Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!

2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.

8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

    And the Fraud Had a Name

    Azarbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd


    Introduction: the Forgery and the Naming Deception of Fake “Azerbaijan”
    • I. The Real
      • a. The Geography of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)
      • b. The People of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)
      • c. The Language of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)
      • d. Median and Achaemenid Empires of Iran
        (Media and Persia, a Brief Historic Account)
        • i. The Median Empire
        • ii. The Achaemenid Empire
    • II. The Fake (Everything’s in a Name)
      • a. An Introduction
      • b. The Origin of the Term Azarbaijan
      • c. The Meaning of the Term Azarbaijan (Ատրպատական)
    • III.The Absurd (Fabricated History to Suit a Fabricated “Nation”)
      • a. An Introduction
      • b. The Turanian Fallacy
      • c. Fallacious Population Argumentations
      • d. The Artsakh Issue: Roots and Causes
        • i. Artsakh in History
        • ii. Armenian-Tatar Wars
        • iii. Petition from the Armenians of Artsakh to Khrushchev
        • iv. The Artsakh Movement 1988, the blow that crumbled the USSR
        • v. The “Azeri” Response: Genocide and War
          • 1. Sumgait
          • 2. Gandzak
          • 3. Baku
          • 4. The Ring Operation
          • 5. Maragha
        • vi. The Khojaly Incident Scam
          • 1. An attempt to understand Turkish inhumanity
          • 2.The Greatest
            Tragedy in the
            History of the
            the insignificant

          • 3. Khojaly Appendix
        • vii.More Lies from a Warmongering Loser
          • 1. “Azeri” fabricated 20% myth
          • 2. “Azeri” fabricated one million lie
          • 3. “Armenians did not win, it was the Russians” lie
        • viii.The Slaughter of Gurgen Markarian
        • ix. The Nakhijevan Destruction
        • x. The Petroleum Policy and the Future of Artsakh
          • 1. Armenians, the successful pioneers of Baku oil industry
          • 2. Searching for the reasons behind western antagonism
          • 3. The double standards of the “international” community
          • 4. Debunking the “International” Crisis Group (ICG)
          • 5. The Artsakh-Kosovo comparison
          • 6. Israel boosting “Azeri” mythology
          • 7. The future of Artsakh and Armenia
      • e. Stealing Iranian Dynasties
        • i. Safavids Are Kings of Persia not “Azerbaijan”
        • ii. Nader Shah Is the Savior and King of Persia not “Azerbaijan”
        • iii. Qajars Are Kings of Persia not “Azerbaijan”
      • f. Stealing Iranian Cultural Icons
        • i. Nezami Is an Iranian Poet
        • ii. Babak Khorramdin Is an Iranian Hero
    • IV.Historians about Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and Aluania
      • a. Greek and Roman Historians of Antiquity
        • i. Herodotus
        • ii. Patrocles
        • iii. Eratosthenes
        • iv. Polibi
        • v. Strabo
        • vi. Pliny
        • vii.Plutarch
        • viii.Dionysus
        • ix. Cornelius Tacitus
        • x. Ptolemy
        • xi. Arrian
        • xii.Dio Cassius
      • b. Islamic Historians
        • i. Baladhuri
        • ii. Dinwari
        • iii. Ya’qubi
        • iv. Ibn Khordadbeh
        • v. Tabari
        • vi. Ibn Faqih
        • vii.Massoudi
        • viii.Istakhri (Estakhri)
        • ix. Ibn Rosteh
        • x. Ibn Hawqal
        • xi. Kharazmi (Khwarizmi)
        • xii.Sohrab (Ibn Srabion)
        • xiii.Anonymous
        • xiv.Muqaddasi (Moghaddasi)
        • xv.Abu Reyhan Biruni
        • xvi.Abulfada (Abul Fida)
        • xvii.Qudamah ibn Jafar
        • xviii.Ibn Miskuyeh
        • xix.Bakri Qurtubi
        • xx.Idrissi
        • xxi.Toosi
        • xxii.Ibn Athir
        • xxiii.Yaqut Hamawi
        • xxiv.Zachariah Qazvini (Ghazvini)
        • xxv.Hamdollah Qazvini (Ghazvini)
        • xxvi.Ibn Khaldun
      • c. Armenian Historians
        • i. Movses Kaghankatouatsi
          • 1. Turks according to Kaghankatouatsi
          • 2. The ancestral tree of Aghvans according to Kaghankatouatsi
      • d. 19th and 20th Century Historians
        • i. Vasili Vladimirovich Bartold
        • ii. Vladimir Minorsky
        • iii. Joseph Markwart
        • iv. Kamilla Vasilyevna Trever
        • v. Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov
        • vi. Nina Viktorovna Pigulevskaia
        • vii.Bakikhanov
        • viii.Mirza Jamal Javanshir
        • ix. Igrar Aliev
    • V. Why Did the Aghvans Disappear?
    • VI.Conclusion
    • VII.Selected References and Bibliography
      • a. From the Internet
      • b. From Books and Articles
      • c. Works of Greek and Roman Historians of Antiquity Presented
      • d. Works of Islamic Scholars Presented
      • e. Works of 19th and 20th Century Historians Presented
      • f. From the Trashcan

    And the Fraud Had a Name, PDF version:

    And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real the Fake and the Absurd (3.2 MB)

    Do not try to save the file here; you can save the file from the page that opens when you click the link here. You should click the link above which will take you to the download page.
    Last edited by Hellektor; 05-22-2008, 04:05 PM. Reason: Added PDF link

  • #2
    And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

    Figure 1

    Click on the map for a larger image.

    Present situation: Fake “Azerbaijan”, Real Azarbaijan and Armenia

    Figure 2

    Click on the map for a larger image.

    Present situation: Fake “Azerbaijan”, Real Azarbaijan and Armenia showing Aghvank’s (Aran) historic borders

    Figure 3

    Click on the map for a larger image.

    Historic Armenia, also showing borders in present situation


    • #3
      And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

      Introduction: the Forgery and the Naming Deception of Fake “Azerbaijan”

      The artificially fabricated bogus state of fake “Azerbaijan” was fraudulently counterfeited on Armenian territory in 1918 to forge an extension for the Ottoman Tyranny in the Caucasus with considerable obstinate British interference and later, non-negligible amount of help from the Bolshevik leaders whose red star was rapidly rising.

      In pursuit of its delirious pan-Turkist ideology of “uniting” the tribes of Turkic origin from Finland to the Wall of China, the Turkish state has steadfastly clung to its number one priority of the total elimination of an Armenian state of any size, shape or form. The present day (2007) illegal embargo, imposed on the Republic of Armenia since 1992, the very days Armenians gained the upper hand in the “Azeri” perpetrated war on the people of Artsakh (Karabakh/Karabagh) who the “Azeris” claim to be the citizens of fake “Azerbaijan”, is the blatant evidence that the oozing stench of the poisonous cesspool of pan-Turkism is as repugnant today as it was in 1915. The Armenian genocide of 1894-1923 was indeed the result of this same policy.

      When the Frankenstein monster was dumped from the putrefied Turco-Bolshevik womb in May 1918, the date when the Mussavat clan formed the very first fake “Azerbaijan” government, the head of the Turkish army that had invaded the Caucasus, Nouri Pasha, half sibling of Enver (one of the architects of the Armenian Genocide), called the newborn nonentity “Azerbaijan” after the northwest region of Iran: the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan-Aturpatekan-Aturpayegan). What has happened since comes to confirm the malevolent intentions of the Turks at the time of this naming trickery. Protests followed from some patriotic Iranians including Sheik Mohammad Khiabani who were willing to give up their 2200 year old right to the name Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) and call their province Azadestan (Azadistan, Land of the Free, Azad = free) in order not to be associated with the newly created fictitious “nation”.

      Roughly two decades later they undeservingly attributed the term “Azerbaijani” to themselves, much later still, in a manner of lavishing a term of endearment on oneself, this factitiously constructed “nation” called itself “Azeri”, a nation that has never existed throughout human history. The Turkic leftovers of Oghuz invasions in the region were called Tatars before the transmutation, though only after the region fell under Russian rule in the 19th century and that was a promotion because earlier these tribal nomads distinguished one another from the color of their sheep or their hats.

      The instant metamorphosis from Tatar to “Azerbaijani” (later “Azeri”) in late 1930s was not an innocent affair either. This umbrella appellation was cunningly adopted to efface the numerous indigenous ethnicities of the region such as Tats, Talishes, Udins, Lezgins, Zakhors, Luitsis, Avars, Armenians, etc., who were subjected to every imaginable form of discrimination, common Turkish genocidal policy, in front of the indifferent eyes of Soviet leaders. While their numbers showed little increase and in most cases even dropped considerably in subsequent censuses, the number of “Azeris”, i.e. Turks increased exponentially.

