PDA

View Full Version : Geography of Iran



NK19191
03-03-2013, 05:38 PM
To understand Iran, you must begin by understanding how large it is. Iran is the 17th largest country in world. It measures 1,684,000 square kilometers. That means that its territory is larger than the combined territories of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal - Western Europe. Iran is the 16th most populous country in the world, with about 75 million people. Its population is larger than the populations of either France or the United Kingdom.


Under the current circumstances, it might be useful to benchmark Iran against Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq is 433,000 square kilometers, with about 25 million people, so Iran is roughly four times as large and three times as populous. Afghanistan is about 652,000 square kilometers, with a population of about 30 million. One way to look at it is that Iran is 68 percent larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with 40 percent more population.

More important are its topographical barriers. Iran is defined, above all, by its mountains, which form its frontiers, enfold its cities and describe its historical heartland. To understand Iran, you must understand not only how large it is but also how mountainous it is.


http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_a.jpg


Iran's most important mountains are the Zagros. They are a southern extension of the Caucasus, running about 900 miles from the northwestern border of Iran, which adjoins Turkey and Armenia, southeast toward Bandar Abbas on the Strait of Hormuz. The first 150 miles of Iran's western border is shared with Turkey. It is intensely mountainous on both sides. South of Turkey, the mountains on the western side of the border begin to diminish until they disappear altogether on the Iraqi side. From this point onward, south of the Kurdish regions, the land on the Iraqi side is increasingly flat, part of the Tigris-Euphrates basin. The Iranian side of the border is mountainous, beginning just a few miles east of the border. Iran has a mountainous border with Turkey, but mountains face a flat plain along the Iraq border. This is the historical frontier between Persia - the name of Iran until the early 20th century - and Mesopotamia ("land between two rivers"), as southern Iraq is called.


The one region of the western border that does not adhere to this model is in the extreme south, in the swamps where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers join to form the Shatt al-Arab waterway. There the Zagros swing southeast, and the southern border between Iran and Iraq zigzags south to the Shatt al-Arab, which flows south 125 miles through flat terrain to the Persian Gulf. To the east is the Iranian province of Khuzestan, populated by ethnic Arabs, not Persians. Given the swampy nature of the ground, it can be easily defended and gives Iran a buffer against any force from the west seeking to move along the coastal plain of Iran on the Persian Gulf.


Running east along the Caspian Sea are the Elburz Mountains, which serve as a mountain bridge between the Caucasus-Zagros range and Afghan mountains that eventually culminate in the Hindu Kush. The Elburz run along the southern coast of the Caspian to the Afghan border, buffering the Karakum Desert in Turkmenistan. Mountains of lesser elevations then swing down along the Afghan and Pakistani borders, almost to the Arabian Sea.


Iran has about 800 miles of coastline, roughly half along the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf, the rest along the Gulf of Oman. Its most important port, Bandar Abbas, is located on the Strait of Hormuz. There are no equivalent ports along the Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz is extremely vulnerable to interdiction. Therefore, Iran is not a major maritime or naval power. It is and always has been a land power.


The center of Iran consists of two desert plateaus that are virtually uninhabited and uninhabitable. These are the Dasht-e Kavir, which stretches from Qom in the northwest nearly to the Afghan border, and the Dasht-e Lut, which extends south to Balochistan. The Dasht-e Kavir consists of a layer of salt covering thick mud, and it is easy to break through the salt layer and drown in the mud. It is one of the most miserable places on earth.


Iran's population is concentrated in its mountains, not in its lowlands, as with other countries. That's because its lowlands, with the exception of the southwest and the southeast (regions populated by non-Persians), are uninhabitable. Iran is a nation of 75 million mountain dwellers. Even its biggest city, Tehran, is in the foothills of towering mountains. Its population is in a belt stretching through the Zagros and Elbroz mountains on a line running from the eastern shore of the Caspian to the Strait of Hormuz. There is a secondary concentration of people to the northeast, centered on Mashhad. The rest of the country is lightly inhabited and almost impassable because of the salt-mud flats.



http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_b.jpg


If you look carefully at a map of Iran, you can see that the western part of the country - the Zagros Mountains - is actually a land bridge for southern Asia. It is the only path between the Persian Gulf in the south and the Caspian Sea in the north. Iran is the route connecting the Indian subcontinent to the Mediterranean Sea. But because of its size and geography, Iran is not a country that can be easily traversed, much less conquered.

http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_c.jpg

The location of Iran's oil fields is critical here, since oil remains its most important and most strategic export. Oil is to be found in three locations: The southwest is the major region, with lesser deposits along the Iraqi border in the north and one near Qom. The southwestern oil fields are an extension of the geological formation that created the oil fields in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Hence, the region east of the Shatt al-Arab is of critical importance to Iran. Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world and is the world's fourth largest producer. Therefore, one would expect it to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It isn't.

http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_d.jpg

Iran has the 28th largest economy in the world but ranks only 71st in per capita gross domestic product (as expressed in purchasing power). It ranks with countries like Belarus or Panama. Part of the reason is inefficiencies in the Iranian oil industry, the result of government policies. But there is a deeper geographic problem. Iran has a huge population mostly located in rugged mountains. Mountainous regions are rarely prosperous. The cost of transportation makes the development of industry difficult. Sparsely populated mountain regions are generally poor. Heavily populated mountain regions, when they exist, are much poorer.

Iran's geography and large population make substantial improvements in its economic life difficult. Unlike underpopulated and less geographically challenged countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iran cannot enjoy any shift in the underlying weakness of its economy brought on by higher oil prices and more production. The absence of inhabitable plains means that any industrial plant must develop in regions where the cost of infrastructure tends to undermine the benefits. Oil keeps Iran from sinking even deeper, but it alone cannot catapult Iran out of its condition.

NK19191
03-03-2013, 05:38 PM
The Broad Outline

Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its center, Iran is extremely difficult to conquer. This was achieved once by the Mongols, who entered the country from the northeast. The Ottomans penetrated the Zagros Mountains and went northeast as far as the Caspian but made no attempt to move into the Persian heartland.

Iran is a mountainous country looking for inhabitable plains. There are none to the north, only more mountains and desert, or to the east, where Afghanistan's infrastructure is no more inviting. To the south there is only ocean. What plains there are in the region lie to the west, in modern-day Iraq and historical Mesopotamia and Babylon. If Iran could dominate these plains, and combine them with its own population, they would be the foundation of Iranian power.

Indeed, these plains were the foundation of the Persian Empire. The Persians originated in the Zagros Mountains as a warrior people. They built an empire by conquering the plains in the Tigris and Euphrates basin. They did this slowly, over an extended period at a time when there were no demarcated borders and they faced little resistance to the west. While it was difficult for a lowland people to attack through mountains, it was easier for a mountain-based people to descend to the plains. This combination of population and fertile plains allowed the Persians to expand.

http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_e.jpg

Iran's attacking north or northwest into the Caucasus is impossible in force. The Russians, Turks and Iranians all ground to a halt along the current line in the 19th century; the country is so rugged that movement could be measured in yards rather than miles. Iran could attack northeast into Turkmenistan, but the land there is flat and brutal desert. The Iranians could move east into Afghanistan, but this would involve more mountain fighting for land of equally questionable value. Attacking west, into the Tigris and Euphrates river basin, and then moving to the Mediterranean, would seem doable. This was the path the Persians took when they created their empire and pushed all the way to Greece and Egypt.


