Azeris are a mixture of Caucasians, Iranians, Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmens Mongoloid

[ButlerKing]

That's what it says here. Since Azeris are mixture of so many people it's hard to say they ever pure Turks or even half Turks.

" Azeris are a mixture of Caucasians, Iranians, Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmens, in that order of importance. "

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/azeris.html


http://i49.tinypic.com/4r9s42.png


Some odd looking Azeri

http://i49.tinypic.com/30j65w6.png

http://i45.tinypic.com/2q3ytqh.png

http://i50.tinypic.com/33ym07c.jpg

[Yalquzaq]

ButlerKing, why don't you make a thread about Armenians (your ethnicity)? You only post BS about Turkic peoples (and using a source like "Khazaria" which runs anti-Turkic propaganda).

The photos you posted are from Azerbaijani Turks of Borchali (Georgia), not Iran, and I don't see whats "odd" about it.

[ButlerKing]

No surprise, a wooping 21.2% Mongoloid Y-DNA admixture, now what about their Mongoloid mtDNA?

Y-DNA haplogroup of Azeris in North Iran

Q (9.09%)
N (6.06%)
O (3.03%)
C3 (3.03%)
R1a1 (3.03%)
R1a (3.03%)
R1*(3.03%)
L (3.03%)
J2a (3.03%)
J1 (9.095)
J2b1 (15.05%)
J2b1b (3.03%)
J2b (3.03%)
R1b1a (15.15%)
R2 (3.03%)
G2 (12.12%)
G1 (3.03%)


The paper is

Iran: Tricontinental Nexus for Y-Chromosome Driven Migration
M. Regueiroa, A.M. Cadenasa, T. Gaydena, P.A. Underhillb, R.J. Herreraa

[ButlerKing]

ButlerKing, why don't you make a thread about Armenians (your ethnicity)? You only post BS about Turkic peoples (and using a source like "Khazaria" which runs anti-Turkic propaganda).

The photos you posted are from Azerbaijani Turks of Borchali (Georgia), not Iran, and I don't see whats "odd" about it.

I typed Azeri Iranian and they popped out.

[ButlerKing]

ButlerKing, why don't you make a thread about Armenians (your ethnicity)? You only post BS about Turkic peoples (and using a source like "Khazaria" which runs anti-Turkic propaganda).

The photos you posted are from Azerbaijani Turks of Borchali (Georgia), not Iran, and I don't see whats "odd" about it.


Here is another. This is from Iran for sure
http://centralasia.imb.org/pray/azeri-of-Iran.php

http://centralasia.imb.org/encounter/images/AzeriGirl.jpg

[gori]

ButlerKing, why don't you make a thread about Armenians (your ethnicity)? You only post BS about Turkic peoples (and using a source like "Khazaria" which runs anti-Turkic propaganda).

The photos you posted are from Azerbaijani Turks of Borchali (Georgia), not Iran, and I don't see whats "odd" about it.

Cute kids but , how do you know they are Georgian azeris ? Between, only first one looks odd to me.

[Meow]

To me they are just turkanised iranians.

[Hayalet]

To me they are just turkanised iranians.
Since many Russians believe they are Slavicized Iranians, does that make Azerbaijanis your brothers? :chin:

[ButlerKing]

To me they are just turkanised iranians.

Exactly, Some Turkish and Azeris just thinks the ancient people who inhabited those lands dissapeared. Their love for being Turkic made them bias and can't accept anything that doesn't matches their ideal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_people#Origins


Turkification

The earliest major Turkic incursion of the area now known as Azerbaijan began and accelerated during the Seljuk period.[76] The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, as many troops under the Ilkhans were Turkic. By the Safavid period, the Turkification of Azerbaijan continued with the influence of the Kizilbash. The very name Azerbaijan is derived from the pre-Turkic name of the province, Azarbayjan or Adarbayjan, and illustrates a gradual language shift that took place as local place names survived Turkification, albeit in altered form.[61] Most academics view the linguistic Turkification of predominantly non-Turkic-speaking indigenous peoples and assimilation of small bands of Turkic tribes as the most likely origin for the Azeris.[59]:6–7




Iranian origin

The Iranian origins of the Azerbaijanis likely derive from ancient Iranic tribes, such as the Medes in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Scythian invaders who arrived during the eighth century BC. It is believed that the Medes mixed with Mannai.[81] Ancient written accounts, such as one written by Arab historian Al-Masudi, attest to an Iranian presence in the region:

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in the land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz ... All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language ... although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.[82]


A sample poem from Safina-yi Tabriz written in the old Azari language.
Archaeological evidence indicates that the Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism was prominent throughout the Caucasus before Christianity and Islam.[83] It has also been hypothesized that the population of Iranian Azerbaijan was predominantly Persian-speaking before the Oghuz arrived. This claim is supported by the many figures of Persian literature, such as Qatran Tabrizi, Shams Tabrizi, Nizami Ganjavi, and Khaghani, who wrote in Persian prior to and during the Oghuz migration, as well as by Strabo, Al-Istakhri, and Al-Masudi, who all describe the language of the region as Persian. The claim is mentioned by other medieval historians, such as Al-Muqaddasi.[61]Encyclopædia Iranica says "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers" and points out the continued presence of pockets of Iranian Talysh and Tats in Azerbaijan.[84]

[Yalquzaq]

Cute kids but , how do you know they are Georgian azeris ? Between, only first one looks odd to me.

I have seen them before.

[Meow]

Since many Russians believe they are Slavicized Iranians, does that make Azerbaijanis your brothers? :chin:

Who believes that ? and no, Azeris aren't my brothers, God, no ...

[Yalquzaq]

Exactly, Some Turkish and Azeris just thinks the ancient people who inhabited those lands dissapeared. Their love for being Turkic made them bias and can't accept anything that doesn't matches their ideal.

