PDA

View Full Version : [Split] Azeri Iranians: Identity & Heritage



Gandhara
05-27-2017, 11:47 AM
In the description of this forum area it states "Language-based discussion section for the Persian language", and clearly Azeri belongs in "Language-based discussion section the for Anatolian Turkish and Azeri languages".

Azeries that I know identify themselves as of being Turkish origin rather than irani.

ancestryfan1994
05-27-2017, 07:36 PM
Azeries that I know identify themselves as of being Turkish origin rather than irani.

That's a touchy subject, if your speaking of Azeris from the republic of Azerbaijan, then I cant speak for them. But the Iranian ones, which I think is what this thread's about, are a bit of a different case. Generally you'll see a split between what they consider themselves, some in iran refer to themselves as "Tork" and acknowledge they're supposedly "Turkish", but many are also indifferent to the term and just refer to themselves as Iranian. I get the sense that there's more national unity in Iran regardless of ethnic background than other surrounding nations, most people in Iran are pretty intermingled from an ethnic sense that its become irrelevant what your ethnicity is when it comes to the bigger picture. And besides, I can never tell apart an "Iranian Azeri" from a Persian culturally, same names, same overlap in physical features, and AFAIK, now there's genetic evidence that backs up the notion that ancestral wise the only difference is a cultural shift towards the Turkic customs.

DMXX
05-27-2017, 09:22 PM
"Tork" is a common colloquialism within Iran to denote a Turkic speaker. As is the case in places like Afghanistan, the language of one's ancestors is typically used to denote their ethnic affiliation. Within Iran, the descriptor of "Iranian" is also akin to "Afghan", in that it represents nationality and not ethnicity.

The use of the word "Turk" in Turkey is more complicated and, depending on the context or intent of the user, could mean linguistic identity, ethnic status or nationality. That leads to substantial confusion when other Turkic ethnic groups in the region (Azeris, Gagauz, Iraqi Turkoman) are discussed. Azeri Iranians are certainly Turkic in language, are a Turkic-Iranic hybrid culturally and Iranian by nationality. That one can be both a "Tork" (i.e. a Turkic speaker in Iran) and be an Iranian isn't a contradiction, but it's treated as such, usually either by foreigners ignorant of the region, or some Turks from Turkey who merge all three fields into one.



Azeries that I know identify themselves as of being Turkish origin rather than irani.


Culturally, Azeris from both Iran and Azerbaijan are a rich amalgamation of authentic Turkish and Iranian traditions, with regional local infusions in Azerbaijan to a lesser degree. There's no escaping the ancient, medieval and pre-modern influences of Iranian culture in what we could describe as "Greater Azerbaijan" for the sake of this discussion. Those Azeris you know are probably conforming with a false dichotomy ("Turkish or Iranian") likely secondary to the ambiguity of the term "Turk" from Turkey. Let's not forget the cultural influence Turkey has had in recent decades in Azerbaijan and even Iran. I suspect ethno-nationalism partially contributes to the forwarding of that false dichotomy, FWIW.

Adding a new dimension to the discussion further, the Oghuz Turks seemed to shift towards the "Turkoman" ethnonym to denote those of their tribe who became Muslim. Clearly, by Medieval Oghuz standards, any modern Turk or Azeri who's no longer Muslim would no longer be considered a "Turk" by them. Therein lies the problem with this self-designation - It's too fluid!

Gandhara
05-27-2017, 11:05 PM
That's a touchy subject, if your speaking of Azeris from the republic of Azerbaijan, then I cant speak for them. But the Iranian ones, which I think is what this thread's about, are a bit of a different case. Generally you'll see a split between what they consider themselves, some in iran refer to themselves as "Tork" and acknowledge they're supposedly "Turkish", but many are also indifferent to the term and just refer to themselves as Iranian. I get the sense that there's more national unity in Iran regardless of ethnic background than other surrounding nations, most people in Iran are pretty intermingled from an ethnic sense that its become irrelevant what your ethnicity is when it comes to the bigger picture. And besides, I can never tell apart an "Iranian Azeri" from a Persian culturally, same names, same overlap in physical features, and AFAIK, now there's genetic evidence that backs up the notion that ancestral wise the only difference is a cultural shift towards the Turkic customs.

I was speaking on ethnic grounds not on geographical boundary's basis. Iran also has a Baloch population which is ethnically non Irani but yes they have Irani nationality.

jesus
05-28-2017, 06:55 PM
I was speaking on ethnic grounds not on geographical boundary's basis. Iran also has a Baloch population which is ethnically non Irani but yes they have Irani nationality.

Ethnically non Irani.. what does that mean exactly?

Awale
05-28-2017, 08:02 PM
Ethnically non Irani.. what does that mean exactly?

I didn't realize "Irani" was an ethnic group, yeah. Please explain Gandhara...

Gandhara
05-28-2017, 08:24 PM
Ethnically non Irani.. what does that mean exactly?

Means being different from the Irani people in broader spectrum.


I didn't realize "Irani" was an ethnic group, yeah. Please explain Gandhara...

Explained above, let me know if I can clarify it further by illustrating an example.

Awale
05-28-2017, 09:05 PM
Means being different from the Irani people in broader spectrum.

How are they mainly different? To you, I mean. Are we talking genetics, culture, linguistics... What?

Gandhara
05-28-2017, 09:11 PM
How are they mainly different? To you, I mean. Are we talking genetics, culture, linguistics... What?

Speaking about all of it that u mentioned above. Balochs and also Azeries claim a unique identity, speak Balochi/Azeri different dress code , language, tradition and history. They do not identify themselves as Irani. Genetically speaking if you insist we can label them an Irani but that would be like opening a Pandora box as the Indo - Iranian group of languages include a vast number of countries and ethnicities and always some type of genetic similarity will exist between neighboring populations. What is your version and take on that?

ancestryfan1994
05-28-2017, 10:53 PM
I think you'll find that actually, for the most part, they do consider themselves "Irani". There was a classic example of an Iranian Azeri olympic weightlifter who was offered the chance to compete for Turkey, and he turned the offer down citing the love he had for Iran making switching nations not be a viable option. Like I said, in todays Iran, most people are united as Iranians regardless of their ethnic origins, as an off topic example, in the Iranian international sport level, there would have been a mass exodus of athletes going off to play for other nations if there was some sort of dissent with being labelled Iranian, I'd say for every 10 athletes on the Iranian olympic teams for example, at least 4 would be of non ethnic Persian origins. The ethnic groups that live together in todays Iran have been doing so since times before countries and borders even existed. Persians, Azeris, Armenians, Kurds, Georgians, and the list goes on, all lived among each other and intermingled etc. My family claim to be "Muslims", so im assuming the same was done historically for our ancestors, and yet Armenians (A christian ethnic group) still found a way to enter our gene pool.

As for the history of the Azeris of Iran, again, from what I remember reading on this forum and online historical sources, the Iranian Azeris are actually a product of what seems to have been a cultural shift to their current status, so essentially they're "Turkified" Persians. This would make sense from a genetic viewpoint because in the GEDmatch oracles, Azeri is always in my top 3 despite my family having no Azeri ancestry. Also, honestly, Iranian Azeri culture and people really dont seem alien to a guy like me who comes from an ethnic Persian family, to me they're just fellow Iranians who are able to speak a turkic language alongside farsi, but their names are the same as everybody else, and they look the same as every body else. Im sure if i was to visit tabriz which is the Iranian Azeri hub, i wouldn't really feel out of place, bar for a few bits of details here and there. The baloch however, I do see a case to be made for them.