      The Great Soviet Encyclopedia counts 150,000 Tats in fake “Azerbaijan” in the 1930s (volume 53, page 669, 1937). According to the same source, the language of 30,000 of these was Hebrew and 20,000 spoke Armenian. Unofficial records count 300,000 to 500,000 Talishes, 700,000 Lezgins and 250,000 Kurds in fake “Azerbaijan”.

      Below some examples of official “Azeri” “censuses”:

      Table 1

      From the 1920 document, League of Nations Memorandum on the Application for the Admission of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the League of Nations regarding “The Transcaucasian territory in which the Republic of Azerbaijan has arisen… Its population according to the last Russian statistics, is estimated at 4.615.000 inhabitants, including 3.482.000 Musulman Tartars (not a single “Azeri” H.), 795.000 Armenians, 26.580 Georgians and scattered minorities of Russians, Germans and Jews”. As far as “Azerbaijan’s” “historic” territory “occupying a superficial area of 40.000 square miles, appears to have never formerly constituted a State, but has always been included in larger groups such as the Mongol or Persian and since 1813 the Russian Empire. The name Azerbaijan which has been chosen for the new Republic is also that of the neighbouring Persian province.” (All emphases are mine. H.)

      In 1921, after a passionate copulation between Kemal Ataturk and Lenin, under the supervision of that psychopathic, mass-murdering Georgian kinto, Joseph Dzhugashvil, a.k.a. Stalin, Armenia, who had suffered the most horrific tragedy in her history only a few years before, was sacrificed once again, this time on the altar of the newly forged Turco-Bolshevik “brotherhood”.

      The Armenian province Nakhijevan was illegally put under “Azerbaijani” control and Kars and beautiful Ani that has been savagely destroyed since, Ardahan, and Surmalu including the most sacred symbol for the Armenians, Mount Ararat that had never been part of Ottoman Tyranny, were offered to Turkey; all in all the package amounted to more than 60% of the internationally recognized pre-Soviet Republic of Armenia of the day - minus the four Armenian vilayets, Van, Karin (Erzerum), Trebizond and Baghesh (Bitlis), granted to Armenia by the treaty of Sèvres according to which the arbitration of the delineation of the border between Armenia and Ottoman Turkey was awarded to Woodrow Wilson who signed his decision on November 22, 1920.

      The shameful document for the Turco-Bolshevik treachery is known as the Moscow/Kars treaty of 1921. The first part of this criminal act known as the “Turkish-Soviet friendship and brotherhood” was signed in Moscow on March 16, 1921 between two fraudulent representatives of their respective states without the participation of Armenia. To put some make-up on the revolting face of this monster, the powerless Soviet appointed Armenian side was brought to the table and forced to sign the second part of this perfidy in Turkish occupied Kars on October 13, 1921, in essence regurgitating the points of the Moscow treaty.

      The whole shambles is a gross violation of the jus cogens regarding treaties between states, where under no circumstances they are empowered to decide the fate of an absent party. It is utterly illegal because the genocidal bandit Kemal was not the recognized leader of Turkey until 1923; stronger still, he was condemned to death by the Ottoman court, confirmed by the sultan and the mullahs, for conspiring to overthrow the government. The “Union” of Soviet Socialist “Republics” was only recognized in 1924 whereas the Republic of Armenia with its 72000 square kilometers was recognized in 1920 by the international community when the League of Nations had refused to recognize fake “Azerbaijan”.

      From League of Nations Journal N17 of the First Assembly (Geneva 1920, Page 139) “The Committee decided that though the request of Azerbaijan to be admitted was in order, it was difficult to ascertain the exact limits of the territory within which the Government of Azerbaijan exercised its authority. Frontier disputes with the neighbouring States did not permit of an exact definition of the boundaries of Azerbaijan. The Committee decided that the provisions of the Covenant did not allow of the admission of Azerbaijan to the League under present circumstances”.

      The fake state had more luck with the age old devotion of the British Empire to pan-Turkism. “On …May 28th, the Republic of Azerbaijan was proclaimed at Tiflis. …On the 17 of November, 1918, General Thomson, at the head of British troops, and representing the Allied and Associated Powers, entered Baku …On the 28th December, 1918, …General Thomson proclaimed that the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan would henceforth constitute the sole regular local government and that the Allies would guarantee their support to it”, according to the abovementioned League of Nations Memorandum where it was nevertheless maintained that the “recognition is only claimed by the Azerbaijan Delegation to have been given de facto and that it was given only by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, but was refused by the USA” and “The territory of Azerbaijan having been originally part of the Empire of Russia, the question arises whether the declaration of the Republic in May 1918 and the recognition accorded by the Allied Powers in January 1920 suffice to constitute Azerbaijan de jure a “full self-governing State” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations”.

      In terms of the Soviet state of the time, the only legal document on Artsakh right after sovietization was issued on July 4, 1921, where the members of the Caucasian Bureau in Tbilisi decided to “include Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenian SSR, and to conduct plebiscite in Nagorno-Karabakh only”. The next day, 5th of July 1921, according to a totally void decision from Moscow, for which its representative Stalin failed to get approval, Artsakh (Karabakh) was illegally annexed to the fabricated counterfeit “Azerbaijan” and was under its unlawful occupation and oppression for the next 70 years. The treacherous Moscow/Kars treaty of 1921 and the subsequent persecutions of Armenians in Nakhijevan and Artsakh may be considered the root cause of the Artsakh movement in 1988 that even by the Admission of the anti-Armenian Gorbachev shook the foundations of the Soviet “Union”.

      The Soviet occupation of Iranian Azarbaijan and its propped up puppet Pishevari “government” in the region during WWII clearly show the pan-Turkist intent of naming the fictitious state after the real Azarbaijan. While US and international pressure had its influence in ousting the occupiers and Pishevari’s escape to the USSR, the main reason for the Turco-Bolshevik failure lay in the fact that the people of real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) were - and still are - aware of their Iranian origin and did not support the fake “Azerbaijan” conspiracy.

      Figure 4

      Click on the map for a larger image.

      Artificial Pan-Turkist Border Thanks to Reza Shah

      Hardly three years old, counterfeit “Azerbaijan” craved more Armenian territory and having the support of the Bolshevik criminals it obtained Nakhijevan and Artsakh (Karabakh) in 1921. The case of Nakhijevan is particularly unique in the sense that it is outside fake “Azerbaijan” territory and the only reason for putting it under “Azerbaijani” control as an “autonomous republic” was to cunningly provide a border between the newly fabricated pan-Turkic state with its progenitor, the Ottoman Tyranny.

      In a trip to Turkey in 1934, Reza Shah of Iran became so mesmerized by the genocidal bandit Kemal Ataturk’s superficial modernization that he aided pan-Turkism, perhaps unintentionally, by ceding a beak shaped area from Iranian territory to the Turks to provide a fourteen kilometer border between Turkey and the illegally usurped Nakhijevan, in reality between Turkey and fake “Azerbaijan”.

      Last edited by Hellektor; 05-01-2008, 03:53 PM.


      • #4
        And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

        Azarbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

        The Geography of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)

        The appellation Lesser Media or Media Minor was given to the northwest part of Media after it was divided into two regions. The rest of the empire was called Greater Media. The Lesser Media (later Atrpatakan) is usually known to have stretched from the Arax River in the north to Mount Alvand in the south. To the west, it reached the Zagross mountain range and included Lake Urmia in the east. Hegmataneh (Hamadan) was the point that divided the Lesser and Greater Media. This is the approximate situation of present day real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan).

        It should be noted that a part of Lesser Media, the region north east of Lake Urmia including the present cities of Maku, Khoy and Marand, was called Sangibutu by the Assyrians and was a part of the Armenian kingdom of Van (Biaina/Urartu) until the eighth century BC, a fact confirmed by Diakonov as well.

        After the overthrow of the Median Empire by Cyrus the Great and the rise of the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrus did not obliterate the name of Media and called himself king of the Medes. This is an important point in the light of “Azeri” fantasy concoctions warping the Medes into indigenous Turco-Sumerians (!) who the Iranian “invaders” conquered and divided the “great Azerbaijan” into two northern and southern entities and more of this sort of hallucination.

