Where Did Turks Come From?

[Gino]

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.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

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).

Ironically you are incorrect. The situation is the reverse where Azeris are trying to ignore the actual Persian character and historical Persian categorization of the entire Caucasian Shi'a culture. The flaw in your reasoning is rooted in the false assumption that "Azeris" are and were considered as an ethnic grouping by the Persian authorities, and that, in some concoction and travesty, the Persians (whose dynasties were of Turkic stock as well) referred to the entire population situated in the GEORGRAPHICAL location of "Azarbaijan" as "those Turkic Azaris" to which the recent facsistic and anti-pluralistic state of "Azeribaijan" likes to cateogrize itself.

 

The reality is that the Persians referred to ALL residents of the geographical entity of Azeribaijan/Atrpatakan as "Azari," and only later in the late 19th century did the "Azari" name become associated exclusively with the Turkic speaking Tatars of the region, and this was entirely due to the fascistic movement of Pan-Turkism that had ambitions of Turkfying all in its path. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population of the entirety of the Caucasus is still not Turkic in origin, and a large portion of the "Azari" (as conceptualized by the Persians prior to Russian occupation and after) population is in fact still not Turkic. The non-Turkic Talesh, the Uti, and etc were also referred to as "Azari."

 

The Armenian scholars are merely pointing out the truth, that there had been no "Azeri" nationality prior to the embarkation onto the Fascistic Pan-Turkism began in the 1890's. One of the protagonists, Hossein Azimzadeh, was in fact educated and had learned of Russia nationalism, and it is theorized that he modeled his "nationalist" concepts after the Russian. I would argue, howver, after reading his bio, that he was more influenced by the uniquely Turkish Pan-Turkist ideology.

 

Armenian scholars are accurately referring to anything prior to the fascistic "nationalization" of the Tatars by, yes, Pan-Turkists, as having been Persian. The "Azaris" in totality, the Tatar and non-Tatar "Azeris" themselves never considered themselves as anything but either subjects of the Persian Empire, as Persians, as Shi'a members of the Shi'a Empire, or as independent Tatar tribes who never bore the "Azeri" name anyhow. They might have been referred to as "Azeris" by Persian authorities denoting their geographical location, but they themselves never considered "Azeri" as nationality.

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn

[Sasun]

Gino, I am aware that Atrpatakan/Aderbadakan is an old name and mostly Persian as far as I am aware of. I am talking about a nation entity/country called "Azerbaijan". If those people were Turkified or mixed ex-Persians that's another issue, but I still regard the mosque culturally a Persian thing rather than Azeri since at that time nobody was really called Azeri. And we can't say that Armenia was ruled by the Azeri's either, that country/empire was called Persia and not Azerbaijan.

[Gino]

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?

[Sebastia]

Gino, what are you trying to tell us?, what does Yerevan have to do with anything? are you telling us that yerevan was once populated be azeris and turks? Ok, so what? Armenians lived in Yerevan WAY before any turkish or azeri person ever showed up in Yerevan? Yerevan is HISTORICALLY ARMENIAN. so is Artsakh and so is Nachijevan. Turks invaded us and settled there. thats all.

 

You asked why Armenians have claims for Nachijevan, well, because it is historically ours. We have Churches (well we HAD Churches) and gravestones there that go back as far as 300 A.C. The damn name of the place is Armenian. Nachijevan means first sttlement----In regards to Noah coming down from Ararat. Not even the Persians can claim Nachijevan.

 

 

You said that Urartans aren't Armenian, well, you're wrong. A theory goes that Urartans combined with Armenians along with couple other tribes such as Nairi, Hayasa, and couple others. We all combined and made up a huge nation. Besides, if Urartans aren't Armenian, THEY CERTANLLY AREN"T TURKISH.

 

If Armenians aren't calling the mosques azeri, well, at least we're not destroying them. Everything in Nachijevan region is being destroyed. In regars to Turkey, Erzrum had a gazzilion Armenian Churches. How many are left now? what about ANI? There's no more Ani left. What about Adana, one can't even tell that Armenians once lived there. And I don't even wanna talk about Sis.

 

Look, there is no evidence of anybody's historians that states that once there was a race who called themselves azerbaijanis and that spoke turkish. I mean, if azerbiajnaian race lived right next to Armenia, we would at least have some evidence of it. Today's azerbaijanis are a mix of different nationalities (mostly turkish) who made a state for themselves in the beggining of the 20th century and used the took the word azerbaijan from the persians.

[hagopn]

Vigil wrote:

 

Gino it is more accurate that the mosque is Persian mainly because Persians have a culture and a language that is older then the formation of the Ajeri nation.