Arslan
05-29-2017, 06:55 PM
I think you'll find that actually, for the most part, they do consider themselves "Irani". There was a classic example of an Iranian Azeri olympic weightlifter who was offered the chance to compete for Turkey, and he turned the offer down citing the love he had for Iran making switching nations not be a viable option. Like I said, in todays Iran, most people are united as Iranians regardless of their ethnic origins, as an off topic example, in the Iranian international sport level, there would have been a mass exodus of athletes going off to play for other nations if there was some sort of dissent with being labelled Iranian, I'd say for every 10 athletes on the Iranian olympic teams for example, at least 4 would be of non ethnic Persian origins. The ethnic groups that live together in todays Iran have been doing so since times before countries and borders even existed. Persians, Azeris, Armenians, Kurds, Georgians, and the list goes on, all lived among each other and intermingled etc. My family claim to be "Muslims", so im assuming the same was done historically for our ancestors, and yet Armenians (A christian ethnic group) still found a way to enter our gene pool.

As for the history of the Azeris of Iran, again, from what I remember reading on this forum and online historical sources, the Iranian Azeris are actually a product of what seems to have been a cultural shift to their current status, so essentially they're "Turkified" Persians. This would make sense from a genetic viewpoint because in the GEDmatch oracles, Azeri is always in my top 3 despite my family having no Azeri ancestry. Also, honestly, Iranian Azeri culture and people really dont seem alien to a guy like me who comes from an ethnic Persian family, to me they're just fellow Iranians who are able to speak a turkic language alongside farsi, but their names are the same as everybody else, and they look the same as every body else. Im sure if i was to visit tabriz which is the Iranian Azeri hub, i wouldn't really feel out of place, bar for a few bits of details here and there. The baloch however, I do see a case to be made for them.
Why don't you also respect their Turkic identity instead of implying that their identity is merely a result of language-shift? I don't think their Turkic identity prevents them from seeing themselves as part of the Iranian nation. What history tells us is that these implications usually backfire, people don't like those who dictate them how to identify themselves.

The most important historical event that shaped the Azerbaijani identity was the migration of the Qizilbash tribes from Eastern Anatolia to what is now North Iran and Azerbaijan during the 16th century, those Qizilbash tribes were predominantly (but not exclusively) of Turkoman background. The region already had a considerable Turkoman population, but the influx of Qizilbash Turkoman tribes such as Ostajlu, Rumlu, Shamlu, Dulqadir, Afshar, Qajar, and Varsak gave rise to a new identity based on Shia Islam and Oghuz Turkic language. The Azerbaijani ethnogenesis took place mainly during the Safavid period.

Recent studies about the PIE expansion have shown that steppe-related ancestry that created/shaped new identities and introduced IE languages range between 10% and 40% in what is now IE-speaking parts of Europe and Asia, which means modern IE speakers descend primarily from pre-IE native populations, but I have never seen anyone question their identities. The word "Turkified" on the other hand is overused even though the Turkification process was not different than the Indo-Europeanization process.

* Migration of tribes
* Intermarriage with natives
* Assimilation
* Ethnogenesis/rise of a new identity

Besides, even though Iran Azeris are genetically similar to Iranians (due to descending primarily from pre-Turkic Azerbaijan and North Iran populations) their autosomal make-up is far from being identical to that of other Iranians.



Component/Population
Iranian average (k23b spreadsheet)
Azeri_Iran (16)


Amerindian

1.48

0.34


Ancestral_Altaic

2.37

3.69


South_Central_Asian

28.05

23.1


Arctic

0.19

0.45


South_Indian

6.56

1.75


Australoid

0.44

0.39


Austronesian

0.29

0.55


Caucasian

30.83

39.67


Archaic_Human

0.19

0.09


East_African

1.53

0.5


East_Siberian

0.3

1.02


European_Early_Farmers

4.87

6.2


Khoisan

0.43

0.11


Melano_Polynesian

0.47

0.18


Archaic_African

0.76

0.17


Near_East

13.44

10.61


North_African

3.56

2.28


Paleo_Siberian

0.21

0.57


African_Pygmy

0.11

0.18


South_East_Asian

0.27

1.6


Subsaharian

1.7

0.24


Tungus-Altaic

0.19

2.64


European_Hunters_Gatherers

1.77

3.6



You can move this discussion to a different thread if you want.

Kurd
05-29-2017, 09:09 PM
Besides, even though Iran Azeris are genetically similar to Iranians (due to descending primarily from pre-Turkic Azerbaijan and North Iran populations) their autosomal make-up is far from being identical to that of other Iranians.



Component/Population
Iranian average (k23b spreadsheet)
Azeri_Iran (16)


Amerindian

1.48


0.34



Ancestral_Altaic

2.37


3.69



South_Central_Asian

28.05


23.1



Arctic

0.19


0.45



South_Indian

6.56


1.75



Australoid

0.44


0.39



Austronesian

0.29


0.55



Caucasian

30.83


39.67



Archaic_Human

0.19


0.09



East_African

1.53


0.5



East_Siberian

0.3


1.02



European_Early_Farmers

4.87


6.2



Khoisan

0.43


0.11



Melano_Polynesian

0.47


0.18



Archaic_African

0.76


0.17



Near_East

13.44


10.61



North_African

3.56


2.28



Paleo_Siberian

0.21


0.57



African_Pygmy

0.11


0.18



South_East_Asian

0.27


1.6



Subsaharian

1.7


0.24



Tungus-Altaic

0.19


2.64



European_Hunters_Gatherers

1.77


3.6




You can move this discussion to a different thread if you want.

I don't understand how their autosomal make-up is far from being identical to that of other Iranians, when a Kurd from Dohuk with all 4gps locally is almost identical to the Azeri you posted. I don't like using other people's calculators, but since that is what you are using, here they are. Almost all the components are within 1.5% of the N Iraqi Kurd. The Iranian average may be S Iranian heavy that is why.

Even the oracles show Azeri as the 1st non-Kurd nearest at only 4.16.




Component/Population
Iranian average (k23b spreadsheet)
Azeri_Iran (16)
Kurd-Iraq N


Amerindian
1.48
0.34
-


Ancestral_Altaic
2.37
3.69
3.2


South_Central_Asian
28.05
23.1
26.21


Arctic
0.19
0.45
-


South_Indian
6.56
1.75
2.5


Australoid
0.44
0.39
0.73


Austronesian
0.29
0.55
0.25


Caucasian
30.83
39.67
38.25


Archaic_Human
0.19
0.09
-


East_African
1.53
0.5
1.54


East_Siberian
0.3
1.02
0.91


European_Early_Farmers
4.87
6.2
6.54


Khoisan
0.43
0.11
-


Melano_Polynesian
0.47
0.18
-


Archaic_African
0.76
0.17
-


Near_East
13.44
10.61
12.38


North_African
3.56
2.28
3.32


Paleo_Siberian
0.21
0.57
0.22


African_Pygmy
0.11
0.18
-


South_East_Asian
0.27
1.6
-


Subsaharian
1.7
0.24
-


Tungus-Altaic
0.19
2.64
1.78


European_Hunters_Gatherers
1.77
3.6
2.18





1
Kurd_East
@
3.18


2
Kurd
@
3.53


3
Kurd_South
@
3.54


4
Kurd_North
@
3.62


5
Azeri
@
4.16


6
Uzbek_Tashkent
@
6.68


7
Baku_WGA
@
7.02


8
Uzbekistani_Jew
@
8.34


9
Iranian
@
9.42


10
Turk_Adana
@
10.43


11
Kurd_Jew
@
10.86


12
Iraqi_Mandean
@
11.09


13
Iraqi_Chaldean
@
12.14


14
Iranian_Jew
@
12.38


15
Turk_Kayseri
@
12.39


16
Georgian_Jew
@
12.39


17
Assyrian_Iraqi
@
12.66


18
Azeri_Dagestan
@
13.57


19
Jew_Tat
@
13.83


20
Iraki
@
13.85





Using
2
populations
approximation:







50%
Azeri
50%
Kurd_South
@
2.539675


























Using
3
populations
approximation:







