|
Post by ALTAR on Jul 13, 2008 16:08:45 GMT 3
Well, I have to say that this is not true at least with regard to the Russian historical sources. On the contrary, in the traditional Russian historiorgaphy of the 18th and 19th century Tatars were always called the descendants of Scythians I always cede the works of Russian Historians in Tsar Era Although they were ouyr fierce but bald enemy. So that they were betterthan red liars. Gumilev was also very valuable historian and he had half Tatar blood. However if we look general to Soviet History Point of View to Turk Nations and Nomads. They always try to impose Ethnogenesis Theory which always talk about the mixture of racial profil in Turk Nomads.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 13, 2008 16:16:23 GMT 3
I suggest you temujin do not be confused with theories from some extremist Indians they are (like a little amount of persian historians) are trying to respectively back theories: 1. Out of ndia and 2.out of Iran which are lacking in credibility.
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Jul 13, 2008 16:23:10 GMT 3
I think history itself attests who is the enemy of who during and now even in modern times ( if you like) Could you give us some sources which are not one-sided then?! according to those propagandas I was talking about earlier, every source rather than pan-turkist can not be relied upon for some people. And a chauvinist regime huh? cause it didn't let some pan- guys seize parts of our fatherland?! heh and some other countries you know best weren't openly chauvinist no? as I look around I just see who's trying to destroy the whose culture and history(in fact it is not limited to CA history). I think it is easily distinguishable for anyone. but do not forget we want sources here for the claims. Off course we need sources. I will put them in the future, dont worry. I am waiting my computer which is in the technic service now. You forgot to mention your ex shahs and current regimes expansion aims. If I put their tragicomic historical theories:) like Azerbaijan Turks were Turkicifized by Mongols because Mongols put needle to the tongue of people and they started talking Turk language. I believe that every member of this forum laugh these commedies a lot. ;D What does it prove intermarriages or Scythian being Turks? They had more Turkic blood than Iranic. It proves that although you refuse ;D [quote author=azadan board=board08 thread=397 post=15637 And your theory about Sakestan is not right. And nor the did the Achaemnid kings taking their surviving inscriptions seemed to confuse then name all nomdas as Sakas. wrong [/quote] About Sakastan(Sistan), It was written in your resources. Look at Rafael Blaga's Hand Book of Iran Folks. Rafael Blaga took it from your old ancient resources. So that is true.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 13, 2008 19:11:39 GMT 3
I am not supporter of such actions but definitely am defender of what I mark as naked cultural invasion performed by extreme pan-turkists, though about the replacement of the todays Azarbayjan's tongue i.e. from azar Pahlvai to azeri turkish, I recommend opening another forum, there we can start a discussion of course based upon vast variety of sources. yeah some guys in those years that extreme pan-Turkists with the help of Russian then government were almost successful trying to cut a wounded part of their homeland, overreacted and made up some ridiculous theories in return; like the peopel of todays Azerbayjan and even Aran are not genetically Turkic at all, which is of course historically denied. Turkics after their invasions of Iran finally took the Azerbaijan way (arabicization of sassanid Atorpatekan) to settle in the borders of Rum aka as Belad ol-Kofr to engage in struggles with Byzantines which was religiously permitted under Caliphs name of Jahad. Thus also in western Iran settled many oghuz tribesmen (fortunately there are some evidents, and chronicles of those eyars written both by Arabs and iranians we can discuss about them in the appropriate forum)
I m just saying Dr.Spencer didnt say that the progenitors of the todays CA inhabitants and some others above-mentioned were thus necessarily Turkics. I hope you understand it this time
Sakestân was not officially attributed to the region until the two centuries BC. (even though there might had been Scythian invasions and scattered settlements)
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Jul 14, 2008 19:00:02 GMT 3
Your theories in the above are nearly same with the other Fars Chavanouists like Mostovfi, Furuqi, Irac Afshari, Kesrevi etc.. They always try to prove these non-scientific theories. Shah Regime also supported these guys.
