Gino

I prefer that you do not use quotation marks in the word Azeri. First of all that is an insult. Secondly, they are offically called like that and refer to themselves like that. "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes." ///Why is the "Azeri State" a "Turkic" state? /// Azerbaijan is a state with a majority of Turkic-speaking population. Why is Iran a Persian state, although Azeris are 24% of its population, not counting Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, Lurs and Bakhtiars?

Why?

I never said anything of this.

///Again, the Qajar did not once consider themselves or identify themselves as "Azeri" in the current ethno-linguistic conceptualization. They were merely a Turkic speaking tribal entity within the greater Persian Shi'a cultural milieu./// Nowadays the ethnic group of Qajars, where the dynasty originated from, is considered Azeri. Moreover, Qajars considered themselves as Qyzylbashis, which is the same thing as Azeri. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_iso639.asp?code=aze ///They were tribal Khanates that had no specific ethno-national characterstics, but were merely individual Feudal entities comprising Turkic and non-Turkic elements./// I would say Armenians had no ethno-natinal characteristics because in 10th-11th century they had small kingdoms of Ani, Bagratuni, Zakaruni, Rubenuni, etc. ///Because they were residents of that land, land that was within the Persian domain and was considered a land populated by in large with a population who adopted the Persian culture./// Then how come Kurds stayed Sunnis? ///Turkey does act like it's the Big Brother for the current state of Azerbaijan, and that is a reality that has been openly stated by Turkish and Azeri politicians and demonstrated by their actions./// I know, that's really sad. As for me, I think Turkey should still support Azerbaijan, but the support should not appear as assimilation. ///Of course "Azeris" are responsible. Their participation in the Armenian Genocide is well documented, and Musavat's cooperation with the Turkish fascists in murdering scores of Armenians for the purpose of cleansing the land of Armenians is well documented as well./// It is not documented. And I can give you links to plenty of documents proving Dashnaks massacring civil Azeri population. ///Today, however, Azerbaijan is still driven by the Musvatist spirit of Pan-Turkist mentality where the name "Azeri" is envisioned as being the description opf a single Turkic ethno-cultural entity./// Elcibey (1992-94) was the last president to support pan-Turkism as a national ideology. Aliyev was against it, that's why there weren't and aren't prerequisites for both countries to unite, and that's why Turks supported Elcibey more that they did to Aliyev. The period of pan-Turkism in Azerbaijan has passed, let's hope forever.

I'm not going to prove anything because I have already told you that politics should not interfere with history, as Sasun said.

And one more thing. I prefer to use encyclopedia rather than rely on some dubious analysise. For you only language defines a nation, and that is completely inaccurate.

The linguists (unlike some uneducated Armenian scholars who are trying to lower the role of everything related to Azeri and their culture) define Azeri as a language, not a dialect.

hagopn, you typed all this tirade to prove that the word "Azeri" as a definition for a nation appeared in late 19th century. But I did not deny that. ///"Qyzylbashi" is an adjective, and was never used in reference to a single community or ethnicity. /// That's a lie, pure and outrageous. Qyzylbashi was used to refer to Turkic-speaking minority in Safavid empire, who were considered people of aristocratic origin and because Qyzylbashi people were of ruling class, Armenian sources sometimes called Iran "Qizilbashi yerkir". http://www.artsakhworld.com/Armen_Aivazian...lish/Notes.html That's why I urge you to live the problem of the term "Azeri" because both Azeri and Qizilbashi are/were the official names of the same ethnic group (so-called Caucasian Tatars). From this moment on I shall use only the word "Azeri" to define that ethnic group in order not to cause confusion in words.