50%
Azeri
25%
Iranian
25%
Kurd
@
2.427991





1
Iranian
+
Kurd
+
Kurd
+
Turk_Kayseri
@
2.22


2
Iranian
+
Kurd
+
Kurd
+
Turk_Adana
@
2.29


3
Azeri
+
Kurd
+
Kurd_South
+
Kurd_South
@
2.33


4
Azeri
+
Kurd
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_South
@
2.34


5
Azeri
+
Iranian
+
Kurd
+
Kurd_North
@
2.35


6
Azeri
+
Azeri
+
Iranian
+
Kurd
@
2.43


7
Brahui
+
Georgian_Svan
+
Samaritian
+
Turk_Kayseri
@
2.44


8
Azeri
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_North
+
Kurd_South
@
2.46


9
Abkhasian
+
Makrani
+
Samaritian
+
Turk_Kayseri
@
2.46


10
Abkhasian
+
Makrani
+
Samaritian
+
Turk_Adana
@
2.47


11
Azeri
+
Kurd
+
Kurd_North
+
Kurd_South
@
2.47


12
Azeri
+
Kurd
+
Kurd
+
Kurd_South
@
2.47


13
Georgian_Svan
+
Kalash
+
Lebanese_Christian
+
Samaritian
@
2.47


14
Azeri
+
Iranian
+
Kurd
+
Uzbekistani_Jew
@
2.48


15
Azeri
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_South
@
2.48


16
Georgian_Svan
+
Makrani
+
Samaritian
+
Turk_Adana
@
2.49


17
Georgian_Svan
+
Kalash
+
Lebanese_Druze
+
Samaritian
@
2.49


18
Azeri
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_North
@
2.49


19
Druze
+
Georgian
+
Kalash
+
Samaritian
@
2.49


20
Azeri
+
Azeri
+
Kurd_East
+
Kurd_South
@
2.50

ancestryfan1994
05-29-2017, 10:00 PM
Why don't you also respect their Turkic identity instead of implying that their identity is merely a result of language-shift? I don't think their Turkic identity prevents them from seeing themselves as part of the Iranian nation. What history tells us is that these implications usually backfire, people don't like those who dictate them how to identify themselves.

Nobody denied their turkic identity, what I am saying is that when you combine the fact that most of the Azeris in Iran are "Iran first" in terms of how they view themselves, with the fact that now, thanks to genetics, we can say for certainty that they most likely are just Turkified Persians who share the same ancestors as their fellow Persian countrymen, this makes the difference between the two peoples in Iran really down to just language and certain cultural differences, with the Azeri being able to speak a turkic language that the Persians can't. Outside of that, like i said, the Azeris in iran cannot be distinguished from Persians, they look the same, have the same names, live amongst each other, its only when you engage in dialogue and the Iranian says "Oh, i can speak Azeri" that you'll find some sort of difference. But thats just my own personal take on how i have interacted with Iranian Azeris. There really is no major difference between the two, Azeris of iran differ from those of the republic I would assume.

Awale
05-30-2017, 12:26 PM
Recent studies about the PIE expansion have shown that steppe-related ancestry that created/shaped new identities and introduced IE languages range between 10% and 40% in what is now IE-speaking parts of Europe and Asia, which means modern IE speakers descend primarily from pre-IE native populations, but I have never seen anyone question their identities. The word "Turkified" on the other hand is overused even though the Turkification process was not different than the Indo-Europeanization process.

Well, this is not necessarily true. I've seen Iranians around the anthrosphere who take pleasure in not drawing too much ancestry from the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community whom they seem to mentally tie with groups like the Scythians or what have you ("barbarians" in their eyes) and you'll see plenty of Elamite, Kassite or whatnot veneration. User Arbogan (http://www.anthrogenica.com/member.php?55-Arbogan) is one such individual who consistently takes pleasure in how Zagrosian-Chalcolithic Lurs and Feylis tend to seem and always prefers to emphasize his connection to pre-Iranic speaking folk like the Kassites. He's not that much of an anomaly, at least on these anthro-boards (granted, I feel weird lumping Anthrogenica in with the others but you get me...) or among some Iranians who seem well-read in regards to history, linguistics and population-genetics, in my humble opinion.

But, outside of these boards and the well-read spheres... I think it has more to do with how long Iranic speaking has been around and predominant. The average Iranic speaking Iranian wouldn't know that they likely don't draw more than 20% or so of their ancestry from the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community and most of what they know about their region's history going back 2,000-2,500 has had Iranic speaking at the forefront (i.e. the ruling class of the Achaeminid empire being Persian-speakers) and they're not exactly surrounded by a sea of pre-Iranic speaking Zagrosians who look culturally and phenoypically very similar to them. The Elamites and such are gone along with their various pre-IE languages. In contrast, these Turkic speakers' language shift occurred comparatively recently (within the last 500-1,000 years) and I don't think it's uncommon for even the average not-so-well-read person to be vaguely aware of this and, in conjunction with this, these Turkic-speaking Zagrosians are surrounded by a sea of Iranic speakers in Iran whom they look very similar to and share a lot with culturally:


http://i.imgur.com/kXylcbp.png

Not a perfect map but you get it...


And there aren't Iranic speaking groups still running around in and dominating big chunks of the steppes for Plateau Iranians to compare themselves to. So this is really just comparing apples and oranges, in my humble opinion. Keep in mind though that I am entirely speaking about Iranian Azeris here, not Anatolian Turks or Republic Azeris. Anyway, at least for the more well-read types or those in the anthrosphere, I can imagine it would be hard for them to look at the not so substantive genomic difference between themselves and their neighboring West-Iranics as well as be aware of all the cultural and phenotypic similarities through simple life-experience and act as though they're a very distinct community of "Turks" when compared to other Iranians.

Nevertheless, I do agree that it would be wrong for them to utterly deny their clear linguistic, genetic and cultural ties to other Turkic speakers (DMXX did a good job of noting some of these ties) but there's nothing wrong with also noting their very notable nativity to Iran and strong cultural and genetic affinity for the Plateau's other populations of non-Turkic speaking identities.

DMXX
05-30-2017, 06:21 PM
Arslan does have a point; often in these discussions, one encounters comments casting aspersions on the solidity of the Turkish identity among Turks and Azeris, even though those making such claims come from ancestral backgrounds that have undergone similar ethnogenesis patterns. Armenians, Kurdish speakers and Persians all share highly with another genetically (primary a combination of CHG, Iran_ChL and/or EEF), in spite of their different languages and histories. According to qpAdm, Iranians and Kurds are approximately 15-25% proto-Indo-Iranian (Sintashta) and Armenians are going to be a good deal less Yamnaya-derived as inferred from ADMIXTURE.

That the socio-ethnic developments in the Iron Age (for Iranic speakers at least) are largely unattested gives non-Turkish West Asians a self-perception of autochthonicity in comparison with Turks or Azeris, whose identities are massively shaped by Medieval newcomers (Oghuz). This is, by the way, the underlying reason why so many modern Indo-Iranian speakers cannot accept the likelihood that their linguistic forebears are effectively Northeast Europeans, genetically speaking. This is also why many Iranians aren't particularly interested in the "Iranian" character of their identity (as Awale stated, more often than not, there is a greater affinity towards the pre-Iranian cultures of the Zagros, particularly towards the Elamites).

Regarding the emphasis placed on either the pre-Turkish (Iranian) heritage vs. the Turkish... I never saw the utility in forming such a distinction. The Turkish and Iranian worlds have been continuously interacting spatiotemporally for hundreds of years (potentially since the formation of proto-Turkic). Azeris happen to be a complex continuation of that interaction in West Asia. It's like separating the flour from the baking soda in a pepperoni pizza (cheesy crust is a must).

Just pointing this out, by the way - The non-Turkish northern Iranians who eventually became modern Azeri Iranians weren't Persians. They certainly spoke Persian since the Sassanid era at least, but they had their own language (Old Azeri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Azeri_language), a NW Iranic language, ergo closely related to Kurmanji Kurdish, Gilaki and Mazandarani).

[Edit]: Kurd's point also stands. I inferred this since 2012 based on uniparental data - Kurmanji Kurds, Azeri Iranians, northern Persians and the Caspian NW Iranian speakers are all a part of a distinct bio-geographical cluster, reflecting an overwhelmingly similar ancestral ethnogenesis, minor differences not withstanding (e.g. additional Near-Eastern admixture in Kurds, East Eurasian admixture in Azeri Iranians). I've suspected for a while all these populations largely descend from the Medians, with Azeris being the ones who adopted another language and culture.