I like how you leave out the part which says that the so-called "Iranian" origin is claimed only for Azerbaijani Turks of Iran, while a "native Caucasian" origin (non-Iranian) is claimed for Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasus, which of course sounds illogical as the two are basically the same people. We do know for certain that north of Araxes had only small Iranian presence, and was neither called "Azerbaijan" in historical sense, but rather "Arran", derived from "Albania" (Caucasian Albania). Moreover, in Safavid sources, we meet the term of "Turkistan" used for Turkic regions of Transcaucasia and Iranian Azerbaijan.

Another thing here is that the very name of "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" is only 20th century designations invented for Azerbaijani Turks, so no possible parallel could be drawn between so-called old non-Turkic "Azaris" (the existence of whos has not even been proven, rather a loose theory invented in Iran in early 1920s) and modern-day Azerbaijani Turks.

[ButlerKing]

I like how you leave out the part which says that the so-called "Iranian" origin is claimed only for Azerbaijani Turks of Iran, while a "native Caucasian" origin (non-Iranian) is claimed for Azerbaijani Turks of Caucasus, which of course sounds illogical as the two are basically the same people. We do know for certain that north of Araxes had only small Iranian presence, and was neither called "Azerbaijan" in historical sense, but rather "Arran", derived from "Albania". Moreover, in Safavid sources, we meet the term of "Turkistan" used for Turkic regions of Transcaucasia and Iranian Azerbaijan.

Another thing here is that the very name of "Azeri" and "Azerbaijani" is only 20th century designations invented for Azerbaijani Turks, so no possible parallel could be drawn between so-called old non-Turkic "Azaris" (the existence of whos has not even been proven, rather a loose theory invented in Iran in early 1920s) and modern-day Azerbaijani Turks.


It doesn't matter if they were Iranian or Caucasian origin, one thing I do know they simply are no way anything close to pure Turkic origin and this is the point of my thread.


1) Historical record shows the ancient people who inhabited Azerbaijan were not Turkic
2) Historical record also shows Azeris only became Turk when Turkmen invaded
3) Azeris are predominately J2 which is 3x number of Turks in Central Asia


Turkmen DNA is like this, why isn't Azeri Turks similar to Turkmen if they claim to be pure Turkmen.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png

[ButlerKing]

You can see where haplogroup J2 is predominant in.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DHFjD7y3i0Y/Tdp9ol50DVI/AAAAAAAAGp4/bWSnGK2VZv8/s1600/J2+map.png

[Yalquzaq]

Exactly, Some Turkish and Azeris just thinks the ancient people who inhabited those lands dissapeared.

LOL.

What can you tell us about the size of the population of the region a millenium ago? We do know that Turkic-Oghuz settlements were in big numbers, and over several waves. As late as 1826, the population of all of Caucasus (south and north) was barely 2 million, what do you think it would be a millenium ago?

The language used by Turkic states were Persian, so how could and would they impose a language they didn't even primarily use? The regional centers of Great Seljuq Empire was in modern-day Persian areas (see the tomb of Toghrul Beg in Ray, you would hardly find a Seljuq monument in Azerbaijan, except for Eldiguzids, which was not related to Seljuqs and were Qypchaq), so if there were possibly such a process, it would first of all happen in areas which is Persian now. Moreover, the local Seljuq rule in Azerbaijan was not even in hands of Oghuzes, but Qypchaqs, namely the Eldiguzids. Following Seljuqs is the long period of Mongol rule, so I hope you are not going to try to convince me that Mongols imposed a Oghuz tongue on non-Turkic populations? When the first native Oghuz states were established in Azerbaijan, in time of Qara-Qoyunlu and Aq-Qoyunlu, Azerbaijan was already an Oghuz land. Both of these two confederations spoke the Oghuz tongue we call Azerbaijani Turkish today. Azerbaijan must have been a overwhelmingly Turkic region that we meet "Turkistan" reference for it in Safavid era, aswell in Dede Qorqud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dede_Korkut)

From Dede Qorqud, which is geographically centered on lands populated by Azerbaijani Turks today:

"Yağı görsə yardımlu,
Qaçım görsə durumlu,
Türkistanın dirəgi"

[Pecheneg]

ButlerKing, why don't you make a thread about Armenians (your ethnicity)? You only post BS about Turkic peoples (and using a source like "Khazaria" which runs anti-Turkic propaganda).

The photos you posted are from Azerbaijani Turks of Borchali (Georgia), not Iran, and I don't see whats "odd" about it.


Yalquzaq, no need to take this self-hating Armenian guy seriously. ;)
There are about 3 billion Indo-European speakers on the earth, interesting, i've never seen anyone question their original "Proto-Indo-European" admixture. But when it comes Turkic peoples and their genetics, these idiots just can't stop nagging.

[Yalquzaq]

In one of Ahl-i Haqq hymns:

Khata'i-də natiq oldı, Türkistanın piri oldı

http://s019.radikal.ru/i609/1302/6a/bfb6f8b2c482.png

[ButlerKing]

LOL.

What can you tell us about the size of the population of the region a millenium ago? We do know that Turkic-Oghuz settlements were in big numbers, and over several waves. As late as 1826, the population of all of Caucasus (south and north) was barely 2 million, what do you think it would be a millenium ago?