 

Yes, that is partly true in that in the region, the Persians have had a longer presence. I wouldnt' say, however, that the Persian language is older than the Turkic dialects, for that would be inaccurate, or, at least unprovable.

 

Azeris to date do not have a language and because of that it could be very hard to set claim to living in a region.

 

Turkic "Azeris" do have a language, and it is a Turkic dialect composed of influences from Persian, Armenian, and other Caucasians.

 

The actual point that must be made is whether or not "Azeri" has historically referred to an ethnic group or a geographical location.

 

Logic dictates that since the Turkic tribes invaded and occupied the region much later than 321 b.c. (they mostly did so in the 12th century a.d.), then the name "Azerbaijan," a derivative of the Greco-Byzantine "Atropatene," did not originally mean the denote the present day "Azeri" nation, language, political entity, or culture.

 

The question then arises: So when did the name "Azeri" begin suddenly to be attributed to the present day "Azeri" nation? I have answered that in my post above.

 

In fact if you read about Ajeri history they proudly state that they come from Persians, but this also is false. Ajeri's like Turk claim to a history that is not theirs. They are just trying to justify their occupation of land. Its kind of sad and disgusting that this kind of corruption of history is allowed.

 

But they are partly correct that they come from Persians, culturally speaking. The current Shi'a Caucasian culture that just happens to be predominantly Turkic in language, is and was always a Persian cultural offshoot.

 

I think what you are referring to is they claim that the ENTIRE PERSIAN civilization as a "product of Azeris." Then, you would be correct, since the exact opposite is true.

 

Ok, but lets say that the church did belong to Ajeri's and was built by them. It still does not give reason as to why Turkish historians leave out a group of people that originated and lived in the "Armenian Highlands" for almost 3000 years. It is like they are trying to erase the presence of Armenians in what is now Eastern Turkey.

 

The "Church," if you are referring to the Mosque(s) in question, were never "Azeri" in the current understanding. They were Persian, and they were IN AZERBAIJAN in Persian geographical understanding and reference.

 

Even the ruins in ancient Cilicia, which is not old historically compared to other regions of Turkey, is not acknowledged as being Armenian. Hosap Castle, which the archatecture is mid-evil looking and Christian, is said to tourist to be created by Kurds.

 

Of course, the pan-Turkists love to erase Armenian history. There is nothing new in that, but Armenians have to work to prevent that trash of a ideology from destroying not only Armenians, but all those who consider themselves as civilized Turkish speaking peoples. Pan-Turkism is augly and militaristic ideology that wishes to glorify butchers and murderers such as Atilla, Timur Lang and Genghiz Khan. If Turks ans Azeris, as is the current understanding of these ethno-politically constructed entities, should be wary of such associations to barbarians as "Heroic figures," especially if they wish to decisively and finally Europeanize themselves and honestly and earnestly join civilization.

 

Turks think that by renaming things, they can change history. The Roman tried that, and they failed as well. We still know who teh Etruscans were, and we know how much influence on the Romans the Etruscans had. History will always come back to haunt you.

 

The article about dogs being raped in Izmir has me worried though...

 

This is just more evidence that Turks are going to invade Armenia in the near future. They preceive it to be their destiny to rule that region and replace Armenians.

 

Yes, Pan-Turkists have such dreams, but there are elements in Turkey and Azerbaijan that do not want any part of it. My hope is in making them the leading cultural force in these respective political entities.

[Gino]

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.

[Gino]

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.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[Sebastia]

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.

 

how do you know?

 

I an Armenian from Yerevan .....

 

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.

[Gino]

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?

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[Gino]

how do you know?

 

I an Armenian from Yerevan .....

 

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

[hagopn]

Gino wrote:

 

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.

 

The USSR's encyclopedia is irrelevant. The USSR was bulding nations from scratch, and that is also a well fact. Encyclopedias are the product of current political trends, and they are definitely not trustworthy sources on such matters. Perhaps you can find out how many chickens Uganda raised in 1976 in an Encyclopedia, but you certainly cannot use it as some sort of "historical source material" much less as a source to argue nation construction theories of the USSR!

 

The Estonians and the Finns were distinct ethnicities who in fact did consdier themselves as such. They also did not invade a territory called "Finland" and then decide to name themselves "Finns." The same goes with the Estonians. They were in fact a distinct ethnicity prior to their state assuming their name.