In terms of expansion, the problem for Iran is its mountains. They are as effective a container as they are a defensive bulwark. Supporting an attacking force requires logistics, and pushing supplies through the Zagros in any great numbers is impossible. Unless the Persians can occupy and exploit Iraq, further expansion is impossible. In order to exploit Iraq, Iran needs a high degree of active cooperation from Iraqis. Otherwise, rather than converting Iraq's wealth into political and military power, the Iranians would succeed only in being bogged down in pacifying the Iraqis.

In order to move west, Iran would require the active cooperation of conquered nations. Any offensive will break down because of the challenges posed by the mountains in moving supplies. This is why the Persians created the type of empire they did. They allowed conquered nations a great deal of autonomy, respected their culture and made certain that these nations benefited from the Persian imperial system. Once they left the Zagros, the Persians could not afford to pacify an empire. They needed the wealth at minimal cost. And this has been the limit on Persian/Iranian power ever since. Recreating a relationship with the inhabitants of the Tigris and Euphrates basin - today's Iraq - is enormously difficult. Indeed, throughout most of history, the domination of the plains by Iran has been impossible. Other imperial powers - Alexandrian Greece, Rome, the Byzantines, Ottomans, British and Americans - have either seized the plains themselves or used them as a neutral buffer against the Persians.

Underlying the external problems of Iran is a severe internal problem. Mountains allow nations to protect themselves. Completely eradicating a culture is difficult. Therefore, most mountain regions of the world contain large numbers of national and ethnic groups that retain their own characteristics. This is commonplace in all mountainous regions. These groups resist absorption and annihilation. Although a Muslim state with a population that is 55 to 60 percent ethnically Persian, Iran is divided into a large number of ethnic groups. It is also divided between the vastly dominant Shia and the minority Sunnis, who are clustered in three areas of the country - the northeast, the northwest and the southeast. Any foreign power interested in Iran will use these ethnoreligious groups to create allies in Iran to undermine the power of the central government.

http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mauldin/10837_f.jpg

Jean M
03-14-2013, 06:38 PM
Iran completes first phase of mapping of archaeological sites (http://www.tehrantimes.com/arts-and-culture/106182-iran-completes-first-phase-of-mapping-of-archaeological-sites) 05 March 2013.


The first phase of the project to map all of Iran’s archaeological sites has been completed by a team of experts. The map was unveiled during a ceremony at the Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts Organization (CHTHO) in Tehran on Monday. A total of 45,000 archaeological sites appear on the map, team director Abbas Moqaddam said at the ceremony.

alan
06-04-2013, 05:10 PM
That sound pretty cool Jean. Will be interesting.

newtoboard
06-04-2013, 07:04 PM
From what I have read Khuzestan is about 60% Iranic speakers and 40% Arabs. Where did you get that it is entirely Arabs who arrived there maybe 500 years ago or so?

And Semnani is not on the maps either for some weird reason. I thought there area between Urmia and Van was flat and this is where the kingdom of Matiene was centered on. Despite the mountains Iranian groups have expanded north into Azerbaijan (the ancient Cadussii -likely the ancestors of Talysh) supposedly occupied the Caspian coastline from Gilan to Baku and Kurdish expansion to the West occured too( with some saying the kingdoms of Corduene, Commangene and Sophene correspond to these movements). Mountains aren't the barrier they are hyped up to be. That is why their are Krgyz in the Pamris and Tibetans in NW India when neither of those groups is native there.

Its a good thing that Iran's population is concentrated in the West of the country. I imagine the expansive Indo-Gagentic plains would have been on the agenda of Persian emperors otherwise.

NK19191
06-08-2013, 09:16 PM
From what I have read Khuzestan is about 60% Iranic speakers and 40% Arabs. Where did you get that it is entirely Arabs who arrived there maybe 500 years ago or so?

And Semnani is not on the maps either for some weird reason. I thought there area between Urmia and Van was flat and this is where the kingdom of Matiene was centered on. Despite the mountains Iranian groups have expanded north into Azerbaijan (the ancient Cadussii -likely the ancestors of Talysh) supposedly occupied the Caspian coastline from Gilan to Baku and Kurdish expansion to the West occured too( with some saying the kingdoms of Corduene, Commangene and Sophene correspond to these movements). Mountains aren't the barrier they are hyped up to be. That is why their are Krgyz in the Pamris and Tibetans in NW India when neither of those groups is native there.

Its a good thing that Iran's population is concentrated in the West of the country. I imagine the expansive Indo-Gagentic plains would have been on the agenda of Persian emperors otherwise.

Northern Khuzestan is mountainous and historically has consisted primarily of Luris and Persians; however, the Plains and swap regions of the Province have been mostly Arab speaking. There is historical connection between Iranian Arabs and Mesopotamia Arabs and some of the Arabs of Iran did arrive in Iran over the past 500 years from Iraq; however, Arabs have been in Iran even prior to Islamic conquest of Iran.

There has also been a huge influx of Iranians from other part of Iran over the past 70 years into Khuzestan, since most of the Oil industry is concentrated in that Province. Furthermore, you are correct today Arab speaking Iranians are a minority in Khuzestan, and cross ethnic marriages do occur in the larger cities like Ahwaz between various ethnic groups.

Matiene is in the NW of Iran ( Present day Iranian West Azerbaijan and Kurdish Region). Semann is Between Khorassan Region and Tehran in NE Iran. So Semnan could NOT have been the Region. Lake Uremia is in West Azerbaijan Province and Van is in Eastern Turkey.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Fenner%2C_Rest._Persis%2C_Parthia%2C_Armenia._1835 _%28A%29.jpg

according to wikipedia:

Their kingdom was situated east and south of the Lake Urmia, roughly centered around the Mahabad plain in the predominant Kurdish part of what's today are named as "Azerbaijan region of Iran".[1] Excavations that began in 1956 succeeded in uncovering the fortified city of Hasanlu, once thought to be a potential Mannaean site. More recently, the site of Qalaichi (possibly ancient Izirtu/Zirta) has been linked to the Mannaeans based on a stela with this toponym found at the site.
After suffering several defeats at the hands of both Scythians and Assyrians, the remnants of the Mannaean populace were absorbed by an Iranic people known as the Matieni and the area became known as Matiene.[2][3] It was then annexed by the Medes in about 609 BC.

According to the Encyclopædia Iranica:[4]
“It is unlikely that there was any ethnolinguistic unity in Mannea. Like other peoples of the Iranian plateau, the Manneans were subjected to an ever increasing Iranian (i.e. Indo-European) penetration. Boehmer's analysis of several anthroponyms and toponyms needs modification and augmentation. Melikishvili (1949, p. 60) tried to confine the Iranian presence in Mannea to its periphery, pointing out that both Daiukku (cf. Schmitt, 1973) and Bagdatti were active in the periphery of Mannea, but this is imprecise, in view of the fact that the names of two early Mannean rulers, viz. Udaki and Azā, are explicable in Old Iranian terms."