The language used by Turkic states were Persian, so how could and would they impose a language they didn't even primarily use? The regional centers of Great Seljuq Empire was in modern-day Persian areas, so if there were possibly such a process, it would first of all happen in areas which is Persian now. Moreover, the local Seljuq rule in Azerbaijan was not even in hands of Oghuzes, but Qypchaqs, namely the Eldiguzids. Following Seljuqs is the long period of Mongol rule, so I hope you are not going to try to convince me that Mongols imposed a Oghuz tongue on non-Turkic populations? When the first native Oghuz states were established in Azerbaijan, in time of Qara-Qoyunlu and Aq-Qoyunlu, Azerbaijan was already an Oghuz land. Both of these two confederations spoke the Oghuz tongue we call Azerbaijani Turkish today. Azerbaijan must have been a overwhelmingly Turkic region that we meet "Turkistan" reference for it in Safavid era, aswell in Dede Qorqud.

"Yağı görsə yardımlu,
Qaçım görsə durumlu,
Türkistanın dirəgi"


And what do you think Central Asia population would be a milennia ago? Please tell me you're kidding? the population of Central Asia today is not even bigger than Turkey, And the number of Azeris is already bigger than any ethnic Turk in Central Asia today. And the population of Turkmenistan is only 5 million today now what would the population of Turkmenistan be a milennia ago? As for Turkish it was already 13 million many hundreds years ago.

Oh let me tell you something, ancient population of Central Asia was predominately Iranic with only minority Turkic before Turkification.

[Yalquzaq]

It doesn't matter if they were Iranian or Caucasian origin, one thing I do know they simply are no way anything close to pure Turkic origin and this is the point of my thread.

1) Historical record shows the ancient people who inhabited Azerbaijan were not Turkic
2) Historical record also shows Azeris only became Turk when Turkmen invaded
3) Azeris are predominately J2 which is 3x number of Turks in Central Asia

Turkmen DNA is like this, why isn't Azeri Turks similar to Turkmen if they claim to be pure Turkmen.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png

My point is that these theories cannot be even regarded seriously when they are claiming two different mythical "origins" for the same Azerbaijani Turks on opposite side of Araz river. Do you see it or not?

Who claims to be "pure Turkic", and do you honestly think there is a "pure" ethnicity anywhere in the world?

Demographics of regions in older times were always a subject to change, nothing new or unique. Besides, we have to keep in mind the size of populations at that time.

Like said "Azeri" is only a 20th century designation, so that cannot be possible, our ethnic designations throughout history has been synonymous Turkic designations, "Turk" or "Tatar".

Again, who claims such a thing? And who said that we are supposed to be "Turkmens", as in modern-day Central Asian Turkmens? We speak a separate Oghuz tongue, tho the Oghuz tongues in Anatolia and Azerbaijan are similar, they are more distinct to Oghuz tongue of Central Asia, and this is neither a recent development since we can easily see it even in medieval texts, besides see this distinction between "Oghuz and "Turkman" in Dede Qorqud from the eyes of a "infidel":

"Oğuzun arsızı Türkmanın dəlisinə bənzər!"

I don't really think that one can make a direct connection between Oghuz tribes which settled in Anatolia and Azerbaijan, and modern-day Turkmen tribes of Central Asia, besides the Mongol invasions completly altered the demographics of Central Asia.

[ButlerKing]

Who claims to be "pure Turkic", and do you honestly think there is a "pure" ethnicity anywhere in the world?

Demographics of regions in older times were always a subject to change, nothing new or unique. Besides, we have to keep in mind the size of populations at that time.

Like said "Azeri" is only a 20th century designation, so that cannot be possible, our ethnic designations throughout history has been synonymous Turkic designations, "Turk" or "Tatar".

Again, who claims such a thing? And who said that we are supposed to be "Turkmens"? We speak a separate Oghuz tongue, though the Oghuz tongues in Anatolia and Azerbaijan are similar, they are more distinct to Oghuz tongue of Central Asia, and this is neither a recent development since we can easily see it even in medieval texts, besides see this distinction between "Oghuz and "Turkman" in Dede Qorqud from the eyes of a "Qypchaq enemy":

"Oğuzun arsızı Türkmanın dəlisinə bənzər!"

You're not even pure or part Turkic, you are predominately of non-Turkic origin DNA. Your people got Turkicized and speak a seperate Oghuz tongue as a result of Turkmen invaders. You rely too much in your bias chosen text to prove your Turkic origins rather than genetics.


Genetics


Iranian Azaris have stronger genetic affinity with their immediate geographic neighbors than with populations from Central Asia.[87]

Iranian Azeris are genetically more similar to northern Azeris and the neighboring Turkish population than they are to geographically distant Turkmen populations.[89] Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan (the Talysh and Tats) are genetically closer to Azerbaijanis of the Republic than to other Iranian-speaking populations (Persian people and Kurds from Iran, Ossetians, and Tajiks).[90] Such genetic evidence supports the view that the Azeris originate from a native population long resident in the area who adopted a Turkish language through a process of "elite dominance", i.e. a limited number of Turkic immigrants had a substantial cultural impact but left only weak patrilineal genetic traces.[87][88][89]


MtDNA analysis indicates that Iranians, Anatolians and Caucasians are part of a larger West Eurasian group that is secondary to that of the Caucasus.[91][92] While genetic analysis of mtDNA indicates that Caucasian populations are genetically closer to Europeans than to Near Easterners, Y-chromosome results indicate closer affinity to Near Eastern groups.[88]

Iranians have a relatively diverse range of Y-chromosome haplotypes. A population from central Iran (Isfahan) shows closer similarity in terms of haplogroup distributions to Caucasians and Azeris than to populations from southern or northern Iran.[93] The range of haplogroups across the region may reflect historical genetic admixture,[94] perhaps as a result of invasive male migrations.[88]

[ButlerKing]

Iranian Azeris genetics

Iranian Azaris have stronger genetic affinity with their immediate geographic neighbors than with populations from Central Asia.[87]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Jenetic.jpg

[Yalquzaq]

You're not even pure or part Turkic, you are predominately of non-Turkic origin DNA. Your people got Turkicized and speak a seperate Oghuz tongue as a result of Turkmen invaders. You rely too much in your bias chosen text to prove your Turkic origins rather than genetics.

