"The genetic origin of the Azerbaijani Turks"

[Kyp]

Great summary on the topic, had to post it here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/azerbaijan/comments/iw7xda/the_genetic_origin_of_azerbaijani_turks/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share


Conclusion: Azerbaijani Turks are situated in a historically rich and ethnically diverse region. Their genetic history reflects that. They primarily descend from Iranic people followed by strong/significant secondary Anatolian and Medieval Turkic descent, and some notable Caucasian related ancestry as well. The ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani Turks began with the settlement of Seljuk era Oghuz Turks in Azerbaijan and their intermarriage with the mainly Iranic locals, followed by centuries of back migrations into Azerbaijan from Anatolian Turkic tribes/groups (notably the Qizilbash during the Safavid Empire) further intermarrying with the population. To say Azerbaijani's are a Turkified Iranic group that just adopted a Turkic language is demonstrably incorrect and completely disingenuous towards the complex ethnic and historical dynamics that have taken place in Azerbaijan during the past 1000 years.

On the difference between North & South Azerbaijanis:

When discussing the ancestry from pre-Turkic Azerbaijani's, Caucasian Albanians and Iranics (more specifically Medes) are commonly brought up. Before getting in-depth into genetics, I personally used to think there would be a noticeable difference between northern and southern Azerbaijani's due to Caucasian Albanians in the north and Medes in the south. There are samples from both Azeris in G25 and when I separated them, there was practically no difference; both had a distance of ~0.010 (compared to the other distances in the list above). So whatever ancestry Azerbaijani's have, based on current samples it seems to be mostly uniform across the region (on average) with a few exceptions like Azerbaijani_Dagestan.

[Bender1999]

Good explanation for people who don’t know about Azerbaijani genetics. Similar case with Anatolian Turks, just replace some words with Anatolian. Btw he named sth which is very important but unfortunately no one understands: you must distinguish between beeing mixed and beeing assimilated.

[Altaylı]

Nice thread :thumbs

[Dorian]

you must distinguish between beeing mixed and beeing assimilated.

Tell us more about it..

[Mingle]

Either all West Asian and Balkan Oghuzes should be considered one ethnicity or Anatolian/Balkan/Cypriot/Ahiska/Iraqi Turks, North Azerbaijanis, and South Azerbaijanis should be considered three (or more) separate ethnic groups.

It doesn't make any sense to say the the Azerbaijanis of Iran are the same as the Azerbaijanis of Shirvan, but a different people to those in Turkey/Cyprus/Iraq/etc. The only thing separating them is religion, but it's not like one ethnicity has to exclusively adhere to one religion/sect. There are Shia and Sunni Kurds for example.

The only reason that Azeris on both sides of the Aras River as considered one ethnicity while the Turks from Anatolia/Balkans/etc. are considered a separate ethnicity is because Azeris north of the Aras have their own country and they developed a separate distinctive identity around the time Russia annexed their land. This gives them a national identity and religion helps them emphasize themselves as a separate ethnicity from Turkey Turks. Due to sharing a name with Azeris south of the Aras River (which they hijacked for imperialistic purposes one century ago), they also got swallowed into the same ethnic group and became considered a separate ethnicity from Turkey Turks. But it's really just politics separating them. I don't see how a Turk from eastern Turkey and Thrace are one people while those from neighboring Azerbaijan are a separate people. At the end of the day, the main difference is just that one is Shia and the other is Sunni. And many of them, especially in the Republic of Azerbaijan, are irreligious.

The Azeris north of the Aras River were also historically called just generic Turks (or Tatars) like those from Turkey are today, with "Shirvani" being their regional identity. The Russians even labeled as "Mountain Tatars" ("Tatar" meaning "Turk" here), not "Azeri" when referring to their ethnicity. Same applies to the Azeris south of the Aras River where they were just generic Turks and "Azerbaijani" being their regional identity.

So all West Asian and Balkan Oghuzes (including Azeris on both sides of the river) should be considered one ethnic group using the logic that Republic Azeris and Iranian Azeris are one group. Otherwise, there's no consistency to the ethnic division between Azeris and the other Oghuzes of West Asia (plus the Balkans).