Jean M
06-08-2013, 09:25 PM
Two papers online in full:

http://soi.cnr.it/archcalc/indice/PDF20/20_Niknami.pdf
K.A. Niknami, A.C. Amirkhiz, F.F. Jalali, SPATIAL PATTERN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DISTRIBUTIONS ON THE EASTERN SHORES OF LAKE URMIA, NORTHWESTERN IRAN, Archeologia e Calcolatori, 20 (2009), 261-276.

http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/Helwing%202005.pdf
Massoud Azarnoush and Barbara Helwing, Recent archaeological research in Iran – Prehistory to Iron Age, AMIT Band 37/2.

This one has useful maps showing sites of different periods: Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age.

newtoboard
06-08-2013, 11:12 PM
Northern Khuzestan is mountainous and historically has consisted primarily of Luris and Persians; however, the Plains and swap regions of the Province have been mostly Arab speaking. There is historical connection between Iranian Arabs and Mesopotamia Arabs and some of the Arabs of Iran did arrive in Iran over the past 500 years from Iraq; however, Arabs have been in Iran even prior to Islamic conquest of Iran.

There has also been a huge influx of Iranians from other part of Iran over the past 70 years into Khuzestan, since most of the Oil industry is concentrated in that Province. Furthermore, you are correct today Arab speaking Iranians are a minority in Khuzestan, and cross ethnic marriages do occur in the larger cities like Ahwaz between various ethnic groups.

Matiene is in the NW of Iran ( Present day Iranian West Azerbaijan and Kurdish Region). Semann is Between Khorassan Region and Tehran in NE Iran. So Semnan could NOT have been the Region. Lake Uremia is in West Azerbaijan Province and Van is in Eastern Turkey.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Fenner%2C_Rest._Persis%2C_Parthia%2C_Armenia._1835 _%28A%29.jpg

according to wikipedia:

Their kingdom was situated east and south of the Lake Urmia, roughly centered around the Mahabad plain in the predominant Kurdish part of what's today are named as "Azerbaijan region of Iran".[1] Excavations that began in 1956 succeeded in uncovering the fortified city of Hasanlu, once thought to be a potential Mannaean site. More recently, the site of Qalaichi (possibly ancient Izirtu/Zirta) has been linked to the Mannaeans based on a stela with this toponym found at the site.
After suffering several defeats at the hands of both Scythians and Assyrians, the remnants of the Mannaean populace were absorbed by an Iranic people known as the Matieni and the area became known as Matiene.[2][3] It was then annexed by the Medes in about 609 BC.

According to the Encyclopædia Iranica:[4]
“It is unlikely that there was any ethnolinguistic unity in Mannea. Like other peoples of the Iranian plateau, the Manneans were subjected to an ever increasing Iranian (i.e. Indo-European) penetration. Boehmer's analysis of several anthroponyms and toponyms needs modification and augmentation. Melikishvili (1949, p. 60) tried to confine the Iranian presence in Mannea to its periphery, pointing out that both Daiukku (cf. Schmitt, 1973) and Bagdatti were active in the periphery of Mannea, but this is imprecise, in view of the fact that the names of two early Mannean rulers, viz. Udaki and Azā, are explicable in Old Iranian terms."

Yes but historically it has been Iranian(and Elamite before) even in its lower parts. My point was the the Iranians absorbed the Elamites not Arabs. You often see people advocating that and it seems silly. Same way the Iranians expanded to the Bahrain. Plenty of movement occurred in the Middle East.

The Semnani point was unrelated to the rest of the conversation. My apologizes for not seperating it.

I think you posted the entry for Mannaeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannae

I was referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matiene

NK19191
06-09-2013, 12:36 PM
Yes but historically it has been Iranian(and Elamite before) even in its lower parts. My point was the the Iranians absorbed the Elamites not Arabs. You often see people advocating that and it seems silly. Same way the Iranians expanded to the Bahrain. Plenty of movement occurred in the Middle East.

The Semnani point was unrelated to the rest of the conversation. My apologizes for not seperating it.

I think you posted the entry for Mannaeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannae

I was referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matiene


Yes, Khuzestan is Iranian. Saddam found that out when he waged a war in early 1980s, thinking that Iranian Arabs would see him as a liberator. He was viewed as an Invader. I think Arab Iranians from Khuzestan are probably a combination of Elamites and Arab tribes who at different times moved into the Area. The language change must have occurred through a process of Elite Dominance. May be DMXX or Yourself can interject here, and verify this. But I would think Elamites were absorbed by both Persian and Arab Iranians, and their language must have disappeared through the process of Elite Dominance.

Iranian Plateau is a geographic Land-bridge. Iran connects Anatolian Plateau, Central Asian Steppe, Arabian Peninsula, and South Asia. It is the only country in the region that is part of all four Regions. Iran is part of MID-East, South Asia, Caucasus, and Central Asia.

So Iran has played a role historically in all these Regions, because these region are connected to each-other through Iran. The blessing of Iran's Geography is that From time to time Iran has been able to establish an Empire of Importance and influence these regions.

However, the negative part of Iran's geography is that Iran is extremely diverse , Iran has never had a uniform society (with regards to its ethnic, linguistic and religious identity) and in periods of time in which these people have been incorporated into a close-knit community there have been great cultural achievements. Iran is one of the most diverse countries in the world.

newtoboard
06-09-2013, 02:41 PM
Yes, Khuzestan is Iranian. Saddam found that out when he waged a war in early 1980s, thinking that Iranian Arabs would see him as a liberator. He was viewed as an Invader. I think Arab Iranians from Khuzestan are probably a combination of Elamites and Arab tribes who at different times moved into the Area. The language change must have occurred through a process of Elite Dominance. May be DMXX or Yourself can interject here, and verify this. But I would think Elamites were absorbed by both Persian and Arab Iranians, and their language must have disappeared through the process of Elite Dominance.

Iranian Plateau is a geographic Land-bridge. Iran connects Anatolian Plateau, Central Asian Steppe, Arabian Peninsula, and South Asia. It is the only country in the region that is part of all four Regions. Iran is part of MID-East, South Asia, Caucasus, and Central Asia.

So Iran has played a role historically in all these Regions, because these region are connected to each-other through Iran. The blessing of Iran's Geography is that From time to time Iran has been able to establish an Empire of Importance and influence these regions.

However, the negative part of Iran's geography is that Iran is extremely diverse , Iran has never had a uniform society (with regards to its ethnic, linguistic and religious identity) and in periods of time in which these people have been incorporated into a close-knit community there have been great cultural achievements. Iran is one of the most diverse countries in the world.

I believe the Anatolian plateau starts west of the Euphrates and Iranian is surrounded by Upper Mesopotamia and the Armenian highland.

What about during the empire of the Medes? Language would have unified the plateau and the lack of Arabs, Turks and Africans makes it pretty close to uniform.