Do you even read your own posts? This is what you posted earlier, you don't make slightest sense.


No surprise, a wooping 21.2% Mongoloid Y-DNA admixture, now what about their Mongoloid mtDNA?

Y-DNA haplogroup of Azeris in North Iran

Q (9.09%)
N (6.06%)
O (3.03%)
C3 (3.03%)
R1a1 (3.03%)
R1a (3.03%)
R1*(3.03%)
L (3.03%)
J2a (3.03%)
J1 (9.095)
J2b1 (15.05%)
J2b1b (3.03%)
J2b (3.03%)
R1b1a (15.15%)
R2 (3.03%)
G2 (12.12%)
G1 (3.03%)


"You rely too much in your bias chosen text"

I rely on real facts, not myths and anti-Turkic propaganda.

"speak a seperate Oghuz tongue as a result of Turkmen invaders"

How? If so, we should be speaking something more similar to Central Asian Turkmen today, the medieval texts in Azerbaijani Turkish neither hints such a similarity. Yet, the Oghuz tongues of Anatolia and Azerbaijan was and is very similar, since both descend from the same Oghuz tribes.

[Pecheneg]

Both Turks of Turkey and Azerbaijan have strong, proven genetic ties with Turkmens of Central Asia and our neighbors lack this. No one reads what you write here, next.

[ButlerKing]

Do you even read your own posts? This is what you posted earlier, you don't make slightest sense.

I rely on real facts, not myths and anti-Turkic propaganda.

Your rely on bias facts that suits your Turkic identity, please don't take us for fools we know exactly what your Azeris and Turkish are trying to do. Do you take non-Turkic people for fools?

Turkic identity did not exist in Azerbaijan before the pre-Turkmen invasion and this is proven from genetic, linguistic, historical evidences.






How? If so, we should be speaking something more similar to Central Asian Turkmen today, the old texts in Azerbaijani Turkish neither hints such a similarity. Yet, the Oghuz tongues of Anatolia and Azerbaijan was and is very similar, since both descend from the same Oghuz tribes.

Oghuz tribes had dialects and different variations too just like Turkmen today. Just because you don't speak the same official language as those from Turkmenistan today doesn't mean it's not linked with your languages today.

[ButlerKing]

Both Turks of Turkey and Azerbaijan have strong, proven genetic ties with Turkmens of Central Asia and our neighbors lack this. No one reads what you write here, next.


STRONG? now that's a typical bias Turkish opinion, of course you guys would say that. But stills it's nowhere as strong as your aboriginal contribution.

[Yalquzaq]

BTW, I'm not saying Oghuz of Turkey and Azerbaijan are unrelated to Turkmen of Central Asia, they are of course related, but I don't think the Oghuz tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan were exact same as modern-day Turkmen tribes of Central Asia, it was not uncommon for Turkic groups in Central Asia to incorporate other Turkic and even Mongol clans (some of Kazakh clans is a good example of it).

[Yalquzaq]

Your rely on bias facts that suits your Turkic identity, please don't take us for fools we know exactly what your Azeris and Turkish are trying to do. Do you take non-Turkic people for fools?

Turkic identity did not exist in Azerbaijan before the pre-Turkmen invasion and this is proven from genetic, linguistic, historical evidences.

Oghuz tribes had dialects and different variations too just like Turkmen today. Just because you don't speak the same official language as those from Turkmenistan today doesn't mean it's not linked with your languages today.

Like which?

And who claims otherwise? But you are the one failing to understand that demographics in older times changed very often, and that it would be a mistake to look at todays population sizes and draw a parallel to a millenium ago. Besides, a claim towards the linguistic dominance of Turkic tribes is simple illogical given historical facts we know about them, it is enough to look at Seljuqs, whom was throughoutly Persianized in language and culture.

And thats what I'm saying. It is of course "linked" to our language, it is a Oghuz tongue afterall, but it is not that similar as Azerbaijani Turkish is to Anatolian Turkish and vice-versa (and there is plenty of differences even between Azerbaijani Turkish and Anatolian Turkish). This does not really support your claim. And I'm not only referring to present-day varities, but medieval examples aswell. There was a clear distinction between western Oghuz and eastern Oghuz even in medieval times.

[ButlerKing]

BTW, I'm not saying Oghuz of Turkey and Azerbaijan are unrelated to Turkmen of Central Asia, they are of course related, but I don't think the Oghuz tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan were exact same as Turkmen tribes of Central Asia, it was not uncommon for Turkic groups in Central Asia to incorporate other Turkic and even Mongol clans (some of Kazakh clans is a good example of it).


Let me tell you something, the only people who are close to Turkmen tribes are Iran Turkmen themselves and these Turkmen have 42.6% of haplogroup Q with the being R1a and R1b but 0% haplogroup C

Turkmen and Iranian Turkmen have many who manifest many Mongoloid features without Mongolian ADMIXTURE.

This is no surprise since many can also have Mongoloid admixture as high as 30-55% aswell. Turkish and Azeris mongoloid is nowehere as high.
http://key2persia.com/shared/data/pages/lang/iran_travel_guide/north_iran/turkmennomads/iran_turkmen_nomads.jpg
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/37/118012695_479b157d47_z.jpg?zz=1
http://iranian.com/NaderDavoodi/2004/August/Azadi/Images/2.jpg

[ButlerKing]

Iranian Turkmen

http://footbik.narod.ru/IGROKY/A/IZO/AZIZI_KHODADAD_jpg.jpg

Turkmen Turkmen

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6XNnfi0qrkU/TRpOGCE8G0I/AAAAAAAACK8/mag-Kjl-DHM/s640/TUMENHBRS_image0017.jpg


Afghan Turkmen

http://medya.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2011/10/23/turkmen.jpg

Pakistan Turkmen
http://mm.iteams.org/uploads/images/Central%20Asia/Turkman/Turkmen_Boy__Pakistan__CD1_46.jpg


THEY ALL LOOK SIMILAR TO A HIGH EXTEND

unlike you predominately Non-Turkmen people like Turkish and Azeris.

