Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:51 AM   #311
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,060

And what about Persians in large parts of Iran? They are not "Turkified" and that term itself only exists in your imagination.

Turks never had such policies that you talk of. On opposite, they themselves adopted foreign cultures and languages, I'm referring to dynastic rulers of course.
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:05 AM   #312

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,536

There didn't have to be any specific policies aimed at linguistic and cultural turkification in order for it to happen. I think that nobody denies that, let's say, a few hundred thousands Turkmens did move to Anatolia/Caucasus region (how "pure" they were is another question), but that doesn't explain sufficiently the fact that those regions became largely Turkish speaking.

I find it hard to believe that those around 1.5 million of Greeks who left for Greece after the Independence War and around one million of Armenians killed during the genocide/massacres/whatever you call it, were all or most of what remained from the original Anatolian population. If most inhabitants of Seljuk/Ottoman Anatolia converted to Islam and adopted Turkish as their lingua franca and later mother tongue, then the Turkish character of the region is easier to explain.

Last edited by Ayazid; November 14th, 2012 at 10:26 AM.
Ayazid is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:27 AM   #313
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,060

But there is no geographical continuity to support that theory, not even between Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turks. And you yourself asked that question, which you call as interesting, but there is infact nothing interesting about it, as there was no such thing as mythical Turkification invented by 20th century anti-Turk scholars. And the examples of Anatolia and Azerbaijan/Iran are vastly different, as the latter was already Muslim. You mention Seljuqs, their official language was Persian and they simple fought in the name of Islam. Turkic culture, language had not much of a place among them. And as we know, following Seljuqs are the centuries of Mongol domination. There is just no logic behind such theories.

The only way that it it could happen where it did was a result of a large presence of Turkic tribes. I have repeated it for thousands of times, people think that populations were as large as they are now. Huge migrations could and did change the demographics heavily, which is what happend.

Last edited by Qaraqoyunlu; November 14th, 2012 at 10:35 AM.
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:49 AM   #314

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,536

I am not sure about Azerbaijan, but the simple fact that it's closer to Central Asia would suggest a greater Turkic admixture there.

As for Anatolia, the Seljuks did use Persian as their court language, but that's it. The vast majority of Turkmens spoke their language and nobody forced them to learn Persian or Arabic. In fact, when Ibn Battuta visited Anatolia in the 1330s' he could hardly communicate with anybody, since he didn't know any Turkish. We should make a distinction between the Seljuk court and the rest of the Turkish society. As for the Mongols, they were hardly anything more than tax collectors and occasional invaders/pillagers. They didn't spread their culture and hardly anything change since the previous period. Well, the Persianized Seljuk culture was actually weakened by their invasion.

Linguistic assimilation doesn't need any specific policy, it just happens, and I am pretty sure that the Anatolian lingua franca was Turkish, the language of new lords, and not Persian spoken by a tiny urban elite. I suppose that local converts to Islam also learnt Turkish and not Persian to communicate with their new brothers in faith.

If there really wasn't any mass conversion to Islam, especially during the 4 not that well documented centuries before the Ottomans, what happened with non-Turkish populations in the vast interior? Were they all killed off, fled to aegean coast, or what exactly? And why should be Turks unable of imposing their language and culture on conquered populations when the same thing happened with Magyars after their settlement in Central Europe and Anglo-Saxons in Britain? Neither of these 2 peoples were on a particularly high level of development, nor had any "policy" of doing so, but it happened.
Ayazid is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:57 AM   #315
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,060

I'm not sure how much you have analyzed Seljuqs. The lords was not much different in that sense, they were also statesman. And that can be regarded as a theory, but not something that can be supported as we do not see such a pattern in dozens of other regions that were under Turkic rule but kept their identity and language. When it comes to Iran, there was a much stronger centralized rule in present-day Persian areas compared to Azerbaijan. Even when you look at Seljuq monuments, they are all found in Persian areas of Iran. Hamadan, Ray, Kerman etc...was actually the center of Turkish governance and rule. Azerbaijan on the other hand was just a frontier province where they launched military campaigns against Georgians and Byzantines. Khorasan can be also given as an example, its largely non-Turkic speaking yet it was the center of first Turkic incursions and actually the center of power of early Seljuqs. If there was such a phenomena, it should first of all have happend in Khorasan.

Again, there are accounts of tribe/clans with their number of households, they were not a small population in Anatolia. People just ignore to look into actual facts, there is nothing complex here, but just too much BS theories presented as facts and absence of real sources for many that participate in this particular discussion. I also do not think anyone denies mixing with other populations, as no nation is pure, but its also wrong to completly write-off actual presence of a large Turkic population.

Last edited by Qaraqoyunlu; November 14th, 2012 at 11:43 AM.
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:25 AM   #316

Ayazid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,536

I didn't say that there wasn't a substantial Oghuz migration from Khorasan to Anatolia/Caucasus, but that doesn't imply a removal/extinction of the original population. If a turkification of most Anatolians is a theory, the same thing can be said about the one which says that most of them somehow disappeared and the Turks moved into a nearly empty land.