 

In stark contrast, the "Azeri" Turks never did differentate themselves as a separate nation, and were in the majority a happy part of the Persian cultural milieu in the GEOGRAPHICAL location of Azerbaijan. Azeribaijan was merely a geographical region, a toponym, but it never was a word used in reference to a specific ethnicity. The minority that lived independently under tribal rulers or Khans, also never did refer to themselves as "Azeris," and not only that, but those "independent" Khanates never even identified as "conationalists" with any other Turkic speaking 'Azaris" in the region that did not belong to their specific Khanate.

 

And it didn't matter what they were called.

 

Yes, and no. It did matter WHY they were called WHAT they were called. As I said earlier, dear "Gino," the name "Azeri" was in reference to ALL ethnicities of the Shi'a persuasion OR the Sunni persuasion (and in some cases even Christians and Jews) in the specific GEOGRAPHICAL region of Atropatene/Azerbaijan. It was only much later, after the pan-Turkist movement's pushing and shoving, that the name "Azeri" was monopolized by the Turkic speaking residents of Azerbajian.

 

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.

 

That's interesting. This proves my point yet again. The "Azeri" is merely an offshoot of Persian culture, and the "Turkic borrowings" merely meant that the large Turkic speaking population had an effect on the Arab's so-named 'al-Azaria." The Arab was yet again referring to the geographical location of Azeibaijan, and he most definitely was not referring to any single ethnicity.

 

The 9th century had seen the importation of Turkic mercenaries, and perhaps their number had begun to swell. It was only after major Seljuk incursions that the character of the region and the language spoken as the "lingua franca" changed character.

 

In other words, the people were never "Azeri nationals" but were residents, multi-ethnic residents, of the region of Azerbaijan. That the Turkic khans and the oppressive regime assimilated the lion's share of those diverse ethnicities is testament to something else that we can talk about.

 

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?

 

What about their common language? And their "state" was established for the first time when? It was first established in the 20th century, and for the first time the Turkic speaking peoples of the Azerbaijan geographical location, who had now managed to completely subdue and assimilate all other non-Turkic cultures, save for minority remnants, managed to present to the world a "uniform Azeri culture." Prior to that, the toponym "Azerbaijan" was only a geographical entity. "Qyzylbashi" is an adjective, and was never used in reference to a single community or ethnicity. It was a term loosely used to identify Talesh, Turkic, and other ethnic groupings under the Shi'a banner in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

 

Again, Safavi was considered by himself and others in that era as a resident of the geographical location known as Azerbaijan, but not once will you find reference in any work from that era that refer to some "Azeri identity" in strictly ethno-linguistic terms. They merely composed, due to the political situation of there having been predominantly Turkic speaking peoples (due to the inherent oppressive and assimilative nature of the Turkic populations) in the Turkic dialect that happened to dominate the landscape at the time. Qyzylbashi is in reference to other Turkic and non-Turkic Shi'a communities, and that is all: Yet, you admit that they were not only not identified as "Azeris," but they did not also identify with the Caucasian Shi'a of Turkic stock. Armenian bards also composed in three idioms of Georgian, Armenian, and Azeri Turkic, but that is only because of the change in demographic in the 18th century that had assimilated much of the local non-Turkic population.

 

Ironically, Azeris themselves don't like to totally sever themselves from one of the previous occupiers of the region, the Albanians, and this is, ethnically speaking, the reality. They are indeed at least partly descendents of the Albanians, but not as "Azeris" in the current ethno-linguistic conceptuatlization.

[hagopn]

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.

To you it sounds idiotic, but to linguists, it is fact. I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes.

[Gino]

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.

[Gino]

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. Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

"Azeris" as a cultural entity were among those formed in the Caucasus, a cultural milieu that was eventually dominated by Turkic and Persian elements, but there had been no national self-identification, and there had been no specifically "Turkic Azeri" state formed at any time in that region. They were tribal Khanates that had no specific ethno-national characterstics, but were merely individual Feudal entities comprising Turkic and non-Turkic elements. Other ethnic groupings also have the right to be called "Azeri" in the historical sense, groups such as the Talish, the Uti, smong others, who have been there perhaps for much longer. They have the right to the "Azeri" name because the land is what gave the population there their name, and not the other way around.

 

The Pan-Turkist "Azeri" of today, however, would like to differ with you. They consider themselves "of closer kinship" to Genghiz Khan than they do with Safavi.

 

How can you explain that Azeris in their anthropological appearance are similar to Iranian-speaking Talyshis and Gilakis, and not to Turkmen or Uzbeks?

 

Great! Explain that to the Pan-Turkists!

 

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?

 

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. This proves yet again that the land of Azerbaijan was never a national or state entity.

 

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.

 

Great! Explain that to the Pan-Turkists as well!