        In an 1890s edition of the Russian Encyclopedia printed in St. Petersburg and Leipzig under the Caucasus Albania (Aghvank, Aran) entry we read: “Albania is an ancient land in southeast Caucasus between the Black Sea and the Caspian, north of Armenia with the River Kur as its border”. The Turkic inhabitants of the Aghvank of the day are referred to as Tatars throughout the relevant passages. Under the Azarbaijan heading the book states: “Azarbaijan or Adhrbijan (land of fire (an erroneous definition H.), in Pahlavi Aturpatekan, in Armenian Atrpatakan) is the rich and industrial northwestern province of Iran. Azarbaijan is limited in the south to the Kurdistan of Iran …in the west to Kurdistan and Armenia of Turkey, to the north to Armenia of Russia and the south of the Caucasus with the Arax River as the dividing line… The area of Azarbaijan is 104,840 square km. …In the seventeenth century Azarbaijan suffered greatly from the Ottomans”.

        While there is no word about any “Azerbaijan” north of the Arax River in the former, the Soviet edition of the same encyclopedia printed in Moscow in 1960 mentions Soviet “Azerbaijan” with an area of 86,600 square km and the Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) of Iran with an area of more than 100,000 square km. As it can be seen, the newly faked “Azerbaijan” couldn’t have been the divided half of a fictitious “unified Azerbaijan” since other than the fact that such land north of the Arax was not cited in the older edition, the additional 86,600 square km can in no way be explained other than that this new “Azerbaijan” was a total forgery.

        The People of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)

        Like with any other nation, there is no definite point in history where one could refer to as the absolute date of the formation of the Iranian nation. Some would say the history of Iranian civilization goes back four or five thousand years BC. Others cite a migration of Aryan (Iranian) tribes into the Iranian plateau in the first millennium BC as the birth of the Iranian nation.

        In the second half of the eighth century BC the Iranian element dominated most of the western parts of Iran. The Assyrian king Salmanasar III’s (Shalmaneser III) inscriptions mention Iranians who lived along the path of the Assyrian invasions. They knew the Parsuans (Persians) and the Madai (Medes) in that period. In the wars between Salmanasar III and the Armenian king Argishti in the eighth century BC, the name Parrusa (Parsua) appears in relation with the region that would be called Lesser Media (later Atrpatakan). Parsua and Parsuvans come up for the first time in 844 BC, in the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III and his wars with the Iranians.

        The Language of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan)

        Azari is a term used by some Islamic historians to describe the language of the people of the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan), northwest of Iran and always south of the Arax River. It was a language of the Persian family of languages called Pahlavi. The dialect spoken in Atrpatakan was called Pahlavi Azari to differentiate it from other Pahlavi dialects. Considering the literary work that has been produced in Azarbaijan (the real), one can see that this language was in use well into the times of the Iranian Safavid Empire 1502-1736.

        For instance, the poems of seventh and eighth century Hijri Azarbaijani (the real) poet Hamam Tabrizi, eighth and ninth century Hijri poet Ezzeddin Adel ibn Yussof Tabrizi, etc., don’t show a single trace of Turkish. They are written in Pahlavi Azari, the Persian language of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan). Later, as a result of the tyrannical domination of invading hordes of Mongolo-Tatar barbarians, the people of Atrpatakan gradually lost their indigenous language and became speakers of Turkish. The word Azari has been mistakenly or misleadingly attributed to the Turkish dialect of these people by some, but never to the people themselves. The people of real Azarbaijan were always called people of Atrpatakan, Aturpayegan, Atropatena, Azarbayegan, Azarbaijan, etc.

        Ya’qubi calls the language of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) Pahlavi Azari and considers the people of that region of Iranian origin.

        Massoudi considers Dari and Azari from the same origin and calls them languages of the Farsi (Persian) group.

        Ibn Hawqal uses the term Azari to define the dialect of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) to distinguish it from other dialects of Persian.

        Muqaddasi describes Azari as a language close to Farsi: “It’s a difficult language and its vocabulary is similar to that of Khorasan (or Khorassan northeast of Iran H.)”

        Yaqut Hamawi mentions the language of the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan): “they speak a language which is called Azari and nobody understands it besides themselves”, i.e. Turks don’t understand a word of Azari, because it’s a dialect of Pahlavi exclusive to the people of Azarbaijan the real.

        Hamdollah Mostowfi Qazvini says “the people of Maragha” (in real Azarbaijan H.) “speak a modified dialect of Pahlavi”.

        Joseph Markwart defines “the language of Atropatena [as] the real Pahlavi language… The written Pahlavi is the same as that of Atropatena and is derived from Parthian Pahlavi”.

        Igrar Aliev (Aliyev) the rare “Azeri” historian with some integrity also admits that “what we consider the language of Median Aturpatekan is without a doubt an Iranian language”.

        There’s not a single historical document that would raise the slightest doubt that the language called Azari had an iota of resemblance or relation to Turkish. The artificial counterfeiting of fictitious “Azerbaijan” north of the Arax River on historic Armenian territory in 1918 forced the pan-Turkist theoreticians to fabricate nonsensical fables to “prove” that the term Azari, referred to the language of the people of real Azarbaijan south of the Arax, was in fact a dialect of Turkish. However, reading the literary works written in that language leads to the conclusion that this is a preposterous claim and couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s astonishing how Turks affirm their lies without presenting a single proof and totally disregard the evidence that pulverizes their theories.

        Some harmless mistakes such as the translation from Arabic into Persian of a book, in times of Nasseruddin Shah Qajar 1848-1896, have also come to the help of Turkish history forgers. The translators of the book Nameh e Daneshvaran have translated the Arabic word “al-Azaria” into “language of the Turks”. Obviously, there is no mention of “Turk” in the term al-Azaria, it’s just because in the times of Nasseruddin Shah in the 19th century, the people of real Azarbaijan had already become speakers of Turkish, unaware of the already lost Iranian language Azari Pahlavi, the translators have assumed that the term al-Azaria anachronistically referred to the language of the Turks.

        The great Iranian scholar Ahmad Kassravi, himself a Turkish speaking real Azarbaijani, has this to say in his book Azari, the Ancient Language of Azarbaijan: “It’s one of the wonders that in the book Nameh e Daneshvaran, which some have been involved with in the times of Nasseruddin Shah, they have defined al-Azaria as the language of the Turks in the translation of this story (of Abul Ala al-Ma’ari and his student Abu Zachariah Khatib Tabrizi) and this shows that they weren’t aware of the existence of any other language for the people of Azarbaijan throughout history. This is an error on their part that they have resorted only to their own knowledge and without explaining the reasons have written “language of Turks” instead of “Azari” which has given the pretext to those who claim that Azarbaijan has been the homeland of the Turks since the beginning”.


        • #5
          And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

          Median and Achaemenid Empires of Iran

          (Media and Persia, a Brief Historic Account)

          The exhaustive history of Media/Persia or other countries relevant to the subject do not serve our purpose. The interested are free to study them in detail. The essay focuses on exposing the absurdity of historical falsifications by the “Azeris” who do not respect any limits of decency and fabricate ridiculous and illogical fairytales to garnish the putrefied skeleton of their poorly manufactured “state” with some rotten flesh.

          There’s a serious problem to their approach because as the proverb goes, applying polish to dung produces adverse effects by increasing the stink rather than improving the appearance let alone augmenting the value.

          Below, the Median and Achaemenid empires are briefly introduced to show that neither in the remotest of possibilities, nor in the wildest flights of imagination can any probability of a Turkic origin be discerned in the formation or composition of the two and not a single linguistic affinity to Ural-Altaic languages is to be found in the Iranian/Indo-European names of persons and places.

          Most important of all, when the hordes of primitive, tent-dwelling, cattle-herder, nomadic, Turkic invaders ravaged the cradles of civilization west of the Caspian for the first time in the 11th century AD, they were still wallowing in the earliest stages of evolution, a fact testified by all the historians of the era. They could not possibly have anything to do with the great civilizations fifteen centuries to two thousand years prior to their earliest incursions in those realms despite all the futile and preposterous efforts to appropriate them all to themselves, sometimes even using western prostitute “historians” to give a semblance of seriousness to their fabrications.

          Figure 5

          Click on the map for a larger image.

          The Median Empire

          The Median Empire is the oldest known powerful Iranian kingdom prior to the creation of the Achaemenid Empire. At the peak of its glory it included a large portion of present day Iran mainly the whole of the western Iran. It was a threat to the Armenian kingdom of Van (Urartu) in the north and even occupied areas north of the Arax (Araxes) River but never reached the River Kur.

          The incursions of the Assyrians into the Iranian plateau brought the Aryan tribes, especially the Medians who lived in northwestern parts of Iran, together. The Iranian tribes reached the conclusion that their lack of unity caused the Assyrians to get the upper hand in battle.