I still think that it would be helpful to have some info about what was the Anatolian lingua franca during the Seljuk period (did Greek/Armenian peasants and Turkmens really communicate in Persian?) and also the rate of conversion to Islam. Are there any reasons to think that it wasn't a mass phenomenon like in several areas of the Ottoman Balkans? And what happened with converts?

As for the semi-nomadic/nomadic Turkmens during the Ottoman period, it would interesting to know how big part of the the whole Anatolian population they made and to what degree they had intermarried with non-Turkish populations (for example Kurds).

Last edited by Ayazid; November 14th, 2012 at 11:46 AM.
Ayazid is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:33 AM   #317
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,060

I think no one denies absorbing of other populations, but like said, the attempts of completly writing-off Turkic presence is also wrong and does not correspond to any kind of reality. This is not directed at you btw. Since you are aware of Oghuz migrations, then we agree.

Turks did not move into a empty land, no, but first of all the populations were nowhere as large as they are today plus the number of Oghuz tribesman were often quite large, and as we know, it happend over course of few centuries, and of course there were other factors that actually reduced the population of cities, such as famine, plagues and other things.

Last edited by Qaraqoyunlu; November 14th, 2012 at 11:39 AM.
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:01 PM   #318

Rostam's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA (Washington D.C.)
Posts: 27

Between the third and second millennia BC, the Iranian plateau became exposed to incursions of pastoral nomads from the Central Asian steppes (1), which were a difficult environment for agriculture but ideally suited to animal husbandry and pastoral nomadism. Presumably, via an elite-dominance process, existing Dravidian language across the region was substituted by Indo-Iranian language, which is a branch of Indo-European language (8-10). Also their genetic impacts were as significant as the imposition of their language, which is clearly observed in Iran (11), Pakistan (12) and northern India (13). In the period of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries AD the Arab-Muslim, Seljuk and subsequent Turkic-Mongol invasions signaled the arrival of a new people with flocks and culture. Specifically, in a series of rapid Arab-Muslim conquests in the seventh century, the Arab armies swept through most of the Middle East, completely engulfing the Persian lands (7). The dominance of the Arabs came to a sudden end in the mid-eleventh century with the arrival of Seljuk Turks, a clan of the Oguz Turks (8). The expanding waves of these Altaic-speaking nomads from Central Asia involved regions farther to the west, such as Iran, Iraq, Anatolia, and the Caucasus, where they imposed Altaic (Turkish) languages. In these western regions, however, the genetic contribution is low or undetectable (14), even though the power of these invaders was sometimes strong enough to impose a language replacement, as in Turkey and Azerbaijan (1). Later, the Mongol armies also moved westward and, by the early thirteenth century, established their rule over a vast region, including Iran and advancing as far west as the Caucasus and Turkey (1, 7). These waves of various invasions and subsequent migrations resulted in major demographic expansions in the region, which added new languages and culture to culture to the mix of peoples that had pre-existed in Iran.



Abstract


Background: The main goal of this study was to conduct a comparative population genetic study of Turkish speaking Iranian Azeris as being the biggest ethno-linguistic community, based on the polymorph markers on Y chromosome. Methods: One hundred Turkish-speaking Azeri males from north-west Iran (Tabriz, 2008-2009) were selected based on living 3 generations paternally in the same region and not having any relationship with each other. Samples were collected by mouth swabs, DNA extracted and multiplex PCR done, then 12 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and 6 Microsatellites (MS) were sequenced. Obtained data were statistically analyzed by Arlequin software.


Results: SNPs and Microsatellites typing were compared with neighboring Turkish-speaking populations (from Turkey and Azerbaijan) and Turkmens representing a possible source group who imposed the Turkish language during 11-15th centuries AD. Azeris demonstrated high level of gene diversity compatible with patterns registered in the neighboring Turkish-speaking populations, whereas the Turkmens displayed significantly lower level of genetic variation. This rate of genetic affiliation depends primarily on the geographic proximity.


Conclusion: The imposition of Turkish language to this region was realized predominantly by the process of elite dominance, i.e. by the limited number of invaders who left only weak patrilineal genetic trace in modern populations of the region.


Here is the link to that study.

http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/_/17783.pdf
Rostam is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:18 PM   #319

Rostam's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA (Washington D.C.)
Posts: 27

I am Iranian. there is no denying the contribution Azerbaijani Turks have made to Iran. It has been enormous. I am proud that my father was an Azerbajiani Turk and spoke the beautiful Turkish language. However, there is no scientific evidence that points to a massive invasion of Oghuz Turks.
Rostam is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:21 PM   #320
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,060

"Not this schit again".

D you actually have some kind of knowledge on the subject yourself or are you just going to quote links?

First of all, the source is Iranian, secondly its impossible to determine millions of people on the basis of 100 individuals. Thirdly, the same kind of stuff claims that Azeri Turks of Caucasus and Iran are two different populations, does that sound logical to you by any sense? And such things does not mean that much when you live in a region for a millenium.

If you just care to read other posts here, we have talked about it. And why do you ignore the points mentioned here, so why rest of Iran are not speaking Turkic now.

I'm seriously sick of what it seems to me as bots who pop-up and post the same BS over and over.
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
safavids


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Safavids or the Ottomans? Mohammed the Persian Middle Eastern and African History 58 April 25th, 2011 02:52 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.