Kurd
05-30-2017, 08:05 PM
Just pointing this out, by the way - The non-Turkish northern Iranians who eventually became modern Azeri Iranians weren't Persians. They certainly spoke Persian since the Sassanid era at least, but they had their own language (Old Azeri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Azeri_language), a NW Iranic language, ergo closely related to Kurmanji Kurdish, Gilaki and Mazandarani).

[Edit]: Kurd's point also stands. I inferred this since 2012 based on uniparental data - Kurmanji Kurds, Azeri Iranians, northern Persians and the Caspian NW Iranian speakers are all a part of a distinct bio-geographical cluster, reflecting an overwhelmingly similar ancestral ethnogenesis, minor differences not withstanding (e.g. additional Near-Eastern admixture in Kurds, East Eurasian admixture in Azeri Iranians). I've suspected for a while all these populations largely descend from the Medians, with Azeris being the ones who adopted another language and culture.

Clearly reflected in the results for the Azeri and Kurmanji Iraqi Kurd shown above, where the oracles for the Kurd could have gone either way, but barely chose Kurds over Azeris.

I believe I saw this in IBD sharing also between Kurds and Azeris. I will go back and check again.

With regards to steppe input for Kurds and N Iranians in general your upper range of about 25% with a little variation based on the individual seems to be consistent with what I see in my rarer alleles ADMIXTURE tests. I will also add that from all the "steppe" based ancients I have looked at, both the Sarmatian and Volga Scythian samples have substantial Iran Chl/ Iran N admixture (about 12% above and beyond any Iran Chl based alleles accounted for by the other calculator components in my K11 Ancients test) indicating geneflow between Scythians and the populations in and around Iran. This shift towards the ancient Iranian samples vs MLBA or EMBA steppe is also visible in the PCAs I posted. Would be nice if more local Scythian samples become available

Edit: The 25% may possibly increase in the future if we get more steppe sequences including Scythians that are more relevant to ethnogenesis of Iranians at large

DMXX
05-30-2017, 08:33 PM
With regards to steppe input for Kurds and N Iranians in general your upper range of about 25% with a little variation based on the individual seems to be consistent with what I see in my rarer alleles ADMIXTURE tests. I will also add that from all the "steppe" based ancients I have looked at, both the Sarmatian and Volga Scythian samples have substantial Iran Chl/ Iran N admixture (about 12% above and beyond any Iran Chl based alleles accounted for by the other calculator components in my K11 Ancients test) indicating geneflow between Scythians and the populations in and around Iran. This shift towards the ancient Iranian samples vs MLBA or EMBA steppe is also visible in the PCAs I posted. Would be nice if more local Scythian samples become available

Iran's a pretty big place. David's qpAdm tour of Iran showed that Zoroastrians and northern Iranian populations (Mazandarani and using myself as a surrogate for Azeris and northern Persians) were at the higher end of the range. As the majority of Kurds are Kurmanji, and given the clear status of these ethnic groups as siblings (from a genetic perspective), it is quite reasonable to assume the Kurdish average lies closer to the top of 15-25% than the Iranian average.

As an aside, we're probably best off being more specific to the populations involved, but many of us (myself included) do succumb to the tendency of simplifying things to just "Iranian", "Kurd" or "Turk". We miss a lot of the informative diversity.

I can buy the increased Iran_ChL/Iran_N idea among the Iron Age and Ancient steppe Iranians. Herodotus indicates the Scythians expanded from Central Asia into Europe. The clearest candidate for Iranian_ChL/N admixture given that would be the BMAC folk. Your finding is quite consistent with that.

Arslan
05-30-2017, 08:33 PM
I don't understand how their autosomal make-up is far from being identical to that of other Iranians, when a Kurd from Dohuk with all 4gps locally is almost identical to the Azeri you posted. I don't like using other people's calculators, but since that is what you are using, here they are. Almost all the components are within 1.5% of the N Iraqi Kurd. The Iranian average may be S Iranian heavy that is why.

Even the oracles show Azeri as the 1st non-Kurd nearest at only 4.16.
Azeri_Iran (16) in my post consists of 16 Azeri samples from Iran. I'm not informed about the regional composition of the Iranian average, maybe Iranian members can inform us.

By comparing a Kurd to Azeris you are making an assumption that what are now Azeri-inhabited areas (Eastern Transcaucasia/modern Azerbaijan and Northwestern Iran) were identical to Kurds genetically. You can't draw conclusions on Azeris by comparing them to Kurds. There are even visible differences between the Kurds from different regions, pre-Turkic Eastern Transcaucasia might have been more Armenian-shifted for example.

We are not talking about a complete population replacement anyway, Azeri_Iran (16) clearly has Central Asian admixture (7% East Eurasian + unknown percentage of West Eurasian), it is difficult to estimate the exact proportion of the Central Asian admixture since we don't know the genetic make-up of the Turkic newcomers and pre-Turkic inhabitants. Things get even more complex if we take into account that a good chunk of their Turkoman ancestry was from the 16th century Qizilbash-Turkoman tribes who had become less Central Asian-like genetically at that time.

I assume the sample "Kurd_East" in the spreadsheet consists of Iranian Kurds.



Component/Population
Kurd_East
Azeri_Iran (16)


Amerindian

0.33

0.34


Ancestral_Altaic

3.15

3.69


South_Central_Asian

27.20

23.1


Arctic

0.45

0.45


South_Indian

4.02

1.75


Australoid

0.08

0.39


Austronesian

0.12

0.55


Caucasian

37.94

39.67


Archaic_Human

0.10

0.09


East_African

0.21

0.5


East_Siberian

0.67

1.02


European_Early_Farmers

5.94

6.2


Khoisan

0

0.11


Melano_Polynesian

0.66

0.18


Archaic_African

0.18

0.17


Near_East

12.51

10.61


North_African

2.60

2.28


Paleo_Siberian

0.12

0.57


African_Pygmy

0.16

0.18


South_East_Asian

0.57

1.6


Subsaharian

0.36

0.24


Tungus-Altaic

0.21

2.64


European_Hunters_Gatherers

2.41

3.6



What I said earlier is still valid, they do have Central Asian ancestry that is visible in their DNA. I think their Central Asian ancestry is in line with the steppe-related ancestry of Indo-European speakers in West Asia.



Component/Population

Azeri_Iran (16)

Kurds (Dodecad k12b spreadsheet)


Gedrosia

21.97

28.2


Siberian

2.71

0.6


Northwest_African

1.1

0


Southeast_Asian

0.76

0.6


Atlantic_Med

8.37

6.3


North_European

7.77

6.7


South_Asian

2.71

0.8


East_African

0.44

0.1


Southwest_Asian

12.5

14.3


East_Asian

2.81

0.2


Caucasus

38.8

42.2


Sub_Saharan

0.08

0




Well, this is not necessarily true. I've seen Iranians around the anthrosphere who take pleasure in not drawing too much ancestry from the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community whom they seem to mentally tie with groups like the Scythians or what have you ("barbarians" in their eyes) and you'll see plenty of Elamite, Kassite or whatnot veneration. User Arbogan (http://www.anthrogenica.com/member.php?55-Arbogan) is one such individual who consistently takes pleasure in how Zagrosian-Chalcolithic Lurs and Feylis tend to seem and always prefers to emphasize his connection to pre-Iranic speaking folk like the Kassites. He's not that much of an anomaly, at least on these anthro-boards (granted, I feel weird lumping Anthrogenica in with the others but you get me...) or among some Iranians who seem well-read in regards to history, linguistics and population-genetics, in my humble opinion.