Tell me something, If you're an Armenian, what does our history say about Artsakh. Does it say that it is Armenian or Azeri or Turkish or Persian? And please, write this in Armenian language. Sorry, that was a mistake. I was going to write something else and then erased it, and only that "I" has left

Sebastia, The fact that there is an Armenian church in Artsax, Naxcivan, Moscow, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean does not justify Armenian claims and does not make the territories "historically Armenian". There is still an Armenian church in Baku; does it prove that Baku always belonged to Armenians, and then came those bad Turks who took it away from them? Moreover, your mate Sasun has just said: Politics should never interfere with history. Azeri mosques are not being destroyed? Are you sure about that? Before WWII there were eight (!) mosques in Yerevan and the Divani-Sardar palace. What happened to them? Did they fly away and dissapear?

hagopn, I think you've just quoted the wrong post. ///Turkic "Azeris" do have a language, and it is a Turkic dialect/// Sorry, but this sounds idiotic. Do you know what a dialect is? When an Armenian from Yerevan and the one from LA can understand each other perfectly though there are some differences in vocabulary - that is a dialect. But when an Uzbeki person talks, an Azeri does't understand anything except for some words, 1 for a 20 word sentence. Then defines a language.

It's not the fact that "those bad-bad Tatar tribes" became "Azeris". An ethnic group can change its name by entering a new faze of political and/or cultural development. I can give you lots of examples: Iberians who became Georgians, Castilians who becamse Spaniards, Lombardians who became Italians, Illirians who became Albanians, etc. That is not an issue. If some ignorant Russian scholar invented a term like "Transcaucasian Tatar" at the rest of them spread it all over the world, what's Azeris' fault? It sounds funny, that pan-Turkic elements desided to call Tatars "Azeris". If it's pan-Turkic, not mono-Turkic, everyone is supposed to be called "Turks" to get closer to each other at least in certain aspects.

hagopn, the fact that Azeris were called "Tatars" by ignorant Russian historians doesn't change anything. Russians caled Finns "sume" and Estonians "yeme". Does this prove that those two nations weren't existing before the early 20th century when they formed their states? Same with Azeris, who according to Soviet Encyclopedia (I think the best modern source to study peoples of the former USSR) formed a nation by 12th century. And it didn't matter what they were called. The language of Azeri (or Old Azeri) was first described by an Arabian traveller Abul-Al as the language of "al-azeria", spoken by people of Aderbadagan in ca. 9th century. I found old rubayats written in that language and revealed that al-azeria was an Iranian language with a bit of Turkic borrowings. What about Azeri literature? What about Ismail Sefevi, one of the first classic poets to write in that language (at that time called Qyzylbashi; they still call so Azeris of Afghanistan)? What about their common language, religion, state? Doesn't this all prove the presence of the language notion? Why so, is it then accurate to call a Russian church "Greek" or "Serbian"? Why not, if they all practice the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity?

Vigil, what does the fact that the Persian nation was formed before Azeris have to do with the mosque being called "Persian"? It was built by Azeris during their rule over present-day Armenia (a branch of Qajar dynasty). Azeris do not come straight from Persians but they do not come from Turks either. If they were Turks, why there weren't any Turkic tribes being known as "Azeris", or "Azerbaijanis", or whatever? Most of present Turkic nations (Uzbeks, Kyrghyzes, Kazakhs, Turkmen) before their invasions were represented as tribes with the same names. Azeris were formed as a nation in Caucasus, not in Altai or Siberia. How can you explain that Azeris in their anthropological appearance are similar to Iranian-speaking Talyshis and Gilakis, and not to Turkmen or Uzbeks? How can you explain that Azeris are the only major Turkic-speaking nation which practises Shi'a branch of Islam similar to Persian? Or that there is still a large number of Azeris who practise Zoroastrianism - an ancient Iranian religion? Or that Azeris and Turks have never lived together in the same state? You can try and search for something that is similar between Azeris and Turks except for their language similarities (although the Azeri language is strongly influenced by Iranian) but I'm sure you won't find one. Quotes like "one nation - two states blah-blah-blah..." do not count. Azeris are not responsible for Armenian churches being called Turkish or Kurdish as you say. If this is true, it's really frustrating. I personally critisize all kinds of historical distorcy, especially outrageus ones like the one you said. I think Armenian government or Ministry of Culture should make an official request.