Azerbaijan Turks are racially Oghuz Turks. In the republic of Azerbaijan you can find the remainders of Iranians only around the villages and city center of Baku(They were called Tat) and only some Talish settlemens in Iran-Azerbaijan border(Mostly Lenkeran and Astara). We should divide Oghuz and other Turks Settlement to the Azerbaijan in three era. - Seljuk Dynasty (1037-1157)
- İlkhanate (1256 – 1335)
- Safevid Rule(1502-1722)
In the reign of İlkhanage Azerbaijan was full of with Oghuz, Most of old natives were killed by İlkhaganate Armies and then they were immigrated to the center or southern parts of Iran. So that there was no real and significant race mixing with native Iranics and new Turk settlers.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 14, 2008 19:52:33 GMT 3
I suggest you temujin do not be confused with theories from some extremist Indians they are (like a little amount of persian historians) are trying to respectively back theories: 1. Out of ndia and 2.out of Iran which are lacking in credibility. i don't believe those theories at all, i just mentioned them because many groups claim many strange theories of origin....
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 14, 2008 20:03:48 GMT 3
We should divide Oghuz and other Turks Settlement to the Azerbaijan in three era. - Seljuk Dynasty (1037-1157) - İlkhanate (1256 – 1335) - Safevid Rule(1502-1722) well, you've forgotten Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu, i thought Azeris are mostly descendants of those two groups...
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Jul 14, 2008 21:25:03 GMT 3
We should divide Oghuz and other Turks Settlement to the Azerbaijan in three era. - Seljuk Dynasty (1037-1157) - Ilkhanate (1256 – 1335) - Safevid Rule(1502-1722) well, you've forgotten Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu, i thought Azeris are mostly descendants of those two groups... Safavids completed their settlements with the addition of huge number of Qizilbash Turcomans who escaped from Ottomans. Their works are a bit lesser than Safavids. So i dont need to mention these but of course their immigrations works are important . I realise it.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 15, 2008 8:44:55 GMT 3
About how much the Azerbaijanis according to your sayings are Turks and how much they are Albanian or Iranian, we should discuss it in another forum. besides the latter author you mentioned was not a chauvinist, since I have read his works and one can go and read for himself. Again I say the former regime wasn't a chauvinist just to revive iranian semi-kind of nationality at rise of chauvinist movements at its borders ( Iranians always been to a higher degree non chauvinist cause they actually even now have no clue what all the pan-turkist guys trying to say, like they have a narrow knowledge of Iranian heroes like Papak Khoramddin which actually rendered this figure a good prey for Azeri pan-turkists to seize), cause they most o. So much works done during that era which are good references too. (of course those are based upon various types of sources, Islamic, european, greek, roman etc.)
|
|
|
Post by zakali on Aug 6, 2008 3:17:10 GMT 3
Talk about Iranian Azeris.
If Caucasian Azeris (Azerbaijan Republic) have any foreing blood then its only Native Caucasian (Georgian, Dagestan) our neighbours. But not so much anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Aug 9, 2008 13:23:58 GMT 3
I'm afraid but talking about that should be moved to other thread.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 9, 2008 23:45:36 GMT 3
Yes indeed, this topic is not about Azerbaijan nor about the Azeri Turks. It should be discussed in a different thread.
|
|
Altantugs
Är
The Hope die at the End
Posts: 12
|
Post by Altantugs on Sept 4, 2008 9:57:38 GMT 3
Scythians and Saks were Indo-iranic.
|
|
|
Post by kirischi on Sept 7, 2008 16:17:32 GMT 3
Scythians and Saks were Indo-iranic. Come on friend, there is simply not enough evidence for u to make that claim. What u are claiming is simply a theory, not something that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Sept 8, 2008 6:12:46 GMT 3
^accualy the main Tribes were infact Iranian the Turks and mongols were just smaller tribes who united or who were subjects to the Saka.
And there is evidence if i'm no wrong
|
|