Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

but Armanen, you have to understand that this so called "Semitic" blood only became known to be associated with Arabs or xxxs relatively recently in history. In Ancient times, the same blood that so many of us frown upon with such labels, flowed freely throughout the middle east, was not considered Arab, xxxish, etc... Farmers, merchants would travel from all around the levant, they would establish trade networks and new communities where they could, and when the various nation states sprung up in the Middle East, the various rulers would seek to incorporate them into their ethnic realm in order to suit their policies of population expansion. Ancient Armenian rulers were no exception, so it's not surprising if we share some of the same genes with Arabs, especially Syrians. We may have relatively lower frequency of those genes in us however in our Y chromosomal map, but they will be nowhere near a level of absence, like in the case of distant peoples like Northern Europeans, Japanese, etc...

[Armanen]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

The semetic blood has changed and so have the other bloodlines, that is true, especially in the last 1000 years with the arab and mongol/turkic invasions. xxxs are not an ethnic group, there are at least three branches of xxxs who are not the same people, they just share the same religion and ideology. In the ancient near east there were many tribes, as you know, in the north tho was the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (the Armenian Highlands), in the extreme south was the home of the semites, who around 3000-2000 bc started to spread north, eventually taking over Sumer and establishing the first semetic kingdom i.e. akkad.

However the racial type of tribes in who were in between arabia and the Armenian Highlands is still not completely known, in the sense that yes they were caucasoid, but it's still not clear if they were semetic or Indo-European, however research done recently by Armenian scholars shows and German scholars shows that at least a quarter of the Sumerian population were of Armenic stock, not to mention the fact that the Sumerians came from the north western zagros mountains, which is/was the southeast corner of the Armenian Highlands.



The genetic absorbion throughout history is true and in all parts of the world, for example in the 3rd century some bulgar tribes making there way west from central asia came through Armenia, settled there and were absorbed within 2-3 generations. However in earlier times, 3000 BC and earlier there was much less of this going, so it is not correct to assume that because of more recent example of mixing that it has always occured at the same high rate.

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

good points, I definitely agree that the broad racial strata of the Middle East in prehistory could've been divided into the same 3 groups as you described.

The Islamic expansion also expanded the Arab ethnicity which originally started off in the southwestern part of the middle strata, to incorporate (or rather simply fuse together) much of this strata and the entire bottom strata.

What the Indo-European legacy in the Ancient Middle East did was the same thing, except instead of the southern strata, it was with the northern strata. I guess both were, indirectly, competing over influence in the middle strata. These legacies don't have a very strong racial connotation to me, they were played out by rulers and their men, colonization, war, etc... But none of the actors ever did it in the name of Indo-Europeanism or Semitism. Perhaps different races of people could claim to have been influenced by one or the other, or both, to varying degrees that gave them their respective mix of cultural and social evolution.

I mean... were the Assyrians truly "a Semitic people" if their adjacent Armenian neighbours were "an Indo-European" people? Perhaps the Assyrians used a semitic language, but does that make them full fledged Semitic as a race? Meanwhile, in the kingdom of Ararat, the language of the state was not even Indo-European, so what's going on? When politics comes into what ethno-linguistically labelled stock you are, things get a bit tricky.

We just know that we are our own race ("Northern/mid strata type" and whatnot), and perhaps our legacy was Indo-European, but to call us an "Indo-European" race has only so much worth when you consider the above. I mean, when using such labels, we suffer whenever we consider our ancient genetically related neighbours who might not have been historical speakers of Indo-European. Maybe it's just better to stick with Caucasian and Anatolian/Armenian Highland.

[Armanen]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

I mean... were the Assyrians truly "a Semitic people" if their adjacent Armenian neighbours were "an Indo-European" people? Perhaps the Assyrians used a semitic language, but does that make them full fledged Semitic as a race? Meanwhile, in the kingdom of Ararat, the language of the state was not even Indo-European, so what's going on? When politics comes into what ethno-linguistically labelled stock you are, things get a bit tricky.

We just know that we are our own race ("Northern/mid strata type" and whatnot), and perhaps our legacy was Indo-European, but to call us an "Indo-European" race has only so much worth when you consider the above. I mean, when using such labels, we suffer whenever we consider our ancient genetically related neighbours who might not have been historical speakers of Indo-European. Maybe it's just better to stick with Caucasian and Anatolian/Armenian Highland.

Concerning assyrians I would say it could be highly possible that they have Indo-European blood especially since they came to inhabit a land that just a few centuries earlier was the great Armenic/Indo-Iranian kingdom of Mitanni (modern day syria), so as with the akkadians and Sumerians, there could have easily been a mixing between assyrians and the Armenic/Indo-Iranian population of Mitanni.

As for Ararat (Urartu), it's still not 100% clear that they didn't speak an Indo-European language, much of the research done on Urartu was during communist times, so a lot of the info was changed or kept by official Moscow. I suggest you take a look at www.armenianhighland.com as there is an extensive section about this very issue. But if we assume that the Armenians of Urartu spoke a dialect of Hurrian, a Cacasuain language, then I'd say it similar to how modern turks speak a turkic language but majority of them have closer genetic bonds with people of the balkans, middle east and Cacausus then with central asians or mongols which would suggest that the turkish language was imposed on a predominantly Indo-European-speaking population and the number of turkic invaders was probably rather small and was genetically diluted by the large number of aborigines. So in essence Cacausian tribes did have a hand in the formation of the modern Armenian ethnogenesis, yet the non IE language of the kingdom of Ararat could also have been a result of having an upper class which was non IE but the vast majority being IE and IE speakers.

There are still questions to be answered but one should remember that history is written by the winner and that current neo liberal "western" academic order does not favor racial studies so there is a political factor in all of this. Thus it comes as no suprise that we have clowns such as oslonor trying to pass off crap as academic research or turks claiming to be native to Asia Minor or azerbaijan claiming kinship with the people of real azerbaijan and with Cacausian Albanians, etc.

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

It has been argued by scholars that the Mitanni may have been ruled by Indo-Iranians, but the population would've been more Armenic/Ugaritic. What are your thoughts on this?

Anyway, I like your answers, keep it up

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

I just want to make several points:

Indo-Iranian or Indo-European is a family of languages. It is not a race or ethnicity. The natives of Iran should be called the natives of Iran and nothing else.

There is no way to save "Pure Iranians" by mixing up Arabs into the discussion. Arabs left Iran in 8 century. Pure Iranians entered Iran in 14 century. Iranians claim they are Persians who are mixed with arabs. Also Arabs have their own sub-racial type which is different from both Persians and Iranians.

I am interested to know about the Turkification of Armenia by these Pure Iranians. How many of them are exported?? Some armenians estimate the numbers of these pure Iranians as very large in Armenia. What are they involved in and what is their relation with Armenians. I am sure large scale social conflicts have appeared in Armenia due to the presence of these Iranians. The rise of Nazi groups in Armenia is a good indication of social effects of these pure Iranians.

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

Pure Iranians entered Iran in the 14th century? what?

[robertik1]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

Pure Iranians entered Iran in the 14th century? what?

He doesnt make any sense as usual.

I think he means azeri turks.

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

must be... jesus, and to think he's influential in other forums...

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

Pure Iranians entered Iran in the 14th century? what?

Yes. that is correct. We only will use Iranian to refer to Azeris. To confuse people Azeris have adopted the name Iranian. That is why we are trying to avoid confusion. Do not use Iranian except to refer to Azeris.

There are alternative ways to address the natives of Iran without using Iranians.