Alanson
03-06-2014, 06:35 AM
Yes, Khuzestan is Iranian. Saddam found that out when he waged a war in early 1980s, thinking that Iranian Arabs would see him as a liberator. He was viewed as an Invader. I think Arab Iranians from Khuzestan are probably a combination of Elamites and Arab tribes who at different times moved into the Area. The language change must have occurred through a process of Elite Dominance. May be DMXX or Yourself can interject here, and verify this. But I would think Elamites were absorbed by both Persian and Arab Iranians, and their language must have disappeared through the process of Elite Dominance.


According to an old study the Ahwazi Arabs were not much different genetically from their Iranian neighbours, though this old study might prove to be wrong. I think autosomally speaking they might be Bedouin-Iranic mixes or mostly Iranic with little Arab admix. As for the politics it's complex I don't want to get into it since this not the correct thread.


Genetic study of Ahwazi Arabs and how they relate to their neighbours:

Close genetic relationship between Semitic-speaking and Indo-European-speaking groups in Iran.

As part of a continuing investigation of the extent to which the genetic and linguistic relationships of populations are correlated, we analyzed mtDNA HV1 sequences, eleven Y chromosome bi-allelic markers, and 9 Y-STR loci in two neighboring groups from the southwest of Iran who speak languages belonging to different families: Indo-European-speaking Bakhtiari, and Semitic-speaking Arabs. Both mtDNA and the Y chromosome, showed a close relatedness of these groups with each other and with neighboring geographic groups, irrespective of the language spoken. Moreover, Semitic-speaking North African groups are more distant genetically from Semitic-speaking groups from the Near East and Iran. Thus, geographical proximity better explains genetic relatedness between populations than does linguistic relatedness in this part of the world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18205892

NK19191
03-06-2014, 01:03 PM
According to an old study the Ahwazi Arabs were not much different genetically from their Iranian neighbours, though this old study might prove to be wrong. I think autosomally speaking they might be Bedouin-Iranic mixes or mostly Iranic with little Arab admix. As for the politics it's complex I don't want to get into it since this not the correct thread.


Genetic study of Ahwazi Arabs and how they relate to their neighbours:

Close genetic relationship between Semitic-speaking and Indo-European-speaking groups in Iran.

As part of a continuing investigation of the extent to which the genetic and linguistic relationships of populations are correlated, we analyzed mtDNA HV1 sequences, eleven Y chromosome bi-allelic markers, and 9 Y-STR loci in two neighboring groups from the southwest of Iran who speak languages belonging to different families: Indo-European-speaking Bakhtiari, and Semitic-speaking Arabs. Both mtDNA and the Y chromosome, showed a close relatedness of these groups with each other and with neighboring geographic groups, irrespective of the language spoken. Moreover, Semitic-speaking North African groups are more distant genetically from Semitic-speaking groups from the Near East and Iran. Thus, geographical proximity better explains genetic relatedness between populations than does linguistic relatedness in this part of the world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18205892

Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting because I have seen the DNA results of two friends who have Luri (Khuzi) Ancestry and they both have much higher East-Med and less Caucasus admixtures than I do.They seems to be closer to Mesopotamians. Also their single sharing population results they tend to have a closer genetic distance to other West Asian than I do. It would make sense geographically. But I don't know how typical their results are. It may reflect their Elamite input and it could be the Elamite admixture in both Bakhtiari and SW Iranian-Arabs that connects them.

However, Khuzestan was originally the land of Elams.


French archeologists such as Jaques De Morgan date the civilization here as far back as 8000 BCE when excavating areas such as Tal-e Ali Kosh. The first large scale empire based here was that of the powerful 4th millennium BCE Elamites, a non-Semitic kingdom independent of Mesopotamia. Archeological ruins verify the entire province of Khuzestan to be home to the Elamite civilization.


The intellectual center or city of Sassanid Empire was Jondishapour (or Gundishapur inKhuzestan), founded in 271 CE, by Shapur I, one the most powerful rulers of the Sassanid dynasty, in Khuzestan near Ahvaz and not far from the Karun River. Gundishapur was home to the world's oldest known teaching hospital, and also comprised a library and a university. According to "The Cambridge History of Iran (vol 4, p396.)", it was the most important medical center of the ancient world (defined as Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East) during the 6th and 7th centuries. Jondishapour medical center was the Mecca of its time, and used to attract the distinguished medical scientists from Greece, Egypt, India, and Rome, shows the importance and prosperity of this region during ancient times. Jondishapour (or Gundishapur) Academy offered training not only in medicine but also in philosophy, theology and science. The faculties were versed not only in the Zoroastrian and Persian traditions, but in Greek and Indian learning as well.

Furthermore, the Arab presence in Iran is ancient and it predates Islam Itself.


Some historians maintain that the first Arabian tribes migrated to Khuzistan, a section in south-west of Iran where they now live, in the early centuries AD, probably moving in from the Arabian peninsula. Arabian tribes are scattered in an areas between the Arvandroud( Shatt al-Arab) and the Persian Gulf in the south and Shush in the north. Their territory is located to the west of the Bakhtiyari territory , and some of them even mingle with the Bakhtiyari tribe. The most important of the Arabian tribes in Iran is the Bani-Kaab, which is also the largest. Its numerous clans inhabit the Minoo Island, Khorramshahr, Shadegan on both sides of the Karun river, up to around Ahwaz to the north. The House of Kassir people are inhabitants of the city of Ahwaz, west and south of Dezful river and between the Dezful and Shushtar rivers. Other are: Bani-Lam, Bani-Saleh, Bani-Torof, Bani-Tamim, Bani-Marvan, Al-Khamiss, Bavi and Kenane.

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Arabs


Sampling NRY diversity, it was found that the Y-DNA haplogroups F and J2 are carried at very high frequency among the Iranian Arabs - those two markers alone accounting for over half of Iranian Arab haplogroups.[8] This high ratio of haplogroup F, in particular, relates them, in a genetic sense, to peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean and of the Barbary Coast, while an elevated frequency of haplogroup J-M172 is typical of Near Eastern peoples and reflective of the genetic legacy of early agriculturalists in, and their diffusion from, the Neolithic Near East c. 8000-4000 BCE.[9][10][11] Haplogroup R1a1, and R1, typical of Indo-Iranian groups, is also important, occurring in over 11% of the sample; haplogroup G is present in over 5%.

Examples of Arabs in Khuzestan Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof (Journalist and Human Rights Activist) (He is from Bani-Torof Tribe)

http://faryadjenob.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/041.jpg

Hossien Kaebi (Football Player) ( He is from Bani Kaab Tribe)

http://football.ir/media/1391/10/w4/kaabi33-502x350.jpg

newtoboard
03-06-2014, 01:32 PM
It would be interesting if they went back and did the study again. Because such a high frequency of F is likely imo.