[Mingle]

When discussing the ancestry from pre-Turkic Azerbaijani's, Caucasian Albanians and Iranics (more specifically Medes) are commonly brought up. Before getting in-depth into genetics, I personally used to think there would be a noticeable difference between northern and southern Azerbaijani's due to Caucasian Albanians in the north and Medes in the south. There are samples from both Azeris in G25 and when I separated them, there was practically no difference; both had a distance of ~0.010 (compared to the other distances in the list above). So whatever ancestry Azerbaijani's have, based on current samples it seems to be mostly uniform across the region (on average) with a few exceptions like Azerbaijani_Dagestan.


They're part of a genetic continuum with Turkey Turks. There isn't some magic genetic forcefield between the borders of Turkey and the two Azerbaijans.

[Babak]

Isnt there a thread like this one already?

[Kyp]

Isnt there a thread like this one already?

Just wanted to share this reddit post and the underlying data to it. Hence the "".

[Babak]

Just wanted to share this reddit post and the underlying data to it. Hence the "".

Aah okey

[Kyp]

Either all West Asian and Balkan Oghuzes should be considered one ethnicity or Anatolian/Balkan/Cypriot/Ahiska/Iraqi Turks, North Azerbaijanis, and South Azerbaijanis should be considered three (or more) separate ethnic groups.

It doesn't make any sense to say the the Azerbaijanis of Iran are the same as the Azerbaijanis of Shirvan, but a different people to those in Turkey/Cyprus/Iraq/etc. The only thing separating them is religion, but it's not like one ethnicity has to exclusively adhere to one religion/sect. There are Shia and Sunni Kurds for example.

The only reason that Azeris on both sides of the Aras River as considered one ethnicity while the Turks from Anatolia/Balkans/etc. are considered a separate ethnicity is because Azeris north of the Aras have their own country and they developed a separate distinctive identity around the time Russia annexed their land. This gives them a national identity and religion helps them emphasize themselves as a separate ethnicity from Turkey Turks. Due to sharing a name with Azeris south of the Aras River (which they hijacked for imperialistic purposes one century ago), they also got swallowed into the same ethnic group and became considered a separate ethnicity from Turkey Turks. But it's really just politics separating them. I don't see how a Turk from eastern Turkey and Thrace are one people while those from neighboring Azerbaijan are a separate people. At the end of the day, the main difference is just that one is Shia and the other is Sunni. And many of them, especially in the Republic of Azerbaijan, are irreligious.

The Azeris north of the Aras River were also historically called just generic Turks (or Tatars) like those from Turkey are today, with "Shirvani" being their regional identity. The Russians even labeled as "Mountain Tatars" ("Tatar" meaning "Turk" here), not "Azeri" when referring to their ethnicity. Same applies to the Azeris south of the Aras River where they were just generic Turks and "Azerbaijani" being their regional identity.

So all West Asian and Balkan Oghuzes (including Azeris on both sides of the river) should be considered one ethnic group using the logic that Republic Azeris and Iranian Azeris are one group. Otherwise, there's no consistency to the ethnic division between Azeris and the other Oghuzes of West Asia (plus the Balkans).

Well I dont disagree, But there is a lot of politics involved now in how you call these people. Usually the Ottoman-Safavid dualism was used as a breaking point between Anatolian/Balkan Turks and Iranian-Turks which later got called Azerbaijani Turks.

Recent history obviously has furthered the differences between the groups.

[Mingle]

Well I dont disagree, But there is a lot of politics involved now in how you call these people. Usually the Ottoman-Safavid dualism was used as a breaking point between Anatolian/Balkan Turks and Iranian-Turks which later got called Azerbaijani Turks.

It seems to be mostly a coincidence that the Ottoman-Safavid borders mostly match the modern borders between the ethnic groups. If Musavat didn't steal the name "Azerbaijan", then the folks of the Republic of Azerbaijan would've probably been a separate ethnicity from Azeris proper. It's the naming scheme that keeps them together and separate from Anatolian Turks. This is also the same reason why Qashqais are considered a separate ethnic group from Azeris. After Iranian Azeris fell under the concocted "ethnic Azeri" identity started by their northern neighbors, the Qashqais became considered a distinct ethnic group (as opposed to generic "Turks") since they couldn't be considered ethnic Azerbaijani like the Turks of Iranian Azerbaijan.