[ButlerKing]

Understand that Azeris and Turkish are at best 1/3 Turkmen.

[ButlerKing]

Like which?

And who claims otherwise? But you are the one failing to understand that demographics in older times changed very often, and that it would be a mistake to look at todays population sizes and draw a parallel to a millenium ago. Besides, a claim towards the linguistic dominance of Turkic tribes is simple illogical given historical facts we know about them, it is enough to look at Seljuqs, whom was throughoutly Persianized in language and culture.

And thats what I'm saying. It is of course "linked" to our language, it is a Oghuz tongue afterall, but it is not that similar as Azerbaijani Turkish is to Anatolian Turkish and vice-versa (and there is plenty of differences even between Azerbaijani Turkish and Anatolian Turkish). This does not really support your claim. And I'm not only referring to present-day varities, but medieval examples aswell. There was a clear distinction between western Oghuz and eastern Oghuz even in medieval times.

Linguistic and languages can evolved from regions to regions, especially when you conquered a area which were a completely different tribes and origin. Even dialects have different dialects and vocabulary incorporated that are different.

[Yalquzaq]

I'm not following. The reason why I gave medieval texts as an example is because I knew you would claim "languages can evolve", of course it can and does (as in case of Azerbaijani Turkish and Anatolian Turkish developing separately, yet still being very close and similar), but we have much older examples from the earliest speakers of the Oghuz tongue we call Azerbaijani Turkish today, being clearly different from the Oghuz tongue on the other side of the Caspian Sea. It is not a recent development.

[ButlerKing]

I'm not following. It is distinct enough to call them two different languages, though Anatolian Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish are often regarded as dialects of one language. The reason why I gave medieval texts as an example is because I knew you would claim "languages can evolve", of course it can and does (as in case of Azerbaijani Turkish and Anatolian Turkish developing separately, yet still being very close and similar), but we have much older examples from the earliest speakers of the Oghuz tongue we call Azerbaijani Turkish today, being clearly different from the Oghuz tongue on the other side of the Caspian Sea. It is not a recent development.

Listen even Portugal used to be part of Spain but today they speak two different dialects which are regarded as different languages.

I don't care how old it is, it came from the same source which are Oghuz people.

[Yalquzaq]

Of course they are from the same origin, and if you go farther back all of Turkic languages are from the same origin, what I'm saying is that they seem to be already distinct during the earlier periods of Oghuz settlements.

[Gaijin]

Listen even Portugal used to be part of Spain but today they speak two different dialects which are regarded as different languages.

I don't care how old it is, it came from the same source which are Oghuz people.

Portugal never was part of Spain.

[Proto-Shaman]

Turkification

The earliest major Turkic incursion of the area now known as Azerbaijan began and accelerated during the Seljuk period.[76] The migration of Oghuz Turks from present-day Turkmenistan, which is attested by linguistic similarity, remained high through the Mongol period, as many troops under the Ilkhans were Turkic. By the Safavid period, the Turkification of Azerbaijan continued with the influence of the Kizilbash. The very name Azerbaijan is derived from the pre-Turkic name of the province, Azarbayjan or Adarbayjan, and illustrates a gradual language shift that took place as local place names survived Turkification, albeit in altered form.[61] Most academics view the linguistic Turkification of predominantly non-Turkic-speaking indigenous peoples and assimilation of small bands of Turkic tribes as the most likely origin for the Azeris.[59]:6–7

WRONG:

“It is known that in the middle of the third millenium BC, the Azerbaijani tribes of Guti, Turuku, and Lullubi established close trade relations with their neighbors, including tribes of Mesopotamia. [...]. Settlement of Cimmerian, Scythian, and Saka tribes in this country (Mannea) yet strengthened the positions of the Turkic people.” (Anar Isgenderli, Realities of Azerbaijan 1917-1920, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, p.11)

“Like Lullubaeans the Turukkaeans penetrated into Mesopotamian regions through the Zagros mountains to the north of Sulaimania and invaded the modern Turkish geographical tradition (cf. Turk. Alatau, Alatoo, Alataa, Altai, Aladag, Alageoz/Aragats). The names had been formed of two words with the same meaning: aralala and tal tul tete (from taia under the influence of the palatalized i). They both evidently mean "a mountain": ala (cf. Mongolian ola = "mountain", Turkish ala = "tall, big") and taltulteie < taia < tai, taking into account modern terms for "a mountain" (cf. M. Ryasyanen, Materiali istoriceskoy fonetiki tyurkskikh yazikov [Moskva 1955] 28 — 19-99 — 100; E. M. Murzaev, Slovar narodnikh geograficeskikh ter- minov [Moskva 1984] 46 — 47), can be attributed to the time of the Altaian-preturkish language community. Proto-Turk loan-words in the Sumerian language (cf. A. S. Amandzolov, "Shumero"-tyurkskie sootvetstviya i izobrazitelnie logogrammi, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients V 65 — 71) can be dated back to the same period. 7 L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (New York/London 1972) 362 — 363; I. M. Dya- konov, Assiro-Vavilonskie istocniki po istorii Urartu, VDI 1951, 3, 355—356. 8 V. Minorsky, Abu Dulaf (Cairo 1955) §§ гв3a.Ь; 184a; Hamdallah Mostawfi of Kazvin, The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulub. Transl. by G. Le Strange (Leiden/London 1919) 197; cf. Z. M.Buniyatov, Gosudarstvo Atabekov Azerbaijana (Baku 1978) 209 f. • The region between Khorasan, Iraq and the southern borders of Azerbaidjan was named Kühistän "a Mountain country" or al-Djibäl "mountains" in the medieval sources (cf. Al-Bakuvi, Kitâb talkhis al-Asâr va Ajâ'ib al-Malik al-Gahhâr. Transl. ... Perhaps the name Aratta/Alateie in the meaning "mountain, mountainous country" has originated on the basis of the Turukkaean language. Taking into consideration only these elements one may attach the Turukkaean language to the Altaic family of languages. ... To judge from all this one may consider that the tribes known under the name Su, Turukkaean and Lullubaean were differently named inhabitants of the Aratta country and probably belonged to the Altaic-Turkish language community. ... The word meaning "mountain" lies in the basis of the Aratta/Alateie country name that is characteristic for Altaic-Turkish geographical nomenclature. In the Altaic-Turkish linguistic area the aralala component in combination with the word "mountain" ( tau,ta,tu,tai,tawal taw, to, tagI dag) means skewbald or wooded mountains'. ... According to the coincidence of territory, the Turukkaean, Su and Lullubaean language was related to the langeage of the Aratta population which was probably of Altaic-Turkic ethnolinguistic origin.” [B](Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Teheran, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran , Band 19, Dietrich Reimer, 1986, pp. 88-93)