But, outside of these boards and the well-read spheres... I think it has more to do with how long Iranic speaking has been around and predominant. The average Iranic speaking Iranian wouldn't know that they likely don't draw more than 20% or so of their ancestry from the Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking community and most of what they know about their region's history going back 2,000-2,500 has had Iranic speaking at the forefront (i.e. the ruling class of the Achaeminid empire being Persian-speakers) and they're not exactly surrounded by a sea of pre-Iranic speaking Zagrosians who look culturally and phenoypically very similar to them. The Elamites and such are gone along with their various pre-IE languages. In contrast, these Turkic speakers' language shift occurred comparatively recently (within the last 500-1,000 years) and I don't think it's uncommon for even the average not-so-well-read person to be vaguely aware of this and, in conjunction with this, these Turkic-speaking Zagrosians are surrounded by a sea of Iranic speakers in Iran whom they look very similar to and share a lot with culturally:


http://i.imgur.com/kXylcbp.png

Not a perfect map but you get it...


And there aren't Iranic speaking groups still running around in and dominating big chunks of the steppes for Plateau Iranians to compare themselves to. So this is really just comparing apples and oranges, in my humble opinion. Keep in mind though that I am entirely speaking about Iranian Azeris here, not Anatolian Turks or Republic Azeris. Anyway, at least for the more well-read types or those in the anthrosphere, I can imagine it would be hard for them to look at the not so substantive genomic difference between themselves and their neighboring West-Iranics as well as be aware of all the cultural and phenotypic similarities through simple life-experience and act as though they're a very distinct community of "Turks" when compared to other Iranians.

Nevertheless, I do agree that it would be wrong for them to utterly deny their clear linguistic, genetic and cultural ties to other Turkic speakers (DMXX did a good job of noting some of these ties) but there's nothing wrong with also noting their very notable nativity to Iran and strong cultural and genetic affinity for the Plateau's other populations of non-Turkic speaking identities.
I got your point.

A few individual cases do not reflect a whole nation's view towards history as you know, and although I respect their decision to identify themselves with pre-Iranic folks, I don't agree with their way of approaching history. Many members misinterpret their results and underestimate the sociohistorical factors and the long process that shaped their current identities. Despite all the respect I have for genetic science, I find their way of explaining historical events and emergence of new identities too simple.

Besides, there is no limit if you start identifying with ancient folks. Let's assume you decided to ignore all the historical events that shaped your identity and started identifying with pre- natives that make up 70% of your autosomal DNA, what if the natives you decided to identify with were also a mix of two different ancestral populations (and one of them being dominant)? There is simply no finish line when you decide to go back.

It is not necessary for an Azeri to feel himself/herself closer to let's say Turkic-speaking Yakuts than to West Asian populations surrounding his/her ethnicity. Ethnicities should not be confused with language families, language families do not represent your clan or something. Speaking of Yakuts, for some reason you can't see people force Yakuts to abondon their Turkic identity and identify with their non-Turkic Siberian neighbours, even though they are culturally and genetically closer to their non-Turkic Siberian neighbours and descend mostly from those native Siberians. Interestingly, the only detail that seperates them from their neighbours genetically is their small proportion of West Eurasian admixture. I think most people see Yakuts as the purest (or some kind of [I]"relic") Turkic population; despite Yakuts' history, culture, distinct language and DNA say otherwise.

DMXX
05-30-2017, 08:41 PM
I got your point.

A few individual cases do not reflect a whole nation's view towards history as you know, and although I respect their decision to identify themselves with pre-Iranic folks, I don't agree with their way of approaching history. Many members misinterpret their results and underestimate the sociohistorical factors and the long process that shaped their current identities. Despite all the respect I have for genetic science, I find their way of explaining historical events and emergence of new identities too simple.

Besides, there is no limit if you start identifying with ancient folks. Let's assume you decided to ignore all the historical events that shaped your identity and started identifying with pre- natives that make up 70% of your autosomal DNA, what if the natives you decided to identify with were also a mix of two different ancestral populations (and one of them being dominant)? There is simply no finish line when you decide to go back.

It is not necessary for an Azeri to feel himself/herself closer to let's say Turkic-speaking Yakuts than to West Asian populations surrounding his/her ethnicity. Ethnicities should not be confused with language families, language families do not represent your clan or something. Speaking of Yakuts, for some reason you can't see people force Yakuts to abondon their Turkic identity and identify with their non-Turkic Siberian neighbours, even though they are culturally and genetically closer to their non-Turkic Siberian neighbours and descend mostly from those native Siberians. Interestingly, the only detail that seperates them from their neighbours genetically is their small proportion of West Eurasian admixture. I think most people see Yakuts as the purest (or some kind of [I]"relic") Turkic population; despite Yakuts' history, culture, distinct language and DNA say otherwise.

Co-sign the above.

Dienekes was a promoter of the idea that the Yakuts were reasonable surrogates for the proto-Turks, in spite of the historical and linguistic data clearly indicating otherwise. No different to assuming modern Ossetians best represent the proto-Indo-Iranians because they're the closest native IE speakers to the Urals.

vatan
05-31-2017, 04:40 AM
Why don't you also respect their Turkic identity instead of implying that their identity is merely a result of language-shift? I don't think their Turkic identity prevents them from seeing themselves as part of the Iranian nation. What history tells us is that these implications usually backfire, people don't like those who dictate them how to identify themselves.

The most important historical event that shaped the Azerbaijani identity was the migration of the Qizilbash tribes from Eastern Anatolia to what is now North Iran and Azerbaijan during the 16th century, those Qizilbash tribes were predominantly (but not exclusively) of Turkoman background. The region already had a considerable Turkoman population, but the influx of Qizilbash Turkoman tribes such as Ostajlu, Rumlu, Shamlu, Dulqadir, Afshar, Qajar, and Varsak gave rise to a new identity based on Shia Islam and Oghuz Turkic language. The Azerbaijani ethnogenesis took place mainly during the Safavid period.

Recent studies about the PIE expansion have shown that steppe-related ancestry that created/shaped new identities and introduced IE languages range between 10% and 40% in what is now IE-speaking parts of Europe and Asia, which means modern IE speakers descend primarily from pre-IE native populations, but I have never seen anyone question their identities. The word "Turkified" on the other hand is overused even though the Turkification process was not different than the Indo-Europeanization process.

* Migration of tribes
* Intermarriage with natives
* Assimilation
* Ethnogenesis/rise of a new identity

Besides, even though Iran Azeris are genetically similar to Iranians (due to descending primarily from pre-Turkic Azerbaijan and North Iran populations) their autosomal make-up is far from being identical to that of other Iranians.



Component/Population
Iranian average (k23b spreadsheet)
Azeri_Iran (16)


Amerindian

1.48

0.34


Ancestral_Altaic

2.37

3.69


South_Central_Asian

28.05

23.1


Arctic

0.19

0.45


South_Indian

6.56

1.75


Australoid

0.44

0.39


Austronesian

0.29

0.55


Caucasian

30.83

39.67


Archaic_Human

0.19

0.09


East_African

1.53

0.5


East_Siberian

0.3

1.02


European_Early_Farmers

4.87

6.2


Khoisan

0.43

0.11


Melano_Polynesian

0.47

0.18


Archaic_African

0.76

0.17


Near_East

13.44

10.61


North_African

3.56

2.28


Paleo_Siberian

0.21

0.57


African_Pygmy

0.11

0.18


South_East_Asian

0.27

1.6


Subsaharian

1.7

0.24


Tungus-Altaic

0.19

2.64


European_Hunters_Gatherers

1.77

3.6



You can move this discussion to a different thread if you want.

Salamlar! :)

Nobody tells anybody what to identify as in iran, we all identify ourselves as "Irani". You cant tell the difference between a persian and an azeri because they both share the same culture. The same is everywhere in iran actually, we are all very integrated within our society. my paternal side is originally from East azarbaijan province while my maternal is from Fars. Some people on my father side identify as "Tork" simply just to show that they are turkic speakers, some just don't care i guess its just a preference.

ancestryfan1994
05-31-2017, 09:34 PM
It seems like the topic of the Iranian Azeris and how they should be perceived from a Turkic sense is a matter of personal preference. There's no denying the Turkic influence in their culture, but in my own personal humble opinion, I stand by the genetic evidence as a major factor. If we acknowledge that the Azeri of Iran live in a country where they're well integrated, both culturally and ethnically (many Persians have some degree of Azeri ancestry, and vice versa, as I'm sure many Azeri also have Persian ancestry), then the way I see it, your looking at marginal differences between the two ethnic groups. We can't deny the Turkic identity of Azeris of Iran, but at the same time it seems even more dubious to ignore the fact that they really are not any different to other Iranians, bar the fact that they can speak a Turkic language. Take the language out of the equation, and genetics says your basically looking at the same people.

