized turks and Tukicized Iranians. One can use Persian but speaking of history the word Persian acquires a more detailed meaning. looking fair and blonde could be due to genetical base as well as regional climatic conditions . In contrary to your sayings that they dont look the same I should say it's partially yet not totally many of them look like the iranian majority in the big cities; but it's due to the genetical plethora in the region i.e. like in the Turkey one can find someone very mongloid looking as well as someone blond. However there scattered groups of people in Iran looking even blond mostly inhabiting the mountainous regions like Azarbayejan or Lurestan and Kurdestan. and this could be due to their historical background and the climate. But it should be agreed upon that strong reason of Iranians not looking mostly to what it is said that they looked like when they were nomads in CA, Eurasian and even Mongolia or beyond, is that they have been intermingled with the locals, and there has been continuous intermarriages at very fast pace after 7th century the most inhabitable regions of today; e.g After the start of the Turkic mainstream series of migrations into iranian heartland in 9th and 10th century, cities like Isfahan which became capital were also heavily populated by the new nomads and during centuries of intermarriages they've becaome quasi iranized. bu as for Azerbayjan regarding to its fertile land (What made it also important in the Sassanid era),during the continuous then turkic invasion and simultaneous immigrations the majority became Turkic speaking and the local language of the region died out to a great extent (still exists in sme parts). So an Azarbayjani is an Iranian being of turkic/Iranian or else background neither can be denied.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 12, 2008 15:11:28 GMT 3
Actually, it would be more correct to say that the Azeri Turks living in the big cities are more mixed with the Iranics, because when you go to the countryside in Azerbaijan, you can see that the majority of the population are still very Turkic-looking.
The same goes for the Turks in Turkey. Big cities are very mixed but the countryside is not.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 12, 2008 23:31:13 GMT 3
That's what I was trying to say. Turkics have been a good example of the last people being nomad until modern times. So outside the city walls they still exist in a nomadic fashion.
|
|
|
Post by zakali on Apr 26, 2008 17:18:31 GMT 3
First let me clear one thing. Azerbaijan aren't in Central Asia. Its in Caucasus.
Azerbaijan Republic: Caucasus
Iranian Azerbaijan: Eastern Anatolia
And wich Azeris u guys talking about? Those in Iran or those in Azerbaijan Republic?
We in Azerbaijan Republic are mix of Turkics and Native Caucasians. Not Iranian at all. Where do u guys find such thing?
I don't know about Azeris in Iran, they can be.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Apr 28, 2008 1:52:47 GMT 3
Please define what you are trying to say
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on May 2, 2008 20:47:22 GMT 3
Azeris from the independent country Azerbaijan are not Iranian at all.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on May 4, 2008 20:15:32 GMT 3
Thanks for the extra information
|
|
|
Post by aliko666 on May 13, 2008 15:30:56 GMT 3
in independent Republic of Azerbaijan (North Azerbaijan) we are mix of the Caucasian people and turkic tribes for example, my cousins has eyes like Central Asians, but i am typical Caucasian but we consider ourselves as turks for example, i know that one of my ancestors from a turcoman tribe called "Sharafkhanli"
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 13, 2008 22:47:41 GMT 3
It would be more correctly to say "clan" Because the Oghuz have 24 major tribes and countless clans under that. For example, my clan is Karakeçili and my tribe is Kayı.
|
|
|
Post by Nano on Jul 2, 2008 13:50:38 GMT 3
The Azeri Turks are the closest in language to the Turks of Turkey. So, I don't think there is much to argue about, Azerbaycan Turks are Turks.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 2, 2008 19:18:35 GMT 3
I bet you do
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Nov 29, 2010 3:40:57 GMT 3
I have recently read about the word Turk and its variants meaning bad things among many different Turkic populations including Ottoman Empire.
According to what I read, even in Uyghur writings from 10th century, the word Turk meant arrogant, vulgar, person who don't know anything about Buddhism.
among Arabic populations it used to mean arrogant, vulgar, who doesn't know anything about Islam.
That's really really weird.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Sept 11, 2011 14:50:04 GMT 3
An Anti-Turkic Turkish friend of mine told me this: -"The goat herders entered Turkey roughly 1000 years ago, but they were unable to contribute to the genetic makeup of people of Turkey. This is why we are in fact the same people who lived 5000 years ago in Turkey. We are not really Turks."
There are some possibilities:
1-) There were "Indo-European" Turks in the world in the past. Maybe related to the Tur people whose home was called Turan (Central Asia) from ancient times to 5th century (I think).
2-) Those "goat-herders" (whatever my friend meant) forced the advanced people in Turkey and Azerbaycan to speak Turkic first successfully and then they tried to convert the Turkic language spoken in Turkey into Persian and were unsuccessful this time.
3-) There is no "Iranian race" and it was simply a term like "American". There were both Indo-European and other people who lived in the geography known as Iran - Persia in the past and they still do today and Caucasian should not be mixed with Indo-European since there are Caucasian Turks as well.
-----------
Mahmud of Kashgar was most probably right about the name Turk coming from the name Tur. In my opinion it means "We are Tur". I don't know from where the name Tur comes from. Maybe it was a shorter word in the past maybe "Tu".
That being made clear (that I think Turk comes from Tur), I think Tur was never a "racial", "cultural" [unity] concept in the past. It was a political name. For example Mahmud of Kashgar clearly shows us how people thought during the 11th century. He says there are people who spoke Oguric but can not be considered Turks because they are not monotheists.
Even today there are people in Turkey that say "they don't care about being a Turk, don't consider themselves as Turks and that it doesn't matter" among my friends and they are usually in love with European culture.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 11, 2011 15:30:43 GMT 3
It is generally accepted that the name Turk comes from Türük, most probably originally Törük, deriving from the root verb Törü- meaning "derive, spring up" - hence connected with the origin myth of the Gokturks, in which they indeed are genocided up to the last child but derive, spring up from a female wolf in a cave and reappear again. There are also other Turkic ethnonyms made from a verb root with a -k/-q ending that turns the verb into a name - names such as Yörük (deriving from Yörü- [to walk]) and Qazaq (deriving from Käz- [to wander around]).
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 7, 2012 6:49:51 GMT 3
The problem I see here on this topic is that people assume that Turks are or were genetically similar. That is not the case. People from different geographies share different genetics. The thing with Turks is that they were most probably already extremely mixed when the first Turkic culture appeared.
|
|