          Although little is known from the founders of the Median Empire, Herodotus’ account of Deioces (reigned 728–675 BC), founder of Ecbatana (Hegmataneh/Hamadan) is considered, to establish the approximate period of the formation of the empire, nevertheless, most historians believe this to be a Median legend about the creator of the dynasty.

          Dayaukku, according to some the Deioces cited by Herodotus, the leader of a Median tribe whose renown as a just arbiter reached other regions in Media, brought six Median tribes together into the first Aryan nation state in northwest of Iran around eight century BC. He chose Hegmataneh (= place of congregation) for his capital.

          According to Herodotus: “There was a certain Mede named Deioces, son of Phraortes, a man of much wisdom, who had conceived the desire of obtaining to himself the sovereign power… As the Medes at that time dwelt in scattered villages without any central authority, and lawlessness in consequence prevailed throughout the land, Deioces, who was already a man of mark in his own village, applied himself with greater zeal and earnestness than ever before to the practice of justice among his fellows” when people in surrounding villages “heard of the singular uprightness of Deioces, and of the equity of his decisions, they joyfully had recourse to him in the various quarrels and suits that arose, until at last they came to put confidence in no one else… The Medes... agreed that he should be king… and built him a strong and large palace… [1.101] Thus Deioces collected the Medes into a nation, and ruled over them alone.”

          Deioces’ son Phraortes succeeded him and extended the dominion further, “began by attacking the Persians; and marching an army into their country, brought them under the Median yoke before any other people. After this success, being now at the head of two nations, both of them powerful, he proceeded to conquer Asia, overrunning province after province. At last he engaged in war with the Assyrians - those Assyrians, I mean, to whom Nineveh belonged, who were formerly the lords of Asia… Phraortes attacked them, but perished in the expedition with the greater part of his army, after having reigned over the Medes two-and-twenty years.”

          Herodotus goes on: “[1.103] On the death of Phraortes his son Cyaxares ascended the throne… he was still more war-like than any of his ancestors, and that he was the first who gave organization to an Asiatic army… This prince… marched against Nineveh, resolved to avenge his father… A battle was fought, in which the Assyrians suffered a defeat, and Cyaxares had already begun the siege of the place, when a numerous horde of Scyths, under their king Madyes, son of Prtotohyes, burst into Asia in pursuit of the Cimmerians whom they had driven out of Europe, and entered the Median territory… [1.106] The dominion of the Scythians over Asia lasted eight-and-twenty years, during which time their insolence and oppression spread ruin on every side… At length Cyaxares and the Medes invited the greater part of them to a banquet, and made them drunk with wine, after which they were all massacred. The Medes then recovered their empire…

          “[1.107] Astyages, the son of Cyaxares, succeeded to the throne. He had a daughter who was named Mandane (Mandana H.)... He dreamt that from her such a stream of water flowed forth as not only to fill his capital, but to flood the whole of Asia… the Magi… expounded its meaning to him in full, whereat he was greatly terrified… he would not give her in marriage to any of the Medes who were of suitable rank, lest the dream should be accomplished; but he married her to a Persian (Cambyses H.) of good family indeed, but of a quiet temper, whom he looked on as much inferior to a Mede of even middle condition.”

          Cyrus the son of Cambyses and Mandana was later to become Cyrus the Great. Herodotus states: “[1.127] The Persians, who had long been impatient of the Median dominion, now that they had found a leader, were delighted to shake off the yoke… [1.130] Thus after a reign of thirty-five years, Astyages lost his crown, and the Medes, in consequence of his cruelty, were brought under the rule of the Persians.” This is yet another historical document that nullifies Turkish fables that “Medes were peaceful Turks and Persians invaded and ravaged and pillaged and ruled over them” to justify their centuries long invasions and subsequent genocidal behavior in civilized lands west of the Caspian.

          Herodotus continues: “Their empire over the parts of Asia beyond the Halys had lasted one hundred and twenty-eight years, except during the time when the Scythians had the dominion. Afterwards the Medes repented of their submission… in the time of Astyages, it was the Persians who under Cyrus revolted from the Medes, and became thenceforth the rulers of Asia. Cyrus kept Astyages at his court during the remainder of his life, without doing him any further injury… It was at a later date that he was attacked by Croesus, and overthrew him, as I have related in an earlier portion of this history. The overthrow of Croesus made him master of the whole of Asia.” (All Herodotus quotes from George Rawlinson’s translation).

          Figure 6

          Click on the map for a larger image.

          The Achaemenid Empire

          Cyrus (reign 559 - 530 BC) expanded the empire to the Mediterranean colonies and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor to the west. In the east he conquered Parthia, Chorasmis and Bactria. In 539 BC he took Babylon and released the Jews held in captivity, an event mentioned in the Book of Isaiah. Cyropaedia of Xenophon; the Life of Cyrus the Great, a detailed biography of this great king by Xenophon (c. 430-355 BC) has survived to present day for the interested readers.

          The countries and provinces under Achaemenid rule were called satrapies and were allowed autonomy of a certain degree. A satrap, a general and a state secretary were appointed by the king and performed their relevant functions to run the affairs of the satrapy. The Achaemenid Empire was divided into twenty satrapies.

          Although his son Cambyses II captured Egypt, Cyrus’s immediate successors did not achieve his standard. Darius I the Great, son of Vishtasp (Hystaspes, Wishtaspa) and not a direct descendant of the Achaemenid family became the most powerful Achaemenid ruler. He consolidated the empire, dealt with rebel countries Babylon, Media, Elam, Parthia and Armenia and brought them under his rule in nineteen battles; he attacked Armenia five times to suppress the revolts, a fact he proudly relates in the Behistun inscription.

          Darius brought about revolutionary changes and reforms in administration, economy, military, legal system and infrastructure. Trade flourished in his time thanks to his introduction of a gold and silver coin monetary system. He created the 10,000 man strong Army of Immortals, constructed the Persepolis and adopted it as his new capital, undertook the construction of a huge canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea to provide a sea route from Iran to Egypt, built the Royal Road, a highway stretching from Susa (Shush) to Sardis, invented the earliest form of postal delivery system (chapar) using messengers on horseback who had to hand over the packages to the next post until it reached the destination.

          He invaded the Greek mainland but was defeated in 490 BC in the battle of Marathon. His son Xerxes I also had to deal with revolts in Egypt and Babylon. He tried unsuccessfully to conquer the Greeks and was defeated in Salamis and Plataea. Afterwards the empire slowly declined until Darius III’s defeat by Alexander in the battle of Gaugamela and his subsequent murder by his own soldiers in 330 BC put an end to the Achaemenid Empire.

          Achaemenid kings:

          Teispes 675 - 640 BC
          Cyrus I 640 - 600 BC
          Cambyses I 600 - 559 BC
          Cyrus II, the Great 559 - 530 BC
          Cambyses II 530 - 522 BC
          Smerdis, (the Magian) 522 BC
          Darius I, the Great 522 - 486 BC
          Xerxes I 486 - 465 BC
          Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) 465 - 424 BC
          Xerxes II 424 - 423 BC
          Darius II 423 - 404 BC
          Artaxerxes II (Mnemon) 404 - 359 BC
          Artaxerxes III (Ochus) 359 - 338 BC
          Arses 338 - 336 BC
          Darius III (Codomanus) 336 - 330 BC

          Last edited by Hellektor; 05-01-2008, 03:59 PM.


          • #6
            And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

            Everything’s in a Name

            Doubtless, the criminal bestowing of the name of the northwest province of Iran on a region that goes far beyond the geographic bounds of Aghvank (Aran), usurping a substantial area from historic Armenia - the provinces of Utik and Pytakaran, later the illegitimate annexation of Artsakh and Nakhijevan - where different ethnicities lived and where the intruding Turkic element carried on according to a primitive tribal system, was a fraudulently motivated act.

            Interestingly, while the “Azeris” undeservedly call themselves the descendants of Aghvans (or any civilization where called for), their persistent use of the terms “Albania” and “Albanian” for Aghvan (Aran) serves an ulterior propose as the application of the constructed blanket term “Azeri” on all ethnicities living in the region.

            The term Albania to designate Aghvank was used exclusively and mistakenly by Greek and Roman historians of antiquity. Even so, they have sometimes also referred to it as Ariania. None of the nations immediately involved with Aghvans ever called it Albania. The Georgians called it Rani. The Iranians called the Aghvans Arani and their country Aran as did the Assyrians. The Arabs called the country Ar Ran.