Ancient Turkic tribes Subartians, Turukkaeans, Lulubaeans, Kumans:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46122&d=1397150364

[ButlerKing]

WRONG:

“It is known that in the middle of the third millenium BC, the Azerbaijani tribes of Guti, Turuku, and Lullubi established close trade relations with their neighbors, including tribes of Mesopotamia. [...]. Settlement of Cimmerian, Scythian, and Saka tribes in this country (Mannea) yet strengthened the positions of the Turkic people.” (Anar Isgenderli, Realities of Azerbaijan 1917-1920, Xlibris Corporation, 2011, p.11)

“Like Lullubaeans the Turukkaeans penetrated into Mesopotamian regions through the Zagros mountains to the north of Sulaimania and invaded the modern Turkish geographical tradition (cf. Turk. Alatau, Alatoo, Alataa, Altai, Aladag, Alageoz/Aragats). The names had been formed of two words with the same meaning: aralala and tal tul tete (from taia under the influence of the palatalized i). They both evidently mean "a mountain": ala (cf. Mongolian ola = "mountain", Turkish ala = "tall, big") and taltulteie < taia < tai, taking into account modern terms for "a mountain" (cf. M. Ryasyanen, Materiali istoriceskoy fonetiki tyurkskikh yazikov [Moskva 1955] 28 — 19-99 — 100; E. M. Murzaev, Slovar narodnikh geograficeskikh ter- minov [Moskva 1984] 46 — 47), can be attributed to the time of the Altaian-preturkish language community. Proto-Turk loan-words in the Sumerian language (cf. A. S. Amandzolov, "Shumero"-tyurkskie sootvetstviya i izobrazitelnie logogrammi, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients V 65 — 71) can be dated back to the same period. 7 L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (New York/London 1972) 362 — 363; I. M. Dya- konov, Assiro-Vavilonskie istocniki po istorii Urartu, VDI 1951, 3, 355—356. 8 V. Minorsky, Abu Dulaf (Cairo 1955) §§ гв3a.Ь; 184a; Hamdallah Mostawfi of Kazvin, The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulub. Transl. by G. Le Strange (Leiden/London 1919) 197; cf. Z. M.Buniyatov, Gosudarstvo Atabekov Azerbaijana (Baku 1978) 209 f. • The region between Khorasan, Iraq and the southern borders of Azerbaidjan was named Kühistän "a Mountain country" or al-Djibäl "mountains" in the medieval sources (cf. Al-Bakuvi, Kitâb talkhis al-Asâr va Ajâ'ib al-Malik al-Gahhâr. Transl. ... Perhaps the name Aratta/Alateie in the meaning "mountain, mountainous country" has originated on the basis of the Turukkaean language. Taking into consideration only these elements one may attach the Turukkaean language to the Altaic family of languages. ... To judge from all this one may consider that the tribes known under the name Su, Turukkaean and Lullubaean were differently named inhabitants of the Aratta country and probably belonged to the Altaic-Turkish language community. ... The word meaning "mountain" lies in the basis of the Aratta/Alateie country name that is characteristic for Altaic-Turkish geographical nomenclature. In the Altaic-Turkish linguistic area the aralala component in combination with the word "mountain" ( tau,ta,tu,tai,tawal taw, to, tagI dag) means skewbald or wooded mountains'. ... According to the coincidence of territory, the Turukkaean, Su and Lullubaean language was related to the langeage of the Aratta population which was probably of Altaic-Turkic ethnolinguistic origin.” [B](Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Teheran, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran , Band 19, Dietrich Reimer, 1986, pp. 88-93)

Ancient Turkic tribes Subartians, Turukkaeans, Lulubaeans, Kumans:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46122&d=1397150364

That's just pathetic. Trying to proof Azeris are pure Turks with Linguistic evidence against my genetic evidence LOL


So your source came from Azeris author: Anar Isgenderli and somebody pieced up all those links.

Turkic have borrowed a lot of Iranic words in their languages. Even the Azeri language have Iranic substrate

Iranian substrate


The Iranian origin of the Azeris defines a link between present-day Azeris and their pre-Turkification Iranian past and mostly applies to Iranian Azeris. It is supported by historical accounts, by the existence of the Old Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azeris, and archaeological and ethnical evidence. It is also favored by notable scholars and sources, such as Vladimir Minorsky, Richard Frye, Xavier De Planhol, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, and World Book Encyclopedia.