 

Unfortunately, Vigil is referring to the fascistic pPan-Turkist tendencies that are perhaps the worst perpetrator of historical revisionism. Bunyatov was a representative of such Pan-Turkist mentality, and people such as Bunyatov are most anti-Iranian and pro_Turkish in their political convictions. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I would rather see your concept of "Azeri nationalism" go to maturation, in that, hopefully, it takes into account the actual cultural legacy that has been rendered "non-existent" by Pan-Turkists be revived and respected in Azeribaijan once more, like it always had been.

 

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. This in effect throws out older cultural remnanets such as the Talish, Uti, Lezghi, and etc in that region, and this is merely another form of oppressive fascism.

[Sebastia]

This is my last prove, cuz i'm isck of proving it. From now on, IT IS YOU WHO IS GONNA PROVE STUFF. Now, look at the history of the region from year 1 - 2000 and tell me who does Artsakh or Nachijevan belong to?

 

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0001.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0100.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0200.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0300.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0400.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0500.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0600.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0700.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0800.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1000.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1200.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1300.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1700.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1800.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1900.htm

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big2000.htm

 

 

These maps were NOT made by Armenians!!!!!!

[Gino]

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.

[Gino]

This is my last prove, cuz i'm isck of proving it. From now on, IT IS YOU WHO IS GONNA PROVE STUFF. Now, look at the history of the region from year 1 - 2000 and tell me who does Artsakh or Nachijevan belong to?

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

[Sebastia]

OKAY, then show me encyclopedia maps that include Artsakh as part of historical Azerbaijan.

[hagopn]

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.

Iberians were referred to as such by the Greeks. They never referred to themselves as Iberians. The specific tribes never gave up their nomenclature, and the cultural make-up of the region always remained distinct. The Azerbaijani landscape, in contrast, has nothing what-so-ever to do with what it was in the 9th century, and the linguistic presence of Turkic tribes in the region merely adds to the multicultural composition of the land. Today, however, we have propagandists claim that there was this "monolithic Azeri culture." There never was, and there still is not, save for the state-mandated policies of ignoring the ethnic diversity of the region.

 

Lombards were a Germanic people who assimilated into the large Italian landscape and completely forgot their old ethnic associations. They are indeed now fully Italianized, and the Italian peninsula is the source of their name. The "Azeri" Tatars were so named and assimilated into the Persian culture as "Azeris" belonging not to the current concept of their nationhood, but to the general Azerbaijani multicultural geographic location. It is indeed very similar to the Lombards, who don't exist anymore, and no one makes the claim otherwise.

 

The Spaniards don't claim otherwise. They admit that they are a new nation that began as soon as Castille and Aragon united in their struggle against the Moors. No where in Spanish historical literature will you find anything that speaks of some "Spanish national identity" during Visigoth rule, for example. In contrast, "Azeris" are making the claim that, prior to the establishment of the monolithic Pan-Turkist "state of Azerbaijan," there had been such a thing as "Azeri nationality." There never had been.

 

Turkish fascists found it convenient to call Caucasian Tatars "Azeris" to eliminate the chance of establishing the multi-ethnic state that was bound to be established were the situation different.

[hagopn]

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 Yerevan and Nakhijevan provinces was were cleansed of Armenians by Shah Abbas in the early 17th century, starting in 1603. The ethnic composition is a reflection of the scortched earth policies of the Safavi, and the Ottoman desire to supplant areas occupied by Christians with Muslims.

 

No one has made the claim, in Armenain historiography, that the Albanian territory was Armenian. Hewsen is of Armenian descent as well, by the way.

[Teutonic Knight]

Gino says that Atropatene (some lunatics even claim Albania) are now Azveris.

 

We know that those people that were under Armenian, Roman or Persian rule most of the time spoke a Caucasian language and when the bloodthirsty Turks came they were Turkified hence they speak a Turkic language (the most similar to Anatolian Turkish) and identify themselves with Turks, their brethren.

 

Now if you're saying the fact that they are Trukic now doesn't change the fact that they are still the descendents of Atropatene/Albania than is it safe to say that by the same logic you accept that Urartians/Hurrians are the ancestors of Armenians who now speak an Indo-European after the migration of Armens?

[Gino]

///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.

[Gino]

Gino says that Atropatene (some lunatics even claim Albania) are now Azveris.

 

Now if you're saying the fact that they are Trukic now doesn't change the fact that they are still the descendents of Atropatene/Albania than is it safe to say that by the same logic you accept that Urartians/Hurrians are the ancestors of Armenians who now speak an Indo-European after the migration of Armens?

I never said anything of this.