And this really goes for every ethnic group in Iran in some ways, because even though there's lots of ethnic groups in Iran that actually are separate from Persians, both culturally and ethnically/genetically, the harmonious nature in which they live among each other while adopting the Iranian culture and language is a rarity even among more well developed parts of the world. The user vatan above made a good reference to this, you can find an Iranian who's of Georgian descent, or Armenian, and so on, and you'll ask them what their background is and its Iranian first. I hate to bring politics into the debate, but given the current state of the place, I'm hugely surprised about how unified the people still are down there.

jesus
05-31-2017, 10:50 PM
@Arsalan Kurd_east are feylis from Iraq and Iran. They're highly tribal and live in southwestern Iran + central-eastern Iraq(there is an ongoing debate about their origins) They don't border any Azeri speakers, unlike Kurmanji and Sorani speaking Kurds. Kurmanji Kurds(also labeled as Kurd North) should be a decent proxy for pre Turkic Azeris living in west Azeriabijan province. Persians from Hamadan/Qazvin + Talysh/Tat speakers would probably make a good proxy for eastern and "southern" Azeris.

*One of the mods/admins should kindly remove the off topic posts to a new/different thread.

vatan
05-31-2017, 11:20 PM
It seems like the topic of the Iranian Azeris and how they should be perceived from a Turkic sense is a matter of personal preference. There's no denying the Turkic influence in their culture, but in my own personal humble opinion, I stand by the genetic evidence as a major factor. If we acknowledge that the Azeri of Iran live in a country where they're well integrated, both culturally and ethnically (many Persians have some degree of Azeri ancestry, and vice versa, as I'm sure many Azeri also have Persian ancestry), then the way I see it, your looking at marginal differences between the two ethnic groups. We can't deny the Turkic identity of Azeris of Iran, but at the same time it seems even more dubious to ignore the fact that they really are not any different to other Iranians, bar the fact that they can speak a Turkic language. Take the language out of the equation, and genetics says your basically looking at the same people.

And this really goes for every ethnic group in Iran in some ways, because even though there's lots of ethnic groups in Iran that actually are separate from Persians, both culturally and ethnically/genetically, the harmonious nature in which they live among each other while adopting the Iranian culture and language is a rarity even among more well developed parts of the world. The user vatan above made a good reference to this, you can find an Iranian who's of Georgian descent, or Armenian, and so on, and you'll ask them what their background is and its Iranian first. I hate to bring politics into the debate, but given the current state of the place, I'm hugely surprised about how unified the people still are down there.

Yea the culture of Iran is very rich, i wouldn't expect people to not be integrated amongst each other :)

DMXX
06-01-2017, 01:25 AM
It does vary even within households.

Like vatan, I'm an Azeri-Persian mix. As far as ethnic identity goes, I've naturally tended towards the Azeri side and view the Azeri identity as a rich amalgamation of Turkish and Iranian, in line with both the microscopic and macroscopic history of both northern Iran and the Turkic and Iranic speaking worlds. I personally have more esteem towards the Turkish side culturally, but that's just me.
My younger brother, on the other hand, is completely Persian-leaning. Within my extended family, the Azeris are a mixture of Iranian patriotism, Azeri traditionalism and some degree of pan-Turkism (some relatives aren't happy that Iran isn't a member of the Turkic Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_Council) given up to a quarter of the country speaks a Turkic language, which I agree with, even if it's a largely ceremonial bloc).

ancestryfan's emphasis regarding how similar the Azeri Iranian and Persian ethnic groups are needs highlighting. Growing up, I mistakenly used "Azeri", "Persian" and "Iranian" interchangeably due to that. It's no coincidence that the rates of ethnic intermarriage within Iran are highest between Azeris and Persians. The two are almost indistinguishable with respect to culture, and now the data demonstrates they're highly similar genetically.

I've met quite a few fully Azeri individuals down the years who openly identified as Persian (some of them were half Azeri Iranian and half Republic Azeris). I found that confusing, but even full-on Republic Azeris do arguably stake some claim in identifying/appropriating Persian culture and identity.

rafael
06-05-2017, 11:19 AM
Higlighting genetic similarity between Iranian Azeris and other Iranians has to come to an end. Majority of the people living in Central/Wes-Asia & Caucasus share steppic ancestry so no wonder they are all related to each other. This is why people from these areas tend to look alike even though the languages they speak have no relations to eachother whatsoever. Now cultural similarity between various ethnic groups is totally different thing. People need to realize that todays Iran is a straight outcome of Turko-Iranic traditions. Turkic and Iranic peoples have mingled with eachother for centuries just look at the turkic and iranic languages! Intermarriages and amalmagation started way back in Central asia long before the Oghuz arrival.

Magnetic
06-05-2017, 12:29 PM
lol at the term "Irani"

rafael
06-05-2017, 06:26 PM
and btw todays Iranian azeri population is not the best represantive of turkic culture in NW iran. You see Majority of todays Iranian azeris especially younger azeri women have largely forgot the turkic culture they had. They don't even speak proper azeri. They rather speak azeri with a strong persian accent whereas the older generation speaks kind a similarly to republic azeris since most of them didn't attend school or they learned farsi at elementary or at much later age. For those of you who don't know there are lots of turkic aspects in iranian azeri culture. For example a movie of an old folk tale called ''apardi seller sarani'' or songs like ''apardi tatar meni'' or just the local folk dances that Iranian azeris have or the whole hats?? Iran has not been a nation as long as it has been an empire or region consistent of different states. If you compare todays iranian azeris to modern persians then yeah I'll agree they are very alike but however compare modern persians or older generation of persians to older generation of Iranian azeris I bet you'll find hella more differences. If azeris were predominantly sunna muslims I'll bet they had been their own country by now.

rafael
06-05-2017, 06:43 PM
Why am I saying this is because some of you are constantly stating that Iraniin Azeris are "just" (note : just, nothing more but just) fellow iranians who are "able" to speak turkic besides farsi. Like seriously you are trying to make it sound like Iranian azeris suddenly out of nowhere learned turkic and adobted their customs and mentality. As if turkic Migrations had non real impact. Turkic migrations were very real and to an very large extend.

ancestryfan1994
06-05-2017, 06:53 PM
lol at the term "Irani"

I dont understand, care to elaborate?

ancestryfan1994
06-05-2017, 07:14 PM
Why am I saying this is because some of you are constantly stating that Iraniin Azeris are "just" (note : just, nothing more but just) fellow iranians who are "able" to speak turkic besides farsi. Like seriously you are trying to make it sound like Iranian azeris suddenly out of nowhere learned turkic and adobted their customs and mentality. As if turkic Migrations had non real impact. Turkic migrations were very real and to an very large extend.