Atropatene has never been an Armenian province. Even on the most ummm... let's say the most major map of Armenia upon Tigran II (at Genocide.ru) it is shown as a "dependent territory" but never a province. I even found a map of Yerevan in 1827 (a year before the Turkmanchai act by which Yerevani khanate became a part of Russia): http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Images/Chicago/hewsen151.html As you see there were only two small parts of the city populated by Armenians - on both sides of khan's palace (Divani-Sardar destroyed by Dashnaks in 1913). This is a map sample from "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" by Robert H. Hewsen.

The name "Azerbaijan" ad notam was invented in 321 BC and was known in a Greek version of "Atropatene", Persian version of "Aderbadagan", and Armenian version of "Atrpatakan". The city of Yerevan (az. Irevan, rus. Erivan) was being ruled by Azeri dynasties for more than 300 years. By 1852 all quaters of Yerevan had Azeri names (see: I. Chopen "Исторические памятники. Состояние Армянской области в эпоху ее присоединения к Российской империи" St. Petersburg, 1852). 49.7% of Yerevani khanate's population were Azeris, 33.8% were Armenians, 16% were Kurds, and 0.5% were people of other nationalities (see: V. Parsamian "История армянского народа 1801-1900 гг.", vol. 1, pg. 88, "Hayastan" publ., Yerevan, 1977). The reason to call this mosque Persian (not Turkish) is obvious. Most Muslim Azeris practise a branch of Islam (called Shi'a, similar to Persian) which is different from Turkish. I remember on one of the Az.-Arm. forums they even wanted to prove me that Khankendi (old name for Stepanakert) is a Persian name. Some Armenian historians unfortunately are willing "to divide" Azeri culture between Turks and Persians (depending on issue).

I agree with everything written above. Vigil, I am not Turkish. All these facts that you find falsified by Turkish authorities cannot be proved or confirmed by asking "Where Did Turks Come From?" You already knew what the answer would be, didn't you? ///Politics should never interfere with history/// This I find very interesting. If so then - why are the only Azeri mosque in Yerevan and the Govhar Aga mosque in Shusha now called "Persian" by Armenians (an attempt to avoid the word "Azeri")? - why does Armenia which occupied Artsax and has certain claims to Naxcivan and some other parts of Azerbaijan, explain this by "Azeri occupation of historical Armenian lands"?

The term "Turkic" is used to define some ethnic groups of Altaic origin living in Anatolia, Povolzhje and Central Asia. Historical Armenia according to all reliable sources is a piece of land in present-day eastern Turkey which embraces the significant part of the Armenian Highland. To deny this fact means to demostrate your ignorance. As for this topic, I find it extremely provocative. First, because it argues with a subject that has been studied for a long time. Second, because it causes some negative feelings among the users. And third, because even after the answer was given, the official data was being childishly mocked due to some unknown reasons.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Historically the term "Anatolia" (which is Greek by the way) applies only for Asia Minor peninsula, which is to the west from historical Armenia.

Hold you jokes, it's not what Turks say only, it's common knowledge.

Well, technically they are right. Unlike modern Armenians, Urartians were not of Indo-Europaeic origin.

But it says "History of Anatolia", not history of Turkey.

http://www.turkishembassy.org/countryprofi...ksandturkey.htm

I think you shouldn't have react with such anxiety. After all it isn't Turks' fault if some ignorant historian pops up and starts proposing nonsense.

Hi everyone! Lachin means "falcon" in Azeri. Kashatagh comes from Qoshadagh which means "two mountains" in Azeri. Khankendi (name of Stepanakert before 1923) - "khan's town" in Azeri. Jebrayil - an Azeri version of "Gabriel".