Alanson
03-06-2014, 10:13 PM
Yes from what I recall the Ahwazis claim to descent from Elamites and Arabs, however I don't know if the Elamites existed when the Arabs came to Iran, it well known there has always been Arabs in Iran long before the rise of Islam, and that the Persians have interacted quite a lot with the Arabs of Iraq and Arabia itself. Some Arab tribes even adopted the faith of the Zoroastrianism like the Bani Tamim. What is interesting the Bani-Torof are actually related to the Shammar and Bani Lam. The Shammar, Bani Lam and Bani-Torof are all Tayy tribes. The Shammar have very high levels of Y-R1a1 well the Bani Lam are mostly J1e , so it would be interesting to see what the Bani-Torof Y-lineages are. The fellow does look more Iranian than he does look Arabian, the activist, but the second guy Kaabi actually looks Arabian and his tribe is actually of Bedouin origins that migrated to Iran in the 15th century. The Banu Kaab are from the Amirid Bedouin confederation. The Amirid tribes consisted of Banu Numyar who settled in Western Iraq, Syria and parts of Anatolia, the Banu Kaab one of the largest tribes which itself has spawned several off shoots such as the Uqyal, Khafja, Ubadah, Al-Muntifaq, and Jubur. Another and perhaps most famous of these Bedouin Amirid tribes are the Banu Hilal who conquered North Africa in the 11th century.

What is interesting that the Banu Amirid and their tribal divisions have always had a Shia tendency which the exception of the Nuymar.

Humanist
03-07-2014, 12:05 AM
[I]t [is] well known there has always been Arabs in Iran long before the rise of Islam...

Is it really?

Alanson
03-07-2014, 05:09 AM
Is it really?

To the average person no, to a historian of the region certainly.

NK19191
03-07-2014, 01:58 PM
Yes from what I recall the Ahwazis claim to descent from Elamites and Arabs, however I don't know if the Elamites existed when the Arabs came to Iran, it well known there has always been Arabs in Iran long before the rise of Islam, and that the Persians have interacted quite a lot with the Arabs of Iraq and Arabia itself. Some Arab tribes even adopted the faith of the Zoroastrianism like the Bani Tamim. What is interesting the Bani-Torof are actually related to the Shammar and Bani Lam. The Shammar, Bani Lam and Bani-Torof are all Tayy tribes. The Shammar have very high levels of Y-R1a1 well the Bani Lam are mostly J1e , so it would be interesting to see what the Bani-Torof Y-lineages are. The fellow does look more Iranian than he does look Arabian, the activist, but the second guy Kaabi actually looks Arabian and his tribe is actually of Bedouin origins that migrated to Iran in the 15th century. The Banu Kaab are from the Amirid Bedouin confederation. The Amirid tribes consisted of Banu Numyar who settled in Western Iraq, Syria and parts of Anatolia, the Banu Kaab one of the largest tribes which itself has spawned several off shoots such as the Uqyal, Khafja, Ubadah, Al-Muntifaq, and Jubur. Another and perhaps most famous of these Bedouin Amirid tribes are the Banu Hilal who conquered North Africa in the 11th century.

What is interesting that the Banu Amirid and their tribal divisions have always had a Shia tendency which the exception of the Nuymar.


Yes, Not only in Khuzestan there was Several contacts between the Iranians and the Arabs, in addition, in Persian Gulf and in places like Bahrain and Arabian Peninsula itself.


Herodotus (3.5) relates how in the 6th century B.C. the Achaemenid Cambyses marched against Egypt through northern Arabia after making a transit agreement with the local Arab ruler, probably one of the kings of Leḥīān in the northern Ḥeǰāz and how in the following century Xerxes employed camel-mounted Arab archers in his forces.


During the early years of the reign of Šāpūr II (A.D. 309 or 310-79), Arabs crossed the Gulf from Bahrain to the Ardašīr-ḵorra littoral of Fārs and raided the interior. In retaliation, Šāpūr led an expedition through Bahrain, defeated the combined forces of the Arab tribes of Tamīm, Bakr b. Wāʾel, and ʿAbd-al-Qays, and advanced temporarily into Yamāma in Central Naǰd

Also elamite language was still present during the Islamic conquest of Iran. From Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam#Language


The Elamite language may have survived as late as the early Islamic period. Ibn al-Nadim among other Islamic medieval historians, for instance, wrote that "The Iranian languages are Fahlavi (Pahlavi), Dari, Khuzi, Persian and Suryani (Assyrian)", and Ibn Moqaffa noted that Khuzi was the unofficial language of the royalty of Persia, "Khuz" being the corrupted name for Elam.

From Iranicaonline http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arab-iii


Arab settlements in Iran proliferated after the wars of conquest that destroyed the Sasanian empire. Though it is difficult to trace accurately their extent and development, they certainly were critical in making the effects of the conquest long term rather than transient and in facilitating the symbiosis of Iranian and Arab cultures within a mutual Islamic context.


the term “Arabs” did not denote only the desert tribesmen and peoples of the remoter areas of the Arabian peninsula. It must also be understood to include a number of Arabic-speaking sedentary or semi-nomadic people living within or in near proximity to the two major pre-Islamic empires of the Middle East.


this Arab presence in Iran clearly did not begin with the Arab destruction of the Sasanian empire. For centuries, Iranian rulers had maintained contacts with Arabs outside their borders, dealt with Arab subjects and client states in Iraq, and settled Arab tribesmen in various parts of the Iranian plateau.


it follows that the “Arab” conquests and settlements were by no means the exclusive work of Arabs from the Ḥeǰāz and the tribesmen of inner Arabia. The Arab infiltration into Iran began before the Muslim conquests and continued as a result of the joint exertions of the civilized Arabs (ahl al-madar) as well is the desert Arabs (ahl al-wabar).

newtoboard
03-07-2014, 02:02 PM
These are really well written and interesting. I never thought abut how much geography influenced history. You should post these for other nations if you have them.

NK19191
03-07-2014, 02:04 PM
Is it really?

I think before Islam, Arabs in general played a secondary role in Middle east. I agree with your assertion that their presence in Iran before Islam is not well known. I also think their numbers may not have been that significant in Iran. It is after the Advent of Islam that Arabs played a Primary role in the Middle East for the next several centuries.

the SUN child
03-07-2014, 02:24 PM
Before Islam there was no Arab nation at all, but Semitic speaking tribes in Arabia!

Islam = Arabian (Semitic) nationalism


http://www.worldology.com/Iraq/images/semitic_people.jpg

Tomasso29
03-07-2014, 02:28 PM
Before Islam there was no Arab nation at all, but Semitic speaking tribes in Arabia!

Islam = Arabian (Semitic) nationalism


http://www.worldology.com/Iraq/images/semitic_people.jpg

That map is pretty bogus, there was no such thing as Assyrian people that migrated out of Arabia. Assyrians were first created in Northern Mesopotamia (Modern North Iraq).

Also the origin of the Semitic languages is debated and may very well not even be from Arabia.

NK19191
03-07-2014, 02:46 PM
These are really well written and interesting. I never thought abut how much geography influenced history. You should post these for other nations if you have them.

I do have them for a number of other countries. i think so far I have done this for China, Iran and Syria.

the SUN child
03-07-2014, 02:49 PM
Assyrians were first created in Northern Mesopotamia (Modern North Iraq).The Sumerians were the first founders of the Mesopotamian Civilization. Actually the Sumerians are the cradle of all human civilization. Sumerians predate ancient Assyrians by thousands of years.