Honestly, thats how I see them, and that's my personal and humble opinion....because thats what the genetic data points to. If it doesn't?, cool, I'll change my stance. But it does, so that really is what the modern Iranian azeri are, when you peel it back enough, Turkified natives of Iran. Nobody on this thread from what Im aware of has tried to state the turkic aspect doesn't exist in iran, certainly not myself, it exists, but it overlaps a great deal with Iranian culture, yourself even alluded this. So where do we draw the line on what really separates the two? thats where genetics play a major and deciding factor.

vatan
06-05-2017, 10:03 PM
honestly I don't think it really matters much because its different for everybody. my family, for example doesn't necessarily care what you refer to them as. Although, like DMXX i also have some relatives who prefer to be called "Tork", others as "Azeri". It depends on the person, but many dont seem to care that much

rafael
06-07-2017, 01:40 PM
Now as I previously said the new generation of iranian azeris do tend to have a sense of belonging to an iranian nation however questions may arise among the older ones. Personally how I see it is that the older generation might see themselves as people who are descended of the nomadic turkic ''invaders'' who stayed in the region and mixed with the local Iranian populations. No doubt they see Iran as their homeland but however some of them might feel that they do not belong to an any nation but they are just people who reside in NW Iran and have no problems with that whatsoever. There are households where the parents might not be happy to hear that their daughter or son is in a relationship with someone who is of iranic origin. I can still remember one of my relatives saying '' niya gettin farsi aldun?'' meaning : why did you marry a farsi speaker? For Iranian azeris it is very easy actually. Even one fellow Iranian kurd said that '' damn you azeris have it so easy you don't care about nationality and having an own independent country instead ya''ll just chill and make money''. For majority of iranian azeris having an own country or merging with their northern kins is the least they worry. Iranian azeris are very active in politics and they tend to share the same goals with others however they also feel like there must be an opportunity for them to be educated in their own mother tongue. And recently riots have been increasing.

vatan
06-07-2017, 09:50 PM
Now as I previously said the new generation of iranian azeris do tend to have a sense of belonging to an iranian nation however questions may arise among the older ones. Personally how I see it is that the older generation might see themselves as people who are descended of the nomadic turkic ''invaders'' who stayed in the region and mixed with the local Iranian populations. No doubt they see Iran as their homeland but however some of them might feel that they do not belong to an any nation but they are just people who reside in NW Iran and have no problems with that whatsoever. There are households where the parents might not be happy to hear that their daughter or son is in a relationship with someone who is of iranic origin. I can still remember one of my relatives saying '' niya gettin farsi aldun?'' meaning : why did you marry a farsi speaker? For Iranian azeris it is very easy actually. Even one fellow Iranian kurd said that '' damn you azeris have it so easy you don't care about nationality and having an own independent country instead ya''ll just chill and make money''. For majority of iranian azeris having an own country or merging with their northern kins is the least they worry. Iranian azeris are very active in politics and they tend to share the same goals with others however they also feel like there must be an opportunity for them to be educated in their own mother tongue. And recently riots have been increasing.


At least with my family, this is not the case. ive never heard of an azeri family being uncomfortable marrying with a persian speaker or vice versa. i have yet to see it. marriages between the persians and azeris is pretty popular in iran

DMXX
06-08-2017, 02:29 AM
Many in the older generations did actually voice hesitation regarding Azeri Iranians marrying non-Azeris. Some of my older Azeri relatives took issue with one of my distant relatives marrying a Turk (from Turkey). My own grandparents had similar reservations initially. It's a rather typical mindset for West Asian folk (cultural hyperconservatism). I wouldn't expect any different from, say, 19th century Armenians, Kurmanjis or Balochis. Most Iranians born after the mid-50's, from my experience, on the other hand, place a preference on an Iranian spouse irrespective of ethno-linguistic identity. The majority of mixed-ethnicity folks in Iran seem to be Azeri-Persian, but I've seen my fair share of mixes between Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Azeri.

Whether the perspective of the older generations is justified or not is another discussion. Judging by the decrease in the number of native non-Persian speakers in Iran, their conservative outlooks demonstrates a degree of foresight.

NK19191
06-08-2017, 01:28 PM
There is a good amount of mix marriages between Azerbaijani Turks and Persians in Iran today (I am also a product of such marriage), because of the process of urbanization that occurred in Iran during the past 120 years. Significant number of Iranians from all over Iran moved to larger cities like Tehran, Karaj, Qom, Hamadan, Shiraz, Isfahan, Mahshad, etc. Today Iran is 75% urbanized.

Iranian Azerbaijanis moved in large numbers to these cities. Tehran has more Azerbaijani Turks than Baku or Tabriz. In essence Tehran is a an Azerbaijani and Persian city, and so is Karaj and Qom. Azerbaijani Turks constitute a good portion of the merchant class (Bazzaris) in Iran. If you go to the Bazzar in Tehran, the vast majority of shop owners are from Iranian Azerbaijan. Because of the large influx of Azerbaijanis in these cities you have had a large number of mixed marriages over the past 100 years in Iran. Also among the 5 million diaspora Iranian communities around the world mixed marriages are rather common. Since the Iranian identity supersedes ethnic identity in Iran. That is due to the fact that Iran is perhaps one of the oldest nations in the world.

Another point is that Azerbaijani history ( North or South) is closely connected and intertwined to the history of the rest of Iran. The rise of the Safavids marks the reemergence in Iran of a powerful central authority within geographical boundaries attained by former Iranian empires ( such as Sassanid and Parthia) prior to the invasion of the Arabs. In fact when Shah Ismail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Iwho remarkably became the King of Iran at the age of 14 used to tell his army which was mainly formed of Qizilbash Turks, that his intention was to recreate the borders of the Sassanid empire. So he was quite cognizant and aware of the pre-Islamic History of Iran. "The Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp (r. 1524–76), also known as the Shahnama-yi Shahi, is arguably the most luxuriously illustrated copy of Firdausi’s epic" ever produced in the history of Persian painting (1970.301.21) was initially ordered by Shah Ismail and completed during the reign of his son Tahmaseb. It is the largest manuscript work on Shahnameh. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/shnm/hd_shnm.htm

Having said that, the importance of various Turkish groups in West Asia (Anatolia and Iran), Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc), and South Asia cannot be overstated. Turks for 1000 years represented the most organized force in Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia.

South Asia after the fall of the Gupta Dynasty had become highly fragmented and decentralized, it was only during the Mogul Empire that the idea of India reemerged. Both Pakistan and India exist today in many ways because of the Mogul dynasty legacy.

As I mentioned earlier it was really during the Safavid Empire that Iran reemerged as a cohesive, centralized nation. Azerbaijani Turkish language played a very important role during the Safavid period. Shah Ismail was not only a remarkable leader; he was a grand poet and made great contribution to the Azerbaijani language. Azerbaijani remained important language in Iranian court and military during the years. There is a video of Reza Shah with Ataturk, and in it Reza Shah speaks Azerbaijani with Ataturk. That is because Azerbaijani was spoken in the military alongside with Persian and Reza Shah was able to speak it with Ataturk.

However, since the concept of modern nations from Europe found its way to West Asia, Iran has defined itself as a Persian State and has oppressed various languages in Iran including Azerbaijani.

Unfortunately over the past 100 years Azerbaijani Language in Iran has suffered tremendously. However, I think there are forces in play that this period will be considered a low point. There is talk that Native languages along with Persian will be used in schools. In Iranian universities Kurdish and Azerbaijani Turkish are beginning to be taught.

NK19191
06-08-2017, 01:30 PM
Azeries that I know identify themselves as of being Turkish origin rather than irani.

You mean Azeris. There is no such a word Azeries.

Also I think you mean Iranian. Irani is the Persian for Iranian and it is not used in English. This is an English forum.

rafael
06-22-2017, 07:37 AM
Does anyone know that if the iranian azeri population is so major and it has several ethnic groups within the population then why is it so that so many iranian azeris do not know to which ''tribe'' of turks they belong to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_ethnic_groups

Is it just that they never have been part of any tribal association and they are rather just ''regular'' descendants of seljuqs or ''turkified'' locals? Any thoughts?? Is there any kind of ''norm'' let's say that if you are from tabriz then you are likely of qarakoyunlu origin?

Does DMXX have any knowledge to share regarding this?

DMXX
07-04-2017, 01:36 PM
Does DMXX have any knowledge to share regarding this?

Tribal identities in Iranian Azerbaijan are a regular, but non-uniform, feature. Some tribes hold genealogies going back to the Oghuz (e.g. Afshars), others are better described as tribal confederacies with a more diverse and recent background (e.g. Shahsevan's).

The dynamism of tribal identity in northwest Iran coincides with the region's Medieval history. It's quite clear to me that most Azeri Iranians do descend from ancestors (be they Medieval or recent) who belonged to some form of tribal group.