Claiming Azeri as Turk is like claiming Persians, Armenians, Kurds as real Turkic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Jenetic.jpg/300px-Jenetic.jpg

[Proto-Shaman]

That's just pathetic. Trying to proof Azeris are pure Turks with Linguistic evidence against my genetic evidence LOL


So your source came from Azeris author: Anar Isgenderli and somebody pieced up all those links.

Turkic have borrowed a lot of Iranic words in their languages. Even the Azeri language have Iranic substrate

Iranian substrate


The Iranian origin of the Azeris defines a link between present-day Azeris and their pre-Turkification Iranian past and mostly applies to Iranian Azeris. It is supported by historical accounts, by the existence of the Old Azari language, present day place names, cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azeris, and archaeological and ethnical evidence. It is also favored by notable scholars and sources, such as Vladimir Minorsky, Richard Frye, Xavier De Planhol, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse, and World Book Encyclopedia.

Claiming Azeri as Turk is like claiming Persians, Armenians, Kurds as real Turkic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Jenetic.jpg/300px-Jenetic.jpg
I don't deny this, but you deny Turkic substrate! Both are correct you retard!

[Yalquzaq]

Retarded beyond any word. Get this first of all, there is no such thing as "Azeri". The official term in Republic of Azerbaijan is "Azerbaijani" (obviously, derived from the geographical name of Azerbaijan), which replaced the term "Turk" in Azerbaijan during Soviet period. Do you understand how retarded you sound?

"Turkic have borrowed a lot of Iranic words in their languages."

And Persian & Iranian languages has borrowed alot of Turkic words. Many of daily Persian words are borrowed from Azerbaijani Turkish.

"Even the Azeri language have Iranic substrate"

What? Explain.

As for your Pan-Iranian bullschit quote;

"It is supported by historical accounts"

Huh?

"by the existence of the Old Azari language"

No such language existed, just empty theory by a single Pan-Iranist nutjob. And even so, it has definetly nothing to do with Azerbaijani Turks. I think I don't need to repeat myself here, "Azeri" is not an ethnic term for Turkic speaking Azerbaijani Turks, and has never been either.

"present day place names"

Again, huh? Big cities, perhaps, but everything else is in Turkic, naturally.

"cultural similarities between Iranian peoples and Azeris, and archaeological and ethnical evidence."

And how are they more than those shared with other Turkic peoples? Besides, what the hell is archeological and ethnical evidence? Actually, a well known fact is that Azerbaijani Turks led a nomadic lifestyle, and even in 19th century a significant part, nearly half of the population, were nomadic. A distinctive feature of Azerbaijani nomads in the region were and are the round, felt covered, white Alachigh tents, which is akin to Central Asian yurts. There is your archeological, culture and ethnical evidence.

"Vladimir Minorsky", Richard Frye, Xavier De Planhol"

Is this a joke? They are all Iranologists and supporters of Pan-Iranist ideas. And moreover, are they some kind of authority on the subject?

Lastly, the image you posted is absolutely meaningless and most likely false too. When I look for a source, all I get is some Iranian university, whos articles on the subject is very much biased, anti-Turk, Pan-Iranist and cannot be taken seriously.

And why I even waste my time and reply to you, would be a good question as well.

[StonyArabia]

They are basically Iranic who switched languages, they have minor Mongoloid admix, they basically cluster with Kurds and Persians.

[Proto-Shaman]

Iranic who switched languages
Typical ethnocentricm.

[StonyArabia]

Typical ethnocentricm.

Those are facts, and they cluster with Kurds. It's well known that the former language called Azari was very close to the Kurdish languages.

[TheForeigner]

Weren't they persian speaking in Iranian Azerbaijan and caucasic speaking in Transcaucasian Azerbaijan or old Caucasian Albania? I know medes lived in iranian side in ancien times, but they would have been persianized.

[Hayalet]

There is no evidence that Old Azari-speakers became modern Azerbaijani Turks any more than ancient Macedonians became modern Macedonian Slavs. In both cases (Azerbaijan & Macedonia), the names are just geographical.

[Yalquzaq]

Those are facts, and they cluster with Kurds. It's well known that the former language called Azari was very close to the Kurdish languages.

What "facts"? And according to what do "they" cluster with Kurds? Actually, the user "danishmend" posted results dated March 2014 from some blog which I can't remember, there it clearly shows that Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan cluster with each other.

I wonder, how do you really define such words as "fact" and "well known"? The supposed "Azari" language is only an unproven theory, it is very probable that there were Iranian speakers before Turkic settlements, but they were not speaking mythical "Azari". The Iranian languages spoken inside Azerbaijan are Tat, a south-western Iranian language far from Kurdish, and Talysh, a Caspian Iranian language. But their geographical presence are very telling in that their population was not really that great, Tats were mostly mountain settlers, and the extension of Talysh was a small strip along Caspian Sea, just like their Mazandarani and Gilaki cousins. Even mad Iranologists like Vladimir Minorsky were saying that Tats settled in Azerbaijan only in small numbers, mostly serving as garrisons. The fact that they speak a language related to Persian shows it very well that they were recent settlers from southern Iran during Sassanid era with small population.

Besides, an actual fact is that the Turks of Azerbaijan were never known as "Azeri". Such a term does not exist in Azerbaijan Republic, where the ethnic and language terms are "Azerbaijani", a Soviet term which replaced "Turk" in 1936.

So an argument based on the name of "Azari" is retarded, as Turks of Azerbaijan are not "Azaris".

[Yalquzaq]

Besides, why a random Bedouin or whatever would be this obsessed about Azerbaijani Turks is a mystery to me, so much that he bumps a dead thread to say something he has said zillion times over and over.