Tomasso29
03-07-2014, 02:57 PM
The Sumerians were the first founders of the Mesopotamian Civilization. Actually the Sumerians are the cradle of all human civilization. Sumerians predate ancient Assyrians by thousands of years.

This has nothing to do with Sumerians. I'm just saying that the Assyrian people first appeared in North Mesopotamia, not in Arabia.

the SUN child
03-07-2014, 03:04 PM
We all know that ancient Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians, due to the language they spoke. And Akkadians came from Arabia. Semitc languages are from the South, originally around the Red Sea.

Akkadians mixed with natives (Sumerians) in Northern Mesopotamia and evolved into ancient Assyrians. So while it's true that ancient Assyrian race evolved in Northern Mesopotamia, their true direct ancestors by culture and language were Akkadians and who came from Arabia. With other words ancient Assyrians were ALREADY mixed, mostly Akkadians with some Sumerians...

Tomasso29
03-07-2014, 03:19 PM
We all know that ancient Assyrians were descendants of the Akkadians, due to the language they spoke. And Akkadians came from Arabia. Semitc languages are from the South, originally around the Red Sea.

There's no evidence that the Akkadians came from Arabia. The earliest records of Akkadians comes from Central Mesopotamia, not Arabia. They may have very well arrived from the Levant instead considering that most of the Semitic speakers that came to Mesopotamia with the exception of Arabs came from the Levant, not Arabia.


Akkadians mixed with natives (Sumerians) in Northern Mesopotamia and evolved into ancient Assyrians. So while it's true that ancient Assyrian race evolved in Northern Mesopotamia, their true direct ancestors by culture and language were Akkadians and who came from Arabia. With other words ancient Assyrians were ALREADY mixed, mostly Akkadians with some Sumerians...

The culture of ancient Assyria is Mesopotamian, not Arabian. With the exception of language, all the other things like religion, art, feasts, and the culture in general had more in common with the Sumerians rather than the ancient Arabs. Also there's no such thing as an Assyrian race, it's the human race. If you're thinking of ethnicity, even that did't exist. The ancient Assyrians were a mix of Semitic speakers (Akkadians and Amorites for most part then Arameans later), Sumerians, Hurrians, and other populations that lived around those parts. Their identity was built based on their first capital city (Ashur) that was chosen by an Amorite king that built the first Assyrian kingdom in Northern Mesopotamia around 4000 years ago.

NK19191
03-07-2014, 03:38 PM
On that note. Can we please stay on the topic which is Iran's Geography!!!! I would appreciate more inputs and comments.

Humanist
03-07-2014, 05:20 PM
To the average person no, to a historian of the region certainly.

When it comes to the history of the region, I do not consider myself to be of "average" knowledge.

Alanson
03-07-2014, 07:55 PM
When it comes to the history of the region, I do not consider myself to be of "average" knowledge.

I have never said you were but according to encyclopedia Iranica there was some knowledge of Arabs in Iran.

Humanist
03-07-2014, 08:19 PM
I have never said you were but according to encyclopedia Iranica there was some knowledge of Arabs in Iran.

According to Encyclopedia Iranica modern Assyrians are really Arameans (i.e. from the Levant). So, I would not take everything on that site as the gospel. That said, certain articles on that site are well-written, and authored by well-known academics. I will try and read what the site has to say about the Arab presence in Iran.

J Man
12-07-2014, 05:33 PM
According to an old study the Ahwazi Arabs were not much different genetically from their Iranian neighbours, though this old study might prove to be wrong. I think autosomally speaking they might be Bedouin-Iranic mixes or mostly Iranic with little Arab admix. As for the politics it's complex I don't want to get into it since this not the correct thread.


Genetic study of Ahwazi Arabs and how they relate to their neighbours:

Close genetic relationship between Semitic-speaking and Indo-European-speaking groups in Iran.

As part of a continuing investigation of the extent to which the genetic and linguistic relationships of populations are correlated, we analyzed mtDNA HV1 sequences, eleven Y chromosome bi-allelic markers, and 9 Y-STR loci in two neighboring groups from the southwest of Iran who speak languages belonging to different families: Indo-European-speaking Bakhtiari, and Semitic-speaking Arabs. Both mtDNA and the Y chromosome, showed a close relatedness of these groups with each other and with neighboring geographic groups, irrespective of the language spoken. Moreover, Semitic-speaking North African groups are more distant genetically from Semitic-speaking groups from the Near East and Iran. Thus, geographical proximity better explains genetic relatedness between populations than does linguistic relatedness in this part of the world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18205892

I think what this probably shows is that the admixture at least initially was from Iranian speaking males such as the Bakhtiari marrying into Arab groups and adopting Arabic speech. Of course the original Bakhtiari male Y-DNA gene pool remained pretty much the same but the Arab Y-DNA gene pool changed quite a bit as they took in a significant amount of Iranian Bakhtiari Y-DNA lineages. Or perhaps the Iranian Arabs of today are actually cultural converts in that they were always native Iranians but their ancestors adopted Arab culture.

Kurd
12-08-2014, 12:46 AM
Although kurds comprise a significant percentage of the population of Iran, I would like to share some not so well known facts about kurds. In addition to their distribution in western Iran, there are also about 2 million kurds in Khorasan and scattered in Balochistan.

During the Safavid era in the 17th century, Iran included present day Afghanistan, and its eastern borders stretched beyond Kandahar. At that time Ali Mardan Khan, a kurd was governor of Kandahar, and later was appointed as governor of Punjab, Kashmir, and Kabul by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan. The following excerpt is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mardan_Khan):

Ali Mardan Khan Lori (Urdu: علی مردان خان‎) (died April 1657[1]) was a Kurdish[2] noble at the court of Safavid King Shah Tahmasp. After surrendering the city of Qandahar, part of the easternmost territories of the Safavids to the Mughals in 1638, he was a well recognised figure at the Mughal court.

Life

Ali Mardan Khan was the Safavid governor of Qandahar. He had been in arrears with his revenues. He was summoned by Shah Tahmasp to appear at the court, but avoided doing so. On being dismissed from office, he sought the assistance from the governor of Kabul and the commander of Ghazni. In 1638, he surrendered Qandahar to the Mughals, and took refuge in Delhi. He was honoured at the Mughal court. Shah Jahan gifted one lakh of tankas for himself and two lakhs for his brother and the officers of his army. He was appointed governor of Kashmir, Kabul[3][4] and Lahore.

He later received the title of Amir al-Umara (Lord of Lords) in 1639 and made him a Haft Hazari, leading to commanding an army of 7,000 troops.

He was later appointed as the viceroy of Punjab which at that time stretched from Kabul to Delhi.

Ali Mardan Khan’s tomb is located on Mughalpura Road in Lahore, Pakistan.
A garden named after him "Bagh i Ali Mardan Khan" still survives in Srinagar Kashmir.

