Kurds are Fathers of Iran

[zurderer]

scienfically.

[Diri]

What do you mean scientifically, Zurderer?

[Vladimir]

I wonder if it's scientifically prooved that Azeri's are "Iranian". They could be descendents of the Turkmen shia or Qizilbash. In that time of religion, etnicity wasn't really important. But a lot of Turkish people came into Iran.. so..

[Piling]

But Qizil Bash themselves were very mixed : Rurkmnes, Kurds, Daylamî, etc.

Reports of ancient geographers and travelers mentionned that in Azerbayjan, people were "ajam" speaking an iranien language, and were not all Muslims. But they were more and more turcized, and at the end their Iranian language disapperaed.

Then Azeri descend from both ancient Iranians and Turkmens.

[Diri]

I wonder if it's scientifically prooved that Azeri's are "Iranian". They could be descendents of the Turkmen shia or Qizilbash. In that time of religion, etnicity wasn't really important. But a lot of Turkish people came into Iran.. so..

Yes - it has been scientifically proved that Azeris are ethnically Iranians - and merely "Turkic" by linguistic terms...

So they're descendants of Talysh, Kurds, Persians etc. - but were turkified linguistically by Turkmen hordes...

[zurderer]

What do you mean scientifically, Zurderer?

He said this, and he is right.

You're right they are Mongols and belong in "Turan"

Azeris are not mongols but they are absolutely turanic.

Iran is a nation not ethnicity. So becoming iranian dont make anyone non-Turkish(Turkic), or non-Turanid.


And there are not mongols of middle east, If someone want to talk about Turkic people, At least he should now, Mongols live at mongolia

[zurderer]

So they're descendants of Talysh, Kurds, Persians etc. - but were turkified linguistically by Turkmen hordes...

Yeah like I am greek, isnt it.

But there is a problem at this, even iranian empires were ruled by Turkic people, Empires were culturally persian.

So there is not a real reason for turkification or azerybaycan.(Except, Turkish immigration.)

Same theory you aplied at Turkey, wont work at iran.(Even It is not absolutely right about Turkey.)

[Piling]

though that is true. Azeri people were Iranian language speakers until 15th century, and later Turkmen population came and slowy turcized them.

That's the same case for Arab conquest. Most of current "Arab" in ME are Coptic or Aramaic speakers like ancestors.

In Western Anatolia it was the same phenomenon. If Turks in Turkey were "genetically" 100% Turks they would seem like Central Asian people : Kipchak, Karluk, Uzbek, etc. Of course, Turks came in Anatolia, but they were not so numerous to change the anthropologic aspect of the population. The only Turkish faces" I was in Turkey are tatars, cherkesses, and other migrants from Central Asia and Causasus.

By the way these question of blood are interesting for a genetician or a anthropologist, but in policy it is insane to base a "national theory" on them.

[tomjez]

Tcherkesses are not turks, they're caucasian and speak a caucasian language.. and they definitely don't look asiatic...raaah çerkes girls...

[Vladimir]

Genetic research isn't very good for nationalism;).

[Vladimir]

But I don't know how accurate genetic research is though.

[zurderer]

Tcherkesses are not turks, they're caucasian and speak a caucasian language.. and they definitely don't look asiatic...raaah çerkes girls...

Indeed They are beatiful.

though that is true. Azeri people were Iranian language speakers until 15th century, and later Turkmen population came and slowy turcized them.

well, how did they slowly turcized them?

That's the same case for Arab conquest. Most of current "Arab" in ME are Coptic or Aramaic speakers like ancestors.

Totally different issues, You are ignoring effect of islam, and culture.

Turkish nomads have not neither cultural nor religious supperiority.

In Western Anatolia it was the same phenomenon. If Turks in Turkey were "genetically" 100% Turks they would seem like Central Asian people : Kipchak, Karluk, Uzbek, etc.

It is interesting, You think Turk as anatolia is not 100% Turkish, but central asian Turks were 100% Turk. What about mongolian and chinis effect.(Later russian one.)

Of course, Turks came in Anatolia, but they were not so numerous to change the anthropologic aspect of the population.

how do you know? Mongoloid Turks are not all turks, chinies reffered different eye colour of turks. There were song about, blond kuman Turks.

Turkish is what binded Turkish clans, not their faces.

Even Yoruks have not look like central asian Turks.(They were still nomads.) will you say They are not 100% Turk too?

The only Turkish faces" I was in Turkey are tatars, cherkesses, and other migrants from Central Asia and Causasus.

Tatars were mongols later turkified. Causasus is not Turkish, and cherkesses were absolutely neither turkish, nor mongoloids. There were preferred by ottomans, because of their white skin.

By the way these question of blood are interesting for a genetician or a anthropologist, but in policy it is insane to base a "national theory" on them.

Tell this to yourself, You(some persians, kurds) are talking like that, there is not turk at anatolia, or azerbyjan, with genetics.(Not history.)

[Vladimir]

Tell this to yourself, You(some persians, kurds) are talking like that, there is not turk at anatolia, or azerbyjan, with genetics.(Not history.)

I am not talking about that. There are no pure Turks though in Turkey. They don't exist. Same goes for other people in the region though.

[zurderer]

I am not talking about that. There are no pure Turks though in Turkey. They don't exist. Same goes for other people in the region though.

That is true(Maybe except yoruks.), but saying all turks were greek,persian, kurd, armenians is absurd.

[Vladimir]

Just as absurd as Turkish nationalism. What are 'yoruks'?