            The Armenians, their closest cousins, called it Alvank or Aluank, later with the change in the pronunciation of the soft “L” sound in Armenian into “gh”, a sound difficult to describe in English similar to the “gh” in Baghdad ( the voiced variation of the “ch” in loch ness or the German machen or nach), it was pronounced Aghvank. Here the “k” is the old plural sign in Armenian, thus, Aghvank means Aghvans or the land of Aghvans.

            While the origin of the term Aghvank is unknown, according to Khorenatsi, the founder of the race was called Aghvan (Աղւան) from the Armenian word “aghoo” (աղու) meaning genial, because he was a good humored chum. His people were called after him, just like the Armenians call themselves Hye after Hyke, the patriarch of the Armenians.

            However, the origin of the term Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) is very well known and documented, with no dispute whatsoever between scholars until the fabrication of the bogus state of fictitious “Azerbaijan” north of the Arax. Since then, the term has been used and abused in the most impossibly erroneous, anachronistic ways unimaginable. Every cultural, political, scientific, historic, mythological, religious or racial icon, personality, event, place name, monument or what not in real Azarbaijan or the region north of the Arax falsified into “Azerbaijan” is attributed to “Azeris”, a nonexistent nation, regardless of time and space.

            The Origin of the Term Azarbaijan

            The origin of the word Azarbaijan is traced back to the language family whose relation to a term or a language is sophistically abused by the Turks to “prove” its being Turkish or otherwise: If a term can be proved not to belong to the Indo-European group of languages then it must be Turkish.

            After Alexander's victory over Darius III and the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, Iran came under the Seleucid rule soon after Alexander's death. However, a satrap named Aturpat (Atrpat, Atropat, Atropates) established an independent state in the northwest region of Iran (known as the Lesser Media) which from then on was called Atrpatakan/Aturpatekan after him. Even after some 23 centuries, the region is still called Atrpatakan in Armenian as opposed to the term Adrbeijan which is used in Armenian to designate the bogus state north of the region.

            The perhaps unique use of two different names in Armenian is an inevitable necessity because on one hand calling the fake nonentity Atrpatakan would enrage the counterfeiters who would accuse the Armenians of hostility; on the other hand the Armenians had no reason to change the original name of Atrpatakan into “Azerbaijan”.

            It should be noted that the Persian language underwent substantial changes after the Arab invasion. Unlike almost all the other conquered nations, the Iranians managed to keep their language at the cost of thousands of original words being replaced by their Arabic equivalents and countless others adapting their pronunciation to some kind of Perso-Arabic, cf. “paradisa” = paradise became “ferdows”, “Pars” became “Fars”, etc.

            Rejecting the customs and laws of the Arabs, the Armenians held on to their culture at the cost of centuries long suffering and oppression under the Arab occupation. As a result of this resistance a considerable number of words can still be found in Armenian that share their roots with Pahlavi and other old Persian languages.

            Atrpatakan/Aturpayegan is rendered in Arabic pronunciation as Adhrbeijan. The “t” in Aturpayegan is the unaspirated variant of “t” nonexistent in Arabic. It was replaced with “dhal”, a sound similar to the voiced “th” in “this”. The sounds “p” and “g” do not exist in Arabic and are replaced with phonemes “f” or “b” and “k” or “j” or “gh (ghein)” respectively.

            The word Azarbaijan is the re-Persianized form of the Arabized Adhrbeijan “z” replacing the phoneme represented by the Arabic “dhal” which is nonexistent in Persian. The vowels are also adapted to the language.

            As stated earlier the Arabized word “Adrbeijan” is used in Armenian for the artificially created state, “d” being considered closer to the “dhal” than “z” in Armenian which also does not have any form of the “th” sound.

            The Meaning of the Term Azarbaijan (Ատրպատական)

            Atrpat (Ատրպատ) or Aturpat in Middle Persian is believed to have meant “keeper of fire” or “protector of fire”, or according to Minorsky “protected by fire” which is closer to the meaning of the Armenian Atrpat. The “protector” definition has been deduced from the later Persian (older new-Persian) pronunciation Aturpayegan, the final “t” of Aturpat having changed to “y”. “Atur” means fire and “pay” (pronounce pie) is from the Persian infinitive “pyidan” meaning to keep, protect, watch over.

            In the Armenian Atrpatakan (Ատրպատական) (“t”, “p” and “k” are all unaspirated, similar to the corresponding sounds in Russian. To experience this in English while holding your hand in front of your mouth, say: “peak” then “speak”, “tick” then “stick”, “kid” then “skid”. In the second case, unlike the first words of the series, there is no puff of air from “p”, “t”, and “k”. The former are known as aspirated and the latter unaspirated consonants.), “atr” (ատր) has a clear definition and means fire. This word is used in present day Armenian in a manner similar to a prefix meaning fire in words like “atrtjanak” (ատրճանակ) = firearm, “atroushan” (ատրուշան) = the place/holder for the eternal fire in a fire temple.

            The “pat” (պատ = wall, surrounding, etc.) in the name Atrpat may have had the present day meaning of wall or surrounding which corresponds with Minorsky’s definition, Atrpat rather having originally meant surrounded by fire (cf. “patel” (պատել) = to surround) similar to “tsankapat” (ցանկապատ) = fence, “zrahapat” (զրահապատ) = armored (division, car, etc.). “To keep” in Armenian is “pahel” (պահել) which is from the same root as the Persian “pyidan”. In addition to Atrpatakan (Ատրպատական), as Kassravi confirms it “Atrpyakan” (Ատրպայական) appears in Armenian sources as well and it might have entered these as a result of the later meaning change in Persian. The Armenian word “Pyik” (պայիկ) from Pahlavi “Paig”, present day Persian “payk” meaning messenger, also means a guard (of a fortress, etc.) the more usual Armenian word for a guard being “pahak” (պահակ). This way the definition of guardian or protector of fire may have also been carried into Armenian.

            Pigulevskaia’s theory concerning the earlier origin of the term Adurbadegan deduced from Assyrian sources, discussed in a section presenting this scholar rather emphasizes this “wall” meaning.

            I have not come across “Atrpah” or “Atrpahakan” in Armenian. Since Atrpatakan has remained the same throughout millennia being the usual Armenian appellation of Azarbaijan (the real) today and the historians of antiquity have also reported of Atropat and not Atropye, it is interesting to see whether historians/linguists can consider an original meaning of “surrounded/protected by fire” rather than “keeper/protector of fire” more appropriate for Atrpat (Atropat). In any case this does not change anything regarding the Indo-European origin of the term.

            The “akan” (ական) part is also clear: “parskakan”, “hyekakan”, “fransakan”, “angliakan”, “hndkakan”, “arabakan”, “islamakan”, etc. It is a suffix that means attributed to or specific to. Atrpatakan = attributed to, land of Atrpat (Atropat).

            The renowned Russian academician Bartold says of the origin of the name Azarbaijan (the real): “The Greeks called it Atropatena and the Armenians called it Atrpatakan. This is where the name of Azarbaijan originated”.

            One of few more or less honest “Azeri” historians Igrar Aliev also confirms that Atrpatakan means attributed to, named after Atropat, after studying terms such as the Parthian Friapatikan from Friapatia and the Armenian Anahitakan from Anahit.



            • #7
              And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

              “Azerbaijan” the Absurd: An Introduction

              Fabricated History to Suit a Fabricated “Nation”

              History is irrelevant to the Turks. No wonder, unlike primitive, nomadic Turkic tribes that never had a writing system throughout history, historians of all nations who lived or traveled in the lands west of the Caspian occupied by Turks today, have given horrifying accounts of the barbaric incursions of hordes of Mongolo-Tatar invaders into these cradles of human civilization.

              Since these accounts do not work to the credit of the Turks who have put on a mask of modernity, they have resorted to distorting history, fabricating fairytales, erasing the symbols and inscriptions that would betray the Armenian origin of certain historic monuments in the name of restoration and destroying every piece of evidence that proves millennia old presence of the indigenous peoples of the lands they have usurped, especially the Armenians.

              Being nothing but the extension of Turkey and counterfeited for pan-Turkist purposes and illegitimate land claims from Iran as it is apparent in its naming forgery, fake “Azerbaijan” has naturally followed the example of its progenitor in matters of historic falsification. It can be safely assumed that everything presented as fact by today’s “Azeri” “historians” is merely a 180 degrees twisting of the same.