If you look at the Ottoman and Safavid borders, you'll notice that Iraq was former Safavid territory but Iraqi Turkmens are grouped as part of the same ethnicity as ex-Ottoman Turks (maybe not always) and never grouped as part of the same ethnicity as ex-Safavid Azerbaijanis due to not sharing the name with them. So I don't think that has to do with it, at least not entirely.

Since you consider Shirvani Azeris and Iranian Azeris to be one people, do you also consider Turks from Iraq, Turkey, and Cyprus to be one people as well? Just wondering what your personal view on the matter is.

Oh, and there's something I forgot to add. Shirvani Azeris aren't descended from Iranic Azeris/Old Azeris (Medians). Shirvani Azeris are mostly a mix of Lezgic Albanians and Turks. I don't think Albanians would've been genetically distant to Old Azeris which would explain the similar genetics of Azeris on both sides of the river. This isn't really important in terms of ethnic identity, but I just wanted to mention that since it's a common misconception.

I also just noticed this was a genetic thread. Me and you briefly discussed Azerbaijanis in another thread and thought this was about their identity. :p Well it's not completely off-topic at least.

[Kyp]

It seems to be mostly a coincidence that the Ottoman-Safavid borders mostly match the modern borders between the ethnic groups. If Musavat didn't steal the name "Azerbaijan", then the folks of the Republic of Azerbaijan would've probably been a separate ethnicity from Azeris proper. It's the naming scheme that keeps them together and separate from Anatolian Turks. This is also the same reason why Qashqais are considered a separate ethnic group from Azeris. After Iranian Azeris fell under the concocted "ethnic Azeri" identity started by their northern neighbors, the Qashqais became considered a distinct ethnic group (as opposed to generic "Turks") since they couldn't be considered ethnic Azerbaijani like the Turks of Iranian Azerbaijan.

Yes "Turk" is still the best term for identification for Azerbaijanis. But if I'll tell people I'm a Turk they'll answer: "But you're not from Turkey..". Azerbaijani is used to avoid this discussion. It's also more neutral.

First off "proper Azeri" doesn't exist. Azerbaijani Turks were called Turks or Tatars in the north and "Tork/Turk" in Iran. To this day if I tell my grandmother (from Iran) that she is "Azeri" she don't know what it means. She just know that she is "Türk" and Iranian by nation.

Turks from Azerbaijan and Iran still share a lot as both languages are close together and considered dialects of the same branch of Oghuz languages.

Note: Iranians calling Azerbaijani Turks "Azeri/Azari" also has a political origin in trying to associate them with the old Iranic people of the region. I myself don't have a problem with the usage as long as people don't deny that I'm more than just "Azari". I don't deny the native element of Azerbaijani people at the same time.

The Qashqai only are not considered Azerbaijani because they don't live in Azerbaijan you are correct, however a lot of people do consider their turkish element to be Azerbaijani, so do I.



If you look at the Ottoman and Safavid borders, you'll notice that Iraq was former Safavid territory but Iraqi Turkmens are grouped as part of the same ethnicity as ex-Ottoman Turks (maybe not always) and never grouped as part of the same ethnicity as ex-Safavid Azerbaijanis due to not sharing the name with them. So I don't think that has to do with it, at least not entirely.

Since you consider Shirvani Azeris and Iranian Azeris to be one people, do you also consider Turks from Iraq, Turkey, and Cyprus to be one people as well? Just wondering what your personal view on the matter is.

Yes. I'm not too familiar with the history of Iraqi Turkmens though, so I cant answer accordingly on this.



Oh, and there's something I forgot to add. Shirvani Azeris aren't descended from Iranic Azeris/Old Azeris (Medians). Shirvani Azeris are mostly a mix of Lezgic Albanians and Turks. I don't think Albanians would've been genetically distant to Old Azeris which would explain the similar genetics of Azeris on both sides of the river. This isn't really important in terms of ethnic identity, but I just wanted to mention that since it's a common misconception.

I also just noticed this was a genetic thread. Me and you briefly discussed Azerbaijanis in another thread and thought this was about their identity. :p Well it's not completely off-topic at least.