References

1. Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan
2. The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Supplement : Fascicules 1-2, By Clifford Edmund Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis, pg. 63
3. Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) (2007). The Mughul Empire, Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, ISBN 81-7276-407-1, p.204
4. Mahajan, V.D. (1991, reprint 2007). History of Medieval India, Part II, ISBN 81-219-0364-5, p.144

Here is another excerpt that references Ali Mardan Khan's Tomb (built 1657) (http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/...-khan_tomb.php)

Ali Mardan Khan was a high official in the Mughal Empire under Shah Jahan. Born into a Kurdish family, he served as governor of Kandahar under Persia's Safavid dynasty, becoming a close confidant of Shah Abbas. After the Shah's death in 1629, he became fearful for his life as the Shah's successor Shah Safi (Sam Mirza) purged courtiers that had been loyal to his grandfather. In 1637, Ali Mardan Khan offered to surrender Kandahar to the Mughal Empire in exchange for his safety. Shah Jahan agreed to the offer, probably with some enthusiam as Kandahar had been under the control of the Mughals during the reign of Jahangir, Shah Jahan's father.

As a Mughal officer, Ali Mardan Khan provided guidance on canal instruction, especially in regard to the Shah Nahar canal of Shalimar Gardens.

When he died in 1657, he was buried adjacent to his mother in the tomb prepared for her next to the canal at Mughalpura. Originally, the tomb sat amidst a large garden, but today only the large gateway survives.

As the tomb sits within the confines of a modern-day rail yard, the authorities have built a kilometer long passageway from the street to the tomb in an effort to prevent visitors from trespassing on the rail yard grounds.

Location
The approximate location of the tomb is 31.573743' N, 74.363312' E (WGS 84 map datum).

Bibliography:

Khan, Ahmad Nabi. Islamic Architecture of Pakistan: An Analytical Exposition.
Islamabad: National Hijra Council, 1990.
Koch, Ebba. Mughal Architecture
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Michell, George (editor). Architecture of the Islamic World: Its history and Social Meaning
London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.
Muhammad Wali Ulla Khan. Lahore and its Important Monuments
Karachi: Anjuman Press, 1973.

Mumtaz, Kamil Khan. Architecture in Pakistan.
Singapore: Concept Media Pte Ltd, 1985.
Rajput, A. B. Architecture in Pakistan
Karachi: Pakistan Publications, 1963.

J Man
12-08-2014, 02:46 AM
Although kurds comprise a significant percentage of the population of Iran, I would like to share some not so well known facts about kurds. In addition to their distribution in western Iran, there are also about 2 million kurds in Khorasan and scattered in Balochistan.

During the Safavid era in the 17th century, Iran included present day Afghanistan, and its eastern borders stretched beyond Kandahar. At that time Ali Mardan Khan, a kurd was governor of Kandahar, and later was appointed as governor of Punjab, Kashmir, and Kabul by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan. The following excerpt is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mardan_Khan):

Ali Mardan Khan Lori (Urdu: علی مردان خان‎) (died April 1657[1]) was a Kurdish[2] noble at the court of Safavid King Shah Tahmasp. After surrendering the city of Qandahar, part of the easternmost territories of the Safavids to the Mughals in 1638, he was a well recognised figure at the Mughal court.

Life

Ali Mardan Khan was the Safavid governor of Qandahar. He had been in arrears with his revenues. He was summoned by Shah Tahmasp to appear at the court, but avoided doing so. On being dismissed from office, he sought the assistance from the governor of Kabul and the commander of Ghazni. In 1638, he surrendered Qandahar to the Mughals, and took refuge in Delhi. He was honoured at the Mughal court. Shah Jahan gifted one lakh of tankas for himself and two lakhs for his brother and the officers of his army. He was appointed governor of Kashmir, Kabul[3][4] and Lahore.

He later received the title of Amir al-Umara (Lord of Lords) in 1639 and made him a Haft Hazari, leading to commanding an army of 7,000 troops.

He was later appointed as the viceroy of Punjab which at that time stretched from Kabul to Delhi.

Ali Mardan Khan’s tomb is located on Mughalpura Road in Lahore, Pakistan.
A garden named after him "Bagh i Ali Mardan Khan" still survives in Srinagar Kashmir.

References

1. Tomb of Ali Mardan Khan
2. The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Supplement : Fascicules 1-2, By Clifford Edmund Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, B. Lewis, pg. 63
3. Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) (2007). The Mughul Empire, Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, ISBN 81-7276-407-1, p.204
4. Mahajan, V.D. (1991, reprint 2007). History of Medieval India, Part II, ISBN 81-219-0364-5, p.144

Here is another excerpt that references Ali Mardan Khan's Tomb (built 1657) (http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/...-khan_tomb.php)

Ali Mardan Khan was a high official in the Mughal Empire under Shah Jahan. Born into a Kurdish family, he served as governor of Kandahar under Persia's Safavid dynasty, becoming a close confidant of Shah Abbas. After the Shah's death in 1629, he became fearful for his life as the Shah's successor Shah Safi (Sam Mirza) purged courtiers that had been loyal to his grandfather. In 1637, Ali Mardan Khan offered to surrender Kandahar to the Mughal Empire in exchange for his safety. Shah Jahan agreed to the offer, probably with some enthusiam as Kandahar had been under the control of the Mughals during the reign of Jahangir, Shah Jahan's father.

As a Mughal officer, Ali Mardan Khan provided guidance on canal instruction, especially in regard to the Shah Nahar canal of Shalimar Gardens.

When he died in 1657, he was buried adjacent to his mother in the tomb prepared for her next to the canal at Mughalpura. Originally, the tomb sat amidst a large garden, but today only the large gateway survives.

As the tomb sits within the confines of a modern-day rail yard, the authorities have built a kilometer long passageway from the street to the tomb in an effort to prevent visitors from trespassing on the rail yard grounds.

Location
The approximate location of the tomb is 31.573743' N, 74.363312' E (WGS 84 map datum).

Bibliography:

Khan, Ahmad Nabi. Islamic Architecture of Pakistan: An Analytical Exposition.
Islamabad: National Hijra Council, 1990.
Koch, Ebba. Mughal Architecture
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Michell, George (editor). Architecture of the Islamic World: Its history and Social Meaning
London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.
Muhammad Wali Ulla Khan. Lahore and its Important Monuments
Karachi: Anjuman Press, 1973.

Mumtaz, Kamil Khan. Architecture in Pakistan.
Singapore: Concept Media Pte Ltd, 1985.
Rajput, A. B. Architecture in Pakistan
Karachi: Pakistan Publications, 1963.

What is the social structure of the Kurds in Iranian Kurdistan like? Are they tribal mainly?

Kurd
12-08-2014, 04:29 AM
What is the social structure of the Kurds in Iranian Kurdistan like? Are they tribal mainly?

Although there are still some nomadic tribal kurds who seasonally migrate up and down mountains, the vast majority are settled in towns and cities, and are affiliated with various tribes/clans.

parasar
12-11-2014, 04:34 PM
... But I would think Elamites were absorbed by both Persian and Arab Iranians, and their language must have disappeared through the process of Elite Dominance...



Does any one in Iran today consider themselves an Elamite, a Mede, or Parsa? It appears that there was a disconnect and nationalities either disappeared, merged, or morphed. It clearly did not happen in the Achaemenid period, but the break seems to happen with Arshak entering Parthia and then Persia.