              Examples abound. Here a few totally ridiculous samples of distory “Azeri” style:

              Abulfazl Elçibay in Bu manin taleyimdir, Baku, 1992, page 61: “Since hundreds of thousands of years, “Azeri” Turks lived in lands stretching from Hamadan to Darband and from Gokçe to the Caspian Sea.” It’s amazing though, that we do not have a single mention of a nation called “Azeri” before the end of 1930s anywhere in recorded history.

              A. Demirchizadeh says that Herodotus was aware of the name of Atropatena (Greek for Atrpatakan/Azarbaijan). This is preposterous because Herodotus is known to have lived around 484-425 BC, more than a century before the fall of the Achaemenids by Alexander that led to the renaming of Lesser Media into Atrpatakan/Aturpatekan after Atropat, the Satrap who held on to the independence of his land.

              F. Kirzioglu claims that the Sumerians lived in Turkistan 8000 years BC, under the name of Kurris and settled in Azarbaijan and “Eastern Anatolia” (A land that has never existed, H.) since 400 BC. Of course, he doesn’t feel the need to explain whether he saw this in a dream, he was “divinely” inspired or had access to a source unknown to mankind until now. He has nothing to say about the fact that if Sumerians (who are known, among other things, to have invented writing five thousand years ago) were Turks, how come Turks who invented writing were such uncivilized savages four thousand years after these inventions.

              A gem excelling in fabrications and distortion of history is the book History of “Azerbaijan””, compiled by the “Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Republic of “Azerbaijan”” published in Baku in 1958. The real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) has been presented (oh wonder!) as part of Albania (Aghvank) and the fallacious terms of “North Azerbaijan” and “South Azerbaijan” rule the falsification of the “scholarly” delusions. Their goal is the final “reunification” of the two that have been “divided” as a result of historical events they haven’t been able to elucidate despite their futile garbage production.

              Written in Soviet times and considering the Soviet-Turkey relations of the Cold War era, the “work” cannot be as pro Turkish as the authors would have wished. In any case and no matter how hard they have pushed the limits of their twisted imagination, the “book” contains contradictions that betray the absurdity of the claims:

              Their pretension that Aghvank and Azarbaijan were one and the same land is shattered when they speak of the language of the two: “The Seljuk occupation was accompanied by the influx of large numbers of Turkic migrants. This led to the domination of their language over that of the subjugated ethnicities (page 140)… The original languages of these countries (emphasis is mine H.) were Azari and Arani that resisted the invaders for some time (page 169)… The waves of the Turkish invasions in the 13th century AD drove the Azari, Arani and other languages into a corner and dominated the region (page 171).” This proves that: A. the languages of Aghvank and Azarbaijan weren’t the same, B. neither the languages nor the peoples of these regions had anything to do with Turks and C. while Azarbaijan (the real) was not a country, the slip of the pen confirms that Aghvank and Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) were two distinct entities.

              While throughout the twenty two centuries before the artificial insemination in 1918, between the Ottomans as the male progenitor and the Bolsheviks as the surrogate mother, of fake “Azerbaijan” no one ever doubted the origin of the term Atrpatakan, named after Atropat who held on to the independence of the Lesser Media after the fall of the Achaemenid empire in times of Alexander’s invasion of Persia, this has not prevented the “Azeri” “scholars” from dreaming surrealistic concoctions to somehow relate this purely Iranian/Indo-European term to Turkish.

              M.Seidov (“PhD” Linguistic Sciences (!)) steals the crown of Turkish distorians and his hallucinatory inventions can no doubt be catapulted to the apex of absurdity. He spews: ““Az” which is the prefix of the name “Azerbaijan” is a Turkish name of a certain Turkic tribe. “er” that follows means “man”; the word “bai” is also Turkish and is the same as the Turkish word “beg”. Finally, “ajan” is a Turkish word meaning khan or father. Thus “Azerbaijan” means khan, beg and a man from the tribe Az”. Lord, have mercy! Where do they get the power for this sort of unfounded puke generation? In Persian, the cry of a donkey is rendered by the onomatopoeic term “ar-ar”. Seidov’s defecation sounds quite like the braying of an ass: Ar-ar-bray-ajan.

              Fortunately there is a grain of integrity even among “Azeri” scholars like Igrar Aliev who admits: “It can be confirmed with absolute certainty that there is no Turkish origin for the name Azerbaijan” (Aliev Igrar, Ocherk istorii Atropateni, Baku, 1989, p34.)


              • #8
                And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

                The Turanian Fallacy

                Figure 7

                In Iranian mythology, Fereidun has three sons: Iraj (Aria), Tur and Salm (Sayrima). Salm receives Rum (Rome, the West). Tur receives the East. Iraj receives Iran.

                It is supposed that Iranians are descendants of Iraj, Turanians come from Tur and the Sarmatians are from Salm. All these peoples are of Iranian origin.

                The Turanians were the original Iranian peoples of Central Asia who unlike the civilized Iranians were less developed, had a nomadic way of life and had a different religion. The Iranians and the Turanians were often engaged in war, depicted beautifully in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh.

                The conquest of Central Asia in the sixth century AD by the primitive ancestors of the Turks, the Tu Kiu, who invaded from a region north of Mongolia, changed the demography of the area in favor of the Turks.

                The celebrated Turkologist Gumilev states: “ethnicities of Aryan (Iranian) origin lived in Iran and Turan who were racially closely related. What separated Iran and Turan were not racial or linguistic differences but it was solely religion that was responsible for the division”. According to Gumilev this rift came about with the advent of Zoroastrianism which did not gain popular following among those ethnicities who are referred to as Turanians.

                Markwart considers the Turanians of Iranian origin who led a nomadic life and were culturally inferior to civilized and agricultural Iranians. They would frequently attack the Iranians and plunder them therefore the Iranians called them “tur” which in certain Iranian dialects has the meaning of savage, lawless or mad.

                Bartold also confirms that “the name Turan appears in Avesta. It seems that the Turanians were a branch of Aryans with an inferior civilization [to that of Iran]. There was a certain enmity among the Turanians and Iranians. Since the sixth century AD when the Turks reached Central Asia, the resemblance between the names caused some to regard Turan and Turk as one and the same, while there is no relation between the two names”.

                Diakonov confirms that the Turanians were of Iranian origin and he believes they were the same as the Saka (Scythians). He states that the languages spoken in Central Asia right until the first few centuries AD belonged to the Iranian family.

                Abusing the similarity between the terms Turk and Turan, the Turks have also usurped the word Turanian (along with the rest of the universe) and have undeservedly attributed it to themselves.

                Fallacious Population Argumentations

                In order to justify their illegitimate presence on other peoples’ territory and usurpation thereof, the Turkish history falsifiers resort to ludicrous anachronistic sophistry which on the superficial level may seem reasonable to inexperienced third party so-called scholars. This creates in the mind of a non-Turkish/non-Armenian enthusiast (or history prostitute) a false two sided story where both parties are treated on an equal footing regarding their territorial claims.

                Of course, even an amateur student of the issues will soon discover that the Turkish presence west of the Caspian dates from the 11th century AD, at the time of the first Turkic invasions of the region by the Oghuz Turkmen tribes, also known as Seljuks. The subsequent centuries bring more of this sort of calamity: the Mongols, Tatars, Ak Koyunlu (Aq Qoyunlu), Kara Koyunlu (Qara Qoyunlu), etc., all of which cause irreparable damage to the civilization, economy, culture, demography and progress of the nations of the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, the Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and beyond.

                The Mongol invasion for instance is considered the most horrendous human disaster throughout history which caused the destruction of almost a fifth of the human population of the world at the time. The tyrannical rule of the bandit “empires” these primitive tribes created drained all the resources of the enslaved natives and put a halt on the advancement of their civilizations.

                Totally disregarding this context and presenting history upside-down, the Turks, including the “Azeri” variation, project the sorry circumstances of their presence onto the indigenous people, consider themselves autochthonous and weave cock-and-bull stories about the Armenians’ recent settlement in the region.

                Examples abound: “Erivan (Yerevan H.) was a Muslim city in late seventeenth century” (emphasis is mine). Here, not only are they being asinine, they are also playing the filthy religion card in the days of Muslim-Christian sensitivities.

                While for a long time eastern parts of Armenia were under Iranian rule, the regions north of the Arax (Araxes) River were ceded to the Russians according to the Golestan (1813) and Turkmanchai (1828) (alt. Gulistan and Turkmenchai) treaties between Russia and Iran after the Iranian defeat.