The most reasonable approach IMO is a marriage of genealogy with a speculative application of history. Your average Azeri from Tabriz who does not have an oral tradition suggesting recent tribal identity would certainly derive Turkish ancestry beginning with the first Turkoman, through to the Qaraqoyunlu and/or Aqqoyunlu.

As far as Mongolian admixture in northwest Iran or Azerbaijan goes, I doubt there's anything significant based on the historical data I'm familiar with. I suspect the overwhelming majority of our East Eurasian heritage is an accumulation of multiple Turkish waves into West Asia.
Mongol-related forces either engaged in wanton bloodshed (Taymur/Tamerlane), or the pre-existing societies voluntarily (in a sense!) submitted to the Mongols (Ögedei Khan).
The only Mongolian outpost I'm familiar with is between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (Mughan plain). If there's one place I'd suspect a Mongolian (and non-Turkish) genetic contribution, it would be in the surrounding villages. Then again, I do not profess substantial knowledge of this particular aspect of the region's history.

rafael
07-06-2017, 07:20 AM
Tribal identities in Iranian Azerbaijan are a regular, but non-uniform, feature. Some tribes hold genealogies going back to the Oghuz (e.g. Afshars), others are better described as tribal confederacies with a more diverse and recent background (e.g. Shahsevan's).

The dynamism of tribal identity in northwest Iran coincides with the region's Medieval history. It's quite clear to me that most Azeri Iranians do descend from ancestors (be they Medieval or recent) who belonged to some form of tribal group.

The most reasonable approach IMO is a marriage of genealogy with a speculative application of history. Your average Azeri from Tabriz who does not have an oral tradition suggesting recent tribal identity would certainly derive Turkish ancestry beginning with the first Turkoman, through to the Qaraqoyunlu and/or Aqqoyunlu.

As far as Mongolian admixture in northwest Iran or Azerbaijan goes, I doubt there's anything significant based on the historical data I'm familiar with. I suspect the overwhelming majority of our East Eurasian heritage is an accumulation of multiple Turkish waves into West Asia.
Mongol-related forces either engaged in wanton bloodshed (Taymur/Tamerlane), or the pre-existing societies voluntarily (in a sense!) submitted to the Mongols (Ögedei Khan).
The only Mongolian outpost I'm familiar with is between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan (Mughan plain). If there's one place I'd suspect a Mongolian (and non-Turkish) genetic contribution, it would be in the surrounding villages. Then again, I do not profess substantial knowledge of this particular aspect of the region's history.

Very informative. Thank you. I suggest that people from east Azerbaijan province would derive their turkic ancestry from qaraqoyunlu whereas sunna azeris from west would more likely derive their ancestry from aqqoyunlu.

DMXX
07-06-2017, 09:56 PM
The different sub-groups of Azeris across West Asia is a topic I've been reading quite deeply into over the past year.

After years of research, my paternal grandfather (Azeri from Khoy) came to the conclusion that our paternal ancestor was "An Iranian from outside Iran" and that they had crossed the Aras river into Iran approximately 6-7 generations ago. Evidently, they had come from the Caucasus. He managed to determine that all of our other ancestors were Azeris from Iran.

For years, I've admittedly interpreted his conclusion in a needlessly literal way. I defined "Iranian" as a linguistic unit. The only Iranic speakers from the Caucasus are the Ossetians, the Talysh, and Ezidi Kurds. Dienekes' Dodecad project confirmed I have over a standard deviation greater segment sharing with Ossetians in comparison with the Iranian average. Since 2011, that was the primary hypothesis. However, I could not identify a clear migration event leading to a southward outflow of Ossetians into the northern Zagros. The issue of integration is another one. Only 4% of Ossetians are reputedly Muslim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians#Religion)

The most parsimonious candidate for our paternal ancestor, after much reading, is one of the Azerbaijani sub-groups residing in the Caucasus. The Ayrums fit the bill in every way. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayrums) As do the Qarapapaq's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarapapaqs)
Right location, right time, no assimilation barriers, and reasonable vectors for distant genetic signals with the North Caucasus.

It would be quite something if we could test the various Azeri sub-groups and ascertain the degrees of relationship between them.

rafael
07-07-2017, 06:24 AM
The different sub-groups of Azeris across West Asia is a topic I've been reading quite deeply into over the past year.

After years of research, my paternal grandfather (Azeri from Khoy) came to the conclusion that our paternal ancestor was "An Iranian from outside Iran" and that they had crossed the Aras river into Iran approximately 6-7 generations ago. Evidently, they had come from the Caucasus. He managed to determine that all of our other ancestors were Azeris from Iran.

For years, I've admittedly interpreted his conclusion in a needlessly literal way. I defined "Iranian" as a linguistic unit. The only Iranic speakers from the Caucasus are the Ossetians, the Talysh, and Ezidi Kurds. Dienekes' Dodecad project confirmed I have over a standard deviation greater segment sharing with Ossetians in comparison with the Iranian average. Since 2011, that was the primary hypothesis. However, I could not identify a clear migration event leading to a southward outflow of Ossetians into the northern Zagros. The issue of integration is another one. Only 4% of Ossetians are reputedly Muslim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians#Religion)

The most parsimonious candidate for our paternal ancestor, after much reading, is one of the Azerbaijani sub-groups residing in the Caucasus. The Ayrums fit the bill in every way. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayrums) As do the Qarapapaq's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarapapaqs)
Right location, right time, no assimilation barriers, and reasonable vectors for distant genetic signals with the North Caucasus.

It would be quite something if we could test the various Azeri sub-groups and ascertain the degrees of relationship between them.

I would also suggest Ossetian or Talysh first when hearing Iranian ouside of Iran. It's still unclear to me do you mean that the turkic Ayrums/ Qarapapaqs fit the best as being your paternal ancestor or?? I'm just confused because he was supposed to be Iranic.

DMXX
07-07-2017, 06:51 AM
I would also suggest Ossetian or Talysh first when hearing Iranian ouside of Iran. It's still unclear to me do you mean that the turkic Ayrums/ Qarapapaqs fit the best as being your paternal ancestor or?? I'm just confused because he was supposed to be Iranic.

Yes,, my paternal grandfather might have considered Azeris as Iranian in this context; he was very well-versed with our ethnic group's history (a former headmaster with numerous books in his study from what I remember). The Iranian state as we know it was formed by the Safavids and Azeris have been irreplaceable in the development of the modern Iranian identity. In that sense, Azeris are as "Iranian" as Persians are.

He is no longer with us, so pinpointing his precise meaning at this stage is impossible, unfortunately.

rafael
07-07-2017, 07:17 AM
Yes,, my paternal grandfather might have considered Azeris as Iranian in this context; he was very well-versed with our ethnic group's history (a former headmaster with numerous books in his study from what I remember). The Iranian state as we know it was formed by the Safavids and Azeris have been irreplaceable in the development of the modern Iranian identity. In that sense, Azeris are as "Iranian" as Persians are.

He is no longer with us, so pinpointing his precise meaning at this stage is impossible, unfortunately.

Yeah now it makes sense to me. Yes it is indeed sad that we can no longer ask the opinion of those who are no longer with us especially when they knew something that we have an great interest in knowing. Do you have any information on native bakuvian azeris? Being native bakuvian seems to be somewhat taboo in Azerbaijan. I don't know though if it's the same thing accross the globe. For example being a ''Tehrani'' or ''New Yorker'' makes you somehow have an higher status in society.

I'm only interested in the origins of native bakuvians because Baku has had a diverse past concerning different ethnicities. It has had arabs, khazars, lezgins, jews, armenians, talysh, tatars and of course modern azeri turks. According to wikipedia :

''Today the vast majority of the population of Baku are ethnic Azerbaijanis (more than 90%). When Baku was occupied by the Russian troops during the war of 1804–13, nearly the entire population of some 8,000 people was ethnic Tat. ''

It's probably quite possible that at least some kipchak turks residing in Baku were ''oghuzfied'' and became modern azeris. But I can't imagine this happening with armenians , arabs, tatars or with the jews.

Does Caspian have any knowledge to share regarding this?