A lot of tribes in Azerbaijan Rep. migrated from Iran into the region and vice versa. I don't know why you keep trying to seperate them. On top of that there were a lot of Iranic tribes living in Shirvan. We don't know much about Shirvan DNA. All autosomal testing (for now) suggests that Azerbaijani Rep. and from Iran are the same people and that strongest non-turkic element in Az.Rep is also Iranian like. The reddits post also goes into this issue a bit. Real Caucasus like elements can only be found in Daghestan Azerbaijanis and people from the northern fringes of Azerbaijan. I suspect Caucasian Albanians to be Iranian influenced. Maybe like an intermediate between Armenians and Talysh. This is also what DNA results of the Udin people show who are nowhere near Lezgins for example. However even with this assumption modern Republic Azerbaijanis (on average) seem to be additionally Iranian influenced genetically.


Here are the both groups seperated in G25:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?329415-Azerbaijani-G25-averages

[Bender1999]

Well I dont disagree, But there is a lot of politics involved now in how you call these people. Usually the Ottoman-Safavid dualism was used as a breaking point between Anatolian/Balkan Turks and Iranian-Turks which later got called Azerbaijani Turks.

Recent history obviously has furthered the differences between the groups.

Btw were there Turkmen riots against Safevids like in Ottoman empire?

[Mingle]

You're right, it wouldn't be too appropriate to call yourself only a Turk cause it would confuse people. I was just asking about your personal feelings on the topic of their identity, not what they should publicly introduce themselves as to outsiders.

I'm aware of migrations between the two regions called Azerbaijan. Internal migrations happen in all states. With cultures as close as their's, it's expected to be more common. I was speaking in a generalized sense in response to the people that think Shirvan was Iranic prior to Turkification.

[Kyp]

Btw were there Turkmen riots against Safevids like in Ottoman empire?

Not riots, but the Turkmen killed a couple of Persian officials who were appointed to controll the Turkmens by the Safavid Shahs. They were expelled into Azerbaijan region afterwards (some chiefs also were killed). This is also why Turkmens lost influence fast during Safavid time.

[Kyp]

You're right, it wouldn't be too appropriate to call yourself only a Turk cause it would confuse people. I was just asking about your personal feelings on the topic of their identity, not what they should publicly introduce themselves as to outsiders.

I'm aware of migrations between the two regions called Azerbaijan. Internal migrations happen in all states. With cultures as close as their's, it's expected to be more common. I was speaking in a generalized sense in response to the people that think Shirvan was Iranic prior to Turkification.

Here are North & South Azerbaijanis seperated in G25
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?329415-Azerbaijani-G25-averages

[Lucas]

I disagree that there is no regional breakdown among Azeris. PCA in K36.

"Azeri_western" is Agdzhabedi
"Azeri_NE" is Khachmaz
"Azeri" is probably Baku (usual average for them in calcs)

So we see "Azeri_NE" is shifted toward Azeri_Dagestan and they shifted toward Tat and toward Dagestan per se.
"Azeri_west" is just more close to "Azeri_Kars" so really more western.
Baku "Azeri" and "Iran_Azeri" are quite close to Talysh.


The same for Armenians. "ARM_Karabakh" is closer to "Azeri_West" comparing to other Armenian regional refs. Although still generally distant of course.


https://i.imgur.com/fv6lBXK.png

[Kyp]

I disagree there is no regional breakdown among Azeris. PCA in K36.

"Azeri_western" is Agdzhabedi
"Azeri_NE" is Khachmaz
"Azeri" is probably Baku (usual average for them in calcs)

So we see "Azeri_NE" is shifted toward Azeri_Dagestan and they shifted toward Tat and toward Dagestan per se.
"Azeri_west" is just more close to "Azeri_Kars" so really more western.
Baku "Azeri" and "Iran_Azeri" are quite close to Talysh.


https://i.imgur.com/fv6lBXK.png

I didn't say there is not variation at all. Especially Dagestan Azerbaijanis are far from the rest. They have a pretty good fit between regular Azerbaijani (75%) and Lezgins (25%).
Regional variations are to be expected.

Also I think that Tat result is some kind of assimilated or mixed Dagestani, since Tats live in Northeast. However I doubt this is what Tats from Iran would score.