                Especially in the Safavid era and as the consequence of centuries long wars between Persians and Ottomans on Armenian territory, unimaginable hardship, population migrations and forced relocations resulted in inevitable demographic changes. Shah Abbas’ policy of scorched land, to cut supplies for the Ottoman army, which destroyed great parts of Armenia and especially the Araratian plains and the rich, thriving city Jugha (Julfa) in Nakhijevan, and the forced relocation of about 300,000 Armenians to Iran in 1604, which entailed many thousands of casualties and almost emptied these parts of Armenia from its natives, is one blatant, blinding fact that is not taken into account in “Azeri” history concoctions. The later settlements of mainly Muslims in those regions explain the allegations of a Muslim majority (not entirely true though) in those provinces.

                Now, the “Azeri” distorians simply howl to the world, without presenting valid data of course, that Muslims outnumbered the Armenians somewhere in the 18th century, yet history does not start in that specific period. The origin of the name Yerevan goes back almost two thousand eight hundred years (writing end of 2007), precisely 782 BC, when the Armenian king Argishti I built a fortress southeast of today’s Yerevan, around the Arin-Berd hill, which he called Erebuni. One couldn’t resist the temptation to ask the “Azeri” fakers whether “Erivan” still had a majority “Azeri” Muslim population more than fourteen hundred years before Islam, almost two thousand years before the Turkic influx and twenty seven centuries before the counterfeiting of fictitious “Azerbaijan”.

                Another example of this misrepresentation of population data concerns the Armenian and Muslim presence in Artsakh (Karabakh). Once again, every imaginable distortion of facts is employed to show the world that “Azeris”, a “nation” or ethnicity that never existed throughout history, were in majority and that the Armenians are comers who emigrated from Iran and settled in eastern parts of Armenia after the Russian conquest in the 19th century. It’s interesting to ask these forgers what the Armenians were doing in Iran in the first place and wherefrom and in what circumstances they had been relocated to Iran. Again, for these history inventors the period before 1828 is irrelevant or never existed.

                Already in 1822, 6 years prior to the Turkmenchai treaty, the Russians carried out censuses to determine the number of the Armenians in Georgia, Gandzak (Elisavetpol), and Baku. In Artsakh (Karabakh) the then Persian appointed Mahdi-qoli Khan did not allow the survey. When he fled to Iran, the Russians were able to lead the survey in 1823 and established the numbers of Armenian and Muslim villages which concluded that the Armenians were in overwhelming majority in Artsakh contrary to present day delirious “Azeri” claims:

                Table 2

                It is like alleging since the population in today’s (2007) Turkey is 99.9% Muslim, therefore, the Armenians do not have the right to claim what was ravished from them through genocide, while every self-respecting human being knows that the population of Armenia and Asia Minor was almost 100% Christian before the outbreak of the Turkic abomination and they were the indigenous peoples of the region who had accepted Christianity centuries before that. Even as late as the 19th century, despite constant inflation of the numbers of Turkic comers and underestimation of the Christian natives, despite the ceaseless planned turkification of those throughout the Ottoman era, Christians constituted a considerable percentage of the population and were systematically annihilated during the first quarter of the twentieth century.
                Last edited by Hellektor; 05-01-2008, 04:03 PM.


                • #9
                  And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

                  The Artsakh Issue: Roots and Causes

                  Any investigation into the subject of Azarbaijan the real and the fake will inevitably lead to the examination of the aim for creating an “Azerbaijan” in the Caucasus in 1918: the insatiable appetite of pan-Turkism for territory, most importantly to the exclusion of any chance of survival of an independent Armenian state, i.e. the main goal of the Armenian Genocide.

                  As seen earlier, barely three years old the infant monster craved more land from the internationally recognized Republic of Armenia (then sovietized) a desire that was gladly granted by the Bolshevik banditry which cut 60% of Armenia and gave it to the eastern and western parts of the Turkish state. Fake “Azerbaijan” received Nakhijevan and Artsakh. Under these circumstances, an account of the roots and causes of the Artsakh (Karabakh) conflict is in place.

                  Truly, the whole “Azeri” history fabrication, right from the early days of the counterfeiting of fake “Azerbaijan”, has sought to justify the usurpation of Armenian territory by the usual misrepresentation of facts as illogically and absurdly as possible. It is so that the western allies of the Turks are deaf and blind when it comes to Turkish genocidal policy, including the destruction of Armenian historic monuments, distortion of history and false accusations of the same projected onto the Armenians, all of which are the obvious continuation of the extermination of the Armenians, the chief purpose of pan-Turkism and the creation of bogus “Azerbaijan”.

                  Artsakh in History

                  The region situated to the east of Lake Sevan, west and south of the River Kur, limited to the west and south by the Arax River and the Mukhank plain (Mughan) and bordering the Utik province in the north and northeast was referred to as Ardakh, Urdekheh, Atakhuni in the times of the kingdom of Van falsely known as Urartu, since Urartu/Ararat is the name of Armenia the country, referred to by the Akkadians and in the Bible in the form of Ararat.

                  Emphasizing its high military capabilities, Strabo records the name of the province as Orkhistineh. The Armenian historians including the seventh century author of History of Aghvank Movses Kaghankatouatsi call it Artsakh. As attested by Pavstos Buzand, a major Armenian historian of the fifth century, after the division of Armenia in 387 between the Romans and Iranians, several Armenian provinces were reorganized into other administrative regions to weaken the Armenian unity and prevent further uprising. This explains the off and on appearance of Artsakh province as part of Aghvank (Aran) which has led the “Azeri” fakers, who are in no way remotely associated with the Christian Aghvans, to claim that Karabakh has been a historic part of “ancient” “Azerbaijani” territory, millennia before an “Azerbaijan” ever existed north of the Arax River.

                  The appearance of the Turkic element west of the Caspian dates back to the Oghuz invasions in the 11th century AD. Subsequent Mongol, Tatar and countless other variants of Turks that poured into the region in following centuries, gradually changed the demographic picture with catastrophic consequences for the highly civilized indigenous peoples. When the Turkic occupying rulers of Iran slowly but surely dissolved and the Iranian dynasties got the upper hand, the situation became slightly more tolerable for the people of the eastern part of Armenia which was under Iranian rule. The Melikdoms of Karabakh (Moluk Khamsa) enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy in the Safavid era and until the annexation of the so-called South Caucasus by the Russians in 1813 and 1828.

                  When Nader Shah acceded to the throne, he drove a troublesome, tent-dwelling, bandit Turkish tribe called Javanshir, wondering in the plains to the left bank of the River Kur, to the Sarakhs region in Khorasan northeast of Iran. A simple shepherd from this tribe named Panah got a job as an announcer of royal decrees but committed a crime and was sentenced to death. He fled to Artsakh and found refuge by the melik of Jraberd and entered his service as a tax collector. After Nader’s assassination, he left the melik and gradually gathered several Turkish tribes and became their leader and using the chaotic circumstances obtained the title of khan from A’adel, a nephew of Nader, who like several others had proclaimed himself king.

                  This cunning former shepherd who owed his life to the Armenian melik of Jraberd who risking his own position had refused to hand Panah over to the Iranian authorities, became the arch enemy of meliks of Karabakh and to cut the story short, he and his successors brought about the decline of the Melikdoms through war, treacherous machinations and manipulation of the meliks against one another.


                  • #10
                    And the Fraud Had a Name, Azerbaijan: the Real, the Fake and the Absurd

                    Armenian-Tatar Wars (part I)

                    Panah khan may be called the prototype of the “Azeris” who never ceased to harass the Armenians to force them out of their homeland and steal their territory. Especially noteworthy are the so-called Armenian-Tatar wars in 1905-1906.

                    Although it can be safely said that after the fall of the region under Russian rule, Armenians and Tatars lived relatively in peace, the rapid progress of Armenians since 1880s had roused the envy of the Tatars, especially the upper classes. According to Mikael Varandian, Tatar khans, land owners, begs and aghas, were used to seeing Armenians as loyal slaves that didn't dare raise their heads, had preserved certain privileges even under Russian rule and had even usurped vast areas of fertile land in Russian Armenia.

                    They could neither tolerate the rapid progress of the Armenians in cultural and commercial fields nor could compete with them. Although there were no clashes, the tension was palpable in the period before the conflict broke out.

                    The jealous hatred of Armenians manifested itself most obviously in Baku, where the “elite” of the Tatar community was centered, among which the bourgeois, the rich and the influential, fanatical clergy that received its fuel for hate speeches from Constantinople.

                    The Armenians who had migrated to Baku in 1880's, had engaged in buying oil wells from the Tatars along with Russians, Jews and Europeans, and as a result of their industriousness, had rapidly succeeded and in less than thirty years they occupied the highest posts in the oil producing council and other international companies. Consequently, this drew large numbers of Armenian laborers and businessmen from other eastern Armenian provinces. This was unbearable for the Tatars, whose majority was backward, fanatical, illiterate and untalented in business.