NK19191
12-11-2014, 06:55 PM
Does any one in Iran today consider themselves an Elamite, a Mede, or Parsa? It appears that there was a disconnect and nationalities either disappeared, merged, or morphed. It clearly did not happen in the Achaemenid period, but the break seems to happen with Arshak entering Parthia and then Persia.

I have seen that some Arab Iranians do claim both Arab along with Elamite ancestry.

But there is a group of Bakhtiari who call themselves Khuzi, they mainly reside in Andemeshk, Shustar, Dezful, Masjid Soliman, Behbahan, etc.


Four periods can be distinguished: Old Elamite (ca. 2600-1500 B.C.E.), Middle Elamite (ca. 1500-1000 B.C.E.); Neo-Elamite (ca. 1000-550 B.C.E.); Achaemenid Elamite (550-330 B.C.E.). A late survival may have been Khuzi, characterized as the private language of the nobles of Khuzistan by Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ (d. 757 C.E.), cited by Ebn al-Nadim (d. 995 C.E.) in his al-Fehrest (q.v.; comp. ca. 987, ed. Tajaddod, p. 15; cf. Lazard, 1971, p. 363).


Some of the Khuzi people do claim some Elamite ancestry.

Elamite was an important language during the Achaemenid and during the reign of Cyrus and Darius, and as long as the seat of government was still at Susa in Elam, the language of the chancellory was Elamite. Even during the Sassanid period in Khuzestan, several languages were spoken; Elamite along with Persian in the north and east, while Aramaic was spoken in the rest of the place.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Khuzistan_languages.jpg

Caspian
12-12-2014, 02:14 AM
^^ + I think some Iraqi Arabs have Iranian ancestors too. For example, capital of Sasanian Empire -Ctesiphon- in today's Iraq. Also, Iranian Elamites and Kassites attacked to Sumer, Babylonia, Akkad, Isin-Larsa etc... a lot of times. It is interesting, my closest y-dna matches -Iraqi Bedouins- are from southern Iraq, near the Persian Gulf. Probably, we share Elamite, Kassite, Sumerian, Babylonian or medieval Iranian (Parthian, Sasanian, Achaemenid) a common ancestor.

parasar
12-12-2014, 05:56 PM
...
Some of the Khuzi people do claim some Elamite ancestry.

Elamite was an important language during the Achaemenid and during the reign of Cyrus and Darius, and as long as the seat of government was still at Susa in Elam, the language of the chancellory was Elamite. Even during the Sassanid period in Khuzestan, several languages were spoken; Elamite along with Persian in the north and east, while Aramaic was spoken in the rest of the place....

There is also a chance that Cyrus (the Great) was from an Elamite family, and that he (or his grandfather) became part of the Parsa ie the "king of Anshan" also becoming the "king of Parsu." Cyrus refers to his ancestors as kings of Anshan. His grandfather was “Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes". That could explain how the Elamite heartland became the Parsa heartland almost abruptly. https://books.google.com/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC&pg=PA17

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii3-elamite

Elamite was spoken in the southern Zagros regions, which correspond to the ancient cultural-political entities of Elam and Anshan, and expanded into Akkadian-speaking Susiana (see map, ELAM i, Fig. 1). Neither its northern nor eastern extensions (middle Zagros, Central Iran) nor its eastern extensions (Karmania, Baluchestan) are certain.Beginning with the turn to the first millennium B.C.E. its area was increasingly reduced by immigrating Iranian-speaking groups, its original center becoming the heartland of the Parsa. ...

The language is a linguistic isolate, with possible remote relation to Proto-Dravidian (McAlpin et al., 1975; revised arguments in McAlpin, 1981). Four periods can be distinguished: Old Elamite (ca. 2600-1500 B.C.E.), Middle Elamite (ca. 1500-1000 B.C.E.); Neo-Elamite (ca. 1000-550 B.C.E.); Achaemenid Elamite (550-330 B.C.E.). A late survival may have been Khuzi, characterized as the private language of the nobles of Khuzistan by Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ (d. 757 C.E.), cited by Ebn al-Nadim (d. 995 C.E.) in his al-Fehrest (q.v.; comp. ca. 987, ed. Tajaddod, p. 15; cf. Lazard, 1971, p. 363).

vettor
12-12-2014, 07:50 PM
There is also a chance that Cyrus (the Great) was from an Elamite family, and that he (or his grandfather) became part of the Parsa ie the "king of Anshan" also becoming the "king of Parsu." Cyrus refers to his ancestors as kings of Anshan. His grandfather was “Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes". That could explain how the Elamite heartland became the Parsa heartland almost abruptly. https://books.google.com/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC&pg=PA17

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii3-elamite

was'nt all persian kings, elamites from Susa lands?

parasar
12-12-2014, 08:21 PM
was'nt all persian kings, elamites from Susa lands?

Susa was also in Elam and is mentioned often, but Cyrus himself specifically mentions Anshan.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anshan-elamite-region

Elamite rulers of the second millennium B.C. traditionally took the title King of Anzan and Shushan (Susa), Anzan being the usual Elamite rendering of Anshan. By the middle of the first millennium B.C. Anshan had become the homeland of the Achaemenid Persians.


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-ii

“the son of Cambyses, the great king, king of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of Anshan, great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of Anshan”

jesus
12-13-2014, 01:27 AM
Susa was also in Elam and is mentioned often, but Cyrus himself specifically mentions Anshan.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/anshan-elamite-region


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrus-ii

The Elamites even served in the Immortal guard.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Archers_frieze_Darius_palace_Louvre_AOD487.jpg/640px-Archers_frieze_Darius_palace_Louvre_AOD487.jpg

parasar
12-13-2014, 07:50 PM
The Elamites even served in the Immortal guard.



The bulk of the Immortals (or more likely the king's men - Anushiya) were Persian though. The ones depicted (with pomegranate/apple counterbalancing bottom) are the top elites who would have been Persian. I think it would have been difficult to distinguish a Persian from an Elamite as we potentially see from Cyrus' own family. https://books.google.com/books?id=FPVHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA22

Arbogan
12-14-2014, 02:32 PM
I'm posting this from Iran at the moment. Having visited the Iranian national museum. I believe that the civilization of Elam was an archaic pre-iranian west-asian culture and one of many in the Iranian plateau. Many academics have claimed that elamites and the elamite language are related to the dravidian sphere. But I don't agree, the cultural remains it belonged to was clearly west-asian, and had obvious connection to mesopotamian and anatolian cultures of the same era. Especially if you look at the symbolism, the figurines and all the cultural icons that they had. Their language probably belonged to a pre-iranian language family group, which might have been spread all over Iran, but lacks the necessary literary remains to substantiate its existence. Personally from what I've observed, I suspect that they probably belonged to a larger group of languages related to sumerian or a local group that emerged out of those post-neolithic cultures. If you look at the pre-iranian archaeological finds (1000 b.c and earlier) you'll realize that there is a continuum of mesopotamian-levant-elam culture. Everywhere from Gilan and west Azerbaijan to Khuzestan. All the bronze age items corroborate this. Its a pity only fragments of texts that survived from those cultures. I'll post in more detail when I get back home.