[Proto-Shaman]

Azari
which is not Azerbaijani and never was :)

[StonyArabia]

What "facts"? And according to what do "they" cluster with Kurds? Actually, the user "danishmend" posted results dated March 2014 from some blog which I can't remember, there it clearly shows that Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan cluster with each other.

I wonder, how do you really define such words as "fact" and "well known"? The supposed "Azari" language is only an unproven theory, it is very probable that there were Iranian speakers before Turkic settlements, but they were not speaking mythical "Azari". The Iranian languages spoken inside Azerbaijan are Tat, a south-western Iranian language far from Kurdish, and Talysh, a Caspian Iranian language. But their geographical presence are very telling in that their population was not really that great, Tats were mostly mountain settlers, and the extension of Talysh was a small strip along Caspian Sea, just like their Mazandarani and Gilaki cousins. Even mad Iranologists like Vladimir Minorsky were saying that Tats settled in Azerbaijan only in small numbers, mostly serving as garrisons. The fact that they speak a language related to Persian shows it very well that they were recent settlers from southern Iran during Sassanid era with small population.

Besides, an actual fact is that the Turks of Azerbaijan were never known as "Azeri". Such a term does not exist in Azerbaijan Republic, where the ethnic and language terms are "Azerbaijani", a Soviet term which replaced "Turk" in 1936.

So an argument based on the name of "Azari" is retarded, as Turks of Azerbaijan are not "Azaris".

Azeris cluster with Kurds and Persians in this chart:

http://s29.postimg.org/utyhe7wk7/MDS12.png (http://postimage.org/)

[Yalquzaq]

Based on how many? I see only a single one. :)

And if we go by your logic, then we can definetly conclude that Greeks cluster with Assyrians and Armenians?

[StonyArabia]

And what do we know about the source? What is the composition of supposed "Azeris" there? Based on who, and how many? And if we go by logic, we can definetly conclude that Greeks cluster with Assyrians and Armenians?

Yes but all North Caucasians are together, the Azeri is still close to the Iranian, well the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot form an isolate probably indicating their Turkized/Hellenized Levantine roots. As for Armenians and Assyrians they tend to be very close to each other. Greeks form their own cluster and are within Europe.

[Yalquzaq]

LOL, it's based on a single sample. While other groups has several, there is only one for Azerbaijani. Absolutely insufficient to make any conclusion whatosever.

[Yalquzaq]

There is a different chart from the same source which you forgot to put.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UCP5T1pduGU/TzpBa9QbK3I/AAAAAAAAEe4/_uWuqnnb1zQ/s1600/1_2.png

Still only one Azerbaijani sample, but it's actually clustered together with two Turkish ones.

But let me repeat, this is absolutely insufficient to base any conclusion upon.

[Partizan]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3EPNodkspCw/Tz1c0Rnh1dI/AAAAAAAAEgc/vbK2_7THyVs/s1600/blowup.jpg

Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan are closer to Turkmens than Kurds, Bulgarians, Georgians or Greeks. The closeness to Iranians can be also explained with Turkic reign in Iran. I remember one half-Azerbaijani half-Iranian user in ABF(Humata) had mongoloid mt-DNA from his persian maternal side.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html

[Yalquzaq]

Partizan, the chart you posted clearly shows that Azerbaijani Turks clusters with Anatolian Turks.

[Proto-Shaman]

Azeris cluster with Kurds and Persians in this chart:

http://s29.postimg.org/utyhe7wk7/MDS12.png (http://postimage.org/)
And Yakut/Sakha Turks cluster with Uralic and East Asians but speak Turkic :)

[Yalquzaq]

Dude, please read above posts. You quote and reply his post from previous page as if his claim is genuine.

In the chart which Nabatea has posted, there is only one Azerbaijani sample. However, even that actually clusters most closely with two Turkish ones (but also slightly more distantly to Kurdish and Iranian), he forgot to post this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UCP5T1pduGU/TzpBa9QbK3I/AAAAAAAAEe4/_uWuqnnb1zQ/s1600/1_2.png

The quantity is absolutely insufficient, other than creating trolling opportunities for people like Nabatea.

[MarkyMark]

Azeris cluster with Kurds and Persians in this chart:

http://s29.postimg.org/utyhe7wk7/MDS12.png (http://postimage.org/)

I find this odd. I mean I understand the Iranic facade of Persians, Azeris, and Kurds. But Assyrians, Armenians, and Greeks together?

[Yalquzaq]

:picard2:

[ButlerKing]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3EPNodkspCw/Tz1c0Rnh1dI/AAAAAAAAEgc/vbK2_7THyVs/s1600/blowup.jpg

Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan are closer to Turkmens than Kurds, Bulgarians, Georgians or Greeks. The closeness to Iranians can be also explained with Turkic reign in Iran. I remember one half-Azerbaijani half-Iranian user in ABF(Humata) had mongoloid mt-DNA from his persian maternal side.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.tr/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html

From the distance on the chart it shows like they are in-between Turkmen and Kurds.


And they seem to be more closer to Kurds.

[ButlerKing]

Partizan, the chart you posted clearly shows that Azerbaijani Turks clusters with Anatolian Turks.


That makes sense.


1. They are both predominately West Asian.
2. They both have large European component
3. They have substantial Mongoloid admixture


However despite all that there is strong relation with Kurds

[Yalquzaq]

The only difference is that Anatolian Turks has more Med while Azerbaijani Turks has more South Asian.

[Avamtochto]

it depends on region, for Example 1/3 azeris of Baku have russian blood and there're many slavic-looking people in this city, in northern region of Azerbaijan most of the people have caucasian mixture and look more lezgi or avar while sothern region is like more iranian. Azeris from Karabagh, Nakhichevan look armenian and azeris from Borchaly look more georgian