                    Another reason was the struggle of the Armenians the other side of the border to liberate their homeland, along with the demonstrations and revolt in the Caucasus against the Czarist state. This had stupefied the Tatars that had always viewed the Armenians as effeminate and coward slaves who shook before the Turks and the Persians. They now imagined that the same Armenians would someday, after the fall of the Czarist regime, establish their independent homeland and oppress the Tatars. Consequently, they started spreading “Armenian conspiracy” myths.

                    Not surprisingly the Tatar elite took the side of the Czarists in those days of Russian revolutionary movement. They thought it an opportune moment to crush the revolution and the Armenian hopes by joining forces with the Armenian hating Czarist state. Unable to compete with the Armenians in the cultural and commercial fields, the Tatars opted, like their kin in Constantinople, for their much loved and preferred method, physical extermination. They armed and incited the mobs in Baku, the Russians providing the arms themselves. Hand in hand they “trained” the criminal elements, spread lies about imminent attacks by Armenian Committees and succeeded in this provocation despite the fact that the Tatars were the majority in Baku. Thus, they were already confident that any atrocities against the Armenians would go unpunished and that the government was also on their side.

                    The clergy on the other hand, fueled the religious fanaticism of the backward mobs and invited them to jihad against the Armenians who they feigned were going to attack Islam and explode their mosques!

                    The desired pretext didn't come a minute too late. Early February 1905, a group of Russian soldiers were transporting Ashurbegov, a Turkish criminal, from court to prison. The convict tried to escape. The Russians, among whom an Armenian soldier, opened fire and by sheer chance, it was the bullet from the Armenian soldier's gun that killed the criminal. The Turks took notice and cried havoc and decided to take revenge on Armenians. A couple of days passed. On 6th of February Armenians had gathered in the Armenian churchyard. The soldier was among them. A Tatar called Babayev approached and shot and wounded him. The Armenians caught Babayev and handed him to the police, but he got away. Some Armenian youth followed him and caught and killed the offender. This triggered the bloody clashes...

                    From Luigi Villari's Fire and Sword in the Caucasus:

                    “In 1858 an attempt was made to extract petroleum from the crude naphtha, and in 1863 the first refinery was founded by the Armenian Melikoff. Armenians were indeed the pioneers of the industry, although Russians and foreigners soon rushed to Baku in large numbers.

                    The trade of Baku, especially the shipping trade, is wholly in Tartar hands …But in spite of their wealth and the business ability of a few of them, the great majority are mere primitive savages. To the Armenians above all is the development of Baku due, for they were the first to work the oil-fields on a large scale and on modern lines; they perform a large part of the skilled labour, and among them most of the managers, engineers, as well as many capitalists, are to be found. …there are several Englishmen and other foreigners in prominent positions…

                    The Tartars have always considered Baku as a Tartar city. The Tartar khans have ruled it for centuries, the great bulk of the native population of the whole province is Tartar, …But the Armenians, with their superior education, their greater intelligence and push, have acquired an increasing influence in the town and the industry, and have edged the Tartars out of many professions.

                    One fact which struck me very forcibly during my stay at Baku was the extreme bitterness of the foreign element against the Armenians; its sympathies, save in two or three instances, seemed wholly on the side of the Tartars.

                    ...Quite apart from the greater personal charm of the Moslem over the Armenian, the views of foreign financiers and managers are greatly influenced by the fact that they are in close commercial competition with the Armenians. …One prominent Englishman said to me that he would be glad to see the whole Armenian nation wiped out!” (All emphases are mine. H.)

                    The Russian acquisition of the so-called South Caucasus had more disastrous consequences than the breaking up of the Melikdoms of Artsakh; as Villari points out: “Prince Golytzin, who had been busy carrying out his anti-Armenian policy, had a few weeks before executed the confiscation of the Church property; in October his life was attempted. Early in 1904 Prince Nakashidze, a Georgian noble, who as Vice-Governor of Erivan had been actively implicated in the said confiscation, was appointed Governor of Baku. His arrival coincided with a recrudescence of Armeno-Tartar hostility ...he openly encouraged the Tartars, and treated the Armenians with marked coldness...”

                    He goes on to describe the mundane events of the murder and revenge that led to the Tatar savageries against the Armenians where “…The body of Babaieff was carried in procession through the Tartar quarter, and exposed to view. Had Prince Nakashidze wished to prevent trouble he would have stopped the procession; the sight of the murdered man roused the Moslems to fury, and on the 19th of February they proceeded to massacre every Armenian they came across. The Armenians defended themselves as best they could, but the Tartars were much more numerous and better armed. The authorities remained absolutely passive, and …Prince Nakashidze …replied that he had no troops and could do nothing, although as a matter of fact he had 2,000 men ...The Armenians, however, took vengeance into their own hands, and on May 24th Prince Nakashidze was blown up by a bomb. As for his own guilt in this matter there can, I think, be no doubt whatever.”

                    Villari arrives at the correct deduction which can be applied to all Turkish crimes: “...The impunity of the Baku massacres encouraged the Tartars in other parts of the country.” In another chapter of his book, Villari gives “an account of the outbreak at Nakhitchevan, which was the outcome of the Baku disturbance”.

                    Later skirmishes occurred in Shushi and fighting in Baku was resumed on a larger scale in September. Villari gives detailed descriptions of the events of 1905-1906 which explain the worries of the westerners regarding the safety of their business in Baku. This has led some to believe the elimination of the Armenian element from the Baku-Suez oil route was a consequence of these concerns. Villari attests: “Far worse was the situation on the oil-fields. …During the night the Tartars set fire to the Armenian oil properties at Balakhany and Ramany; the derricks, being of wood and impregnated with naphtha, burnt like tinder, and the adjoining buildings were soon in flames. The fires also spread to other non-Armenian properties, and soon a huge cloud of smoke hung like a pall over the oil-fields, with tongues of fire darting up from the burning derricks. Desperate fighting took place wherever Tartars and Armenians met, but this time the former did not have such an easy job as in February.”

                    Displaying proto-“Azeri” inhumanity Villari recounts, “Numbers of isolated Armenians were caught by the Tartars while trying to escape and shot or cut to pieces. Some were induced to leave their hiding places by promises of safety, and then brutally murdered. At the Melikoff works several Armenians who had taken refuge in a house were burnt to death with kerosene pumped in by the Tartars. …But amid these deeds of savage cruelty there shine also deeds of magnificent heroism. The way in which some Armenians brought women and children to places of safety or got water and provisions for the besieged under a heavy fire was beyond all praise. …In the meanwhile fighting and incendiarism had broken out on the Bibi Eybat oil-fields. The Pitoieff, Mantasheff, and other Armenian properties were set alight, and the properties of the English firms “Oleum” and B. O. R. N. were also damaged.”

                    It took enormous efforts “to keep the Tartars in check. …At last reinforcements began to arrive from Tiflis and Rostoff, and artillery was got into position, both in the oil-fields and in the town; the troops acted with considerable energy, greatly to the disgust of the Tartars, who expected to find them on their side, or at all events that they should remain neutral.”

                    The Tatar turned “Azeri” legacy testified by Villari: “...I visited the premises of several oil companies at Bibi Eybat soon after the fires, and the spectacle presented simply defies description. ...On entering the first of these a most appalling scene of destruction met my eyes. Out of the 200 derricks of Bibi Eybat, 118 had been destroyed, and the majority of the other buildings were heaps of black ruins.”

                    13 September 1905 — in the Paris edition of the New York Herald:

                    “Holy War Waged
                    St. Petersburg: The districts of Zangezur and Jebrail are swarming with Tartar bands under the leadership of chiefs, and in some cases accompanied by Tartar police officials. Green banners are carried and a ‘Holy War’ is being proclaimed. All Armenians, without distinction of sex or age are being massacred. Many thousand Tartar horsemen have crossed the Perso-Russian frontier and joined the insurgents. Horrible scenes attended the destruction of the village of Minkind. Three hundred Armenians were massacred and mutilated. The children were thrown to the dogs and the few survivors were forced to embrace Islamism.”

                    Figure 8

                    Slaughter of Armenians in Nakhijevan in 1905 by Tatars
                    (that mutated and became “Azeris” around mid 20th century)

                    Figure 9

                    Armenian Church Desecrated in 1905 by Tatars
                    (who morphed and became “Azeris” in mid 20th century)
                    Last edited by Hellektor; 05-01-2